*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, January 9th, 2011 9:48am PST - promote requested by geo321.

Yawn, propoganda as commentary. If youve made up your mind this will confirm it. Nothing new to see here, move on. *bin

>> ^thumpa28:

Yawn, propoganda as commentary. If youve made up your mind this will confirm it. Nothing new to see here, move on. bin


well thank god you were here to shine the light of truth captain ambiguous!

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.

>> ^MaxWilder:

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.


If you have a lot of questions, history books are a better starting place than a blatantly biased video like this. I made it to minute 6 before the outright lies and falsehoods were more than I needed to know this video was not worth more of my time.

The very opening claim of the video declares Israel has always, since before it's inception seen no legitimate claim for any other people in Palestine except their fellow Jewish people. Historical fact is that in 1948, when the fledgling UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two states, Israel accepted the borders and declared independence. This could have been the end of the civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It wasn't the Zionists that where aggressive at this point. The entirety of the Arab world declared a united war against the new state of Israel, trumpeting that they would drive them into the sea. My description here is not in question either within the Arab world, Al-Jazeera has an article covering all these points in even more detail.

Now the video decides around the 6 minute mark to contradict itself:
At the end of the 19th century, there were hardly any Jews living in Palestine.
And yet, the video just finished telling us in the introduction that historically Jews and Arabs had been getting along famously. We might wonder how that is imagined to have happened if there were hardly any Jews there to get along with?

Historians largely say the best guess at populations in 1900 Palestine are not possible, and largely inaccurate. The closest commitment they make is to sate there was a significant Arab majority, but also that the Jewish population was by far the most significant minority in the region. Enough so that it is well agreed, even by anti-Zionist pro-Arab sources that the city of Jerusalem itself has had a Jewish majority since the very late 1800's.

So, the video has started by lying about the basic facts of how many Jews where in Palestine when the conflicts started, and about their willingness to accept a rather reasonable partition of the country. Useful answers and insights aren't likely forthcoming from a source like that.

You seem to have missed the point that the Jews accepted the 1948 partition because it gave them a huge amount of land that they would have otherwise not owned. The Muslim Palestinians were understandably upset.

As for the population statistics, yeah, those need sources.

I think the fact that the Zionists decided to appropriate that land and set up a Jewish state is pretty much everything you really need to know. There are other places in the world where there is a similar struggle brewing because the Muslims are setting up Sharia law over the protests over the native population. It's just not right for anybody to do such a thing.

I think bcglorf you should look at Noam Chomsky's extensive writing on this subject. He was after all a youth Zionist leader back when it wasn't in style.

You seem to have missed the point that the Jews accepted the 1948 partition because it gave them a huge amount of land that they would have otherwise not owned. The Muslim Palestinians were understandably upset.

No, you seem to have missed the point. The Jewish Palestinians were fighting a civil war with the Arab Palestinians, and BOTH sides were fighting dirty and doing horrible things as one might expect in a war. Importantly, they were also BOTH domestic Palestinians, not foreign imperial invaders as is suggested! Yes, the Arab's were understandably upset that they lost so much land in the civil war to a minority. The Jewish minority of 1948 had a few reasons of their own to be upset with what had been done to them too. The Arab majority was making many moves to restrict the rights of Jewish Palestinians and they had just witnessed how well standing idly by worked out for their families in Europe. Civil wars are so ugly because both sides generally have some very valid concerns.

I think the fact that the Zionists decided to appropriate that land and set up a Jewish state is pretty much everything you really need to know.

I think not. Your statement gives the impression that the sizable Jewish minority in Palestine never had any legitimate claim to any land at all. Surely that's not your intent? It's also important to be clear in the difference between saying they appropriated the land, and that they had gained most of it as part of a civil war. A civil war they were willing to accept an end to then and there, but where instead greeted with not only a war from their larger Arab Palestinian rivals, but by all the surrounding Arab nations as well. Surely you don't consider them to still be the aggressor at that point, do you?

@bcglorf
there is a huge difference between a person of jewish heritage and a zionist.
zionism does NOT equal judaism.
and to excuse an entire population by what some OTHER over-zealous political party did to the jewish people (NOT zionists) is disingenuous and totally buys into the narrative.
it boils down to that whole two wrongs dont make a right thing.
just because the jewish people suffered under nazism does not give them the right to oppress another people and you would THINK that maybe they would have more empathy.
which ..if you look at some of the blogs regular isreali citizens write..they do.
do you know who DOESN'T?
zionists.

here are some facts:
1.3million jews/christians/muslims lived in jeurusalem peacefully until the british empire amended the balfour declaration.
2.this was a political gift from all the support the zionists gave during WWII.so while the jewish community owned less than 5% of the land the new amended document gave them 56% and hence we see..to this day..strife in that region.
3.the supposed "deal of a lifetime" that was offered to the palestinians was absolute garbage.the ONLY thing offered was a bare sovereignty.they could have a flag..but no military.they could own a home...but not the accessways.
and it goes on and on and on.

but you go right ahead and keep telling yourself that isreal is the victim.
they did nothing wrong,its those arab people..its all their fault.they are the agressors.

now i am not ignoring the arab side i am just pointing out that your "isreal is the victim" is utter bullshit and only someone entrenched in american media would ever view this conflict so myopically.

saying that a zionist is the same as jewish is like saying a neo-conservative is an actual conservative.
totally different animals.

We need to encourage Arabs to immigrate to Israel and, maybe, after a generation or two of intermarriage, we can create a blended humanity and have peace.

Enoch said:there is a huge difference between a person of jewish heritage and a zionist.zionism does NOT equal judaism.

I'm glad we are agreed on this point. It's why I made the very important statement:The Jewish Palestinians were fighting a civil war with the Arab Palestinians.

This is of course important because the video, and several posters including yourself seem to want to label the entirety of Jewish Palestinians as Zionists when talking about the civil war. If you'll accept that there were many Jewish Palestinians fighting the civil war for reason and cause outside of Zionism then we are agreed.

Enoch said:to excuse an entire population by what some OTHER over-zealous political party did

Go read what I said again, because you are inventing an argument I never put forward. I stated the fact that the Jewish minority in Palestine was being mistreated and biased against by the Arab Palestinian majority, a fact even Al Jazeera doesn't dispute. I then stated that created tensions leading to a civil war, were both sides had understandable cause for concern. The Jewish Palestinians had seen how well accepting inequality worked for European Jews, and were willing to fight to be treated as equals. The Arabs were duly concerned about extreme elements of the Jewish population like the Zionist movement.

The point is very simply that a civil war exploded between two ethnic groups of Palestinians, for reasons that were domestic. The Zionists latched on to the cause, as did the surrounding Arab nations, with all sides looking to gain land for themselves out of the deal. Painting it like the entire problem boils down to Zionist aggression making victims of the Arabs is ludicrously at odds with the basic facts. So badly so in fact that even Al Jazeera, a very much pro-Arab network has published several articles on the 1948 war that soundly reject such a notion. The idea is in fact even more racist against Arabs than it is against Jews. It portrays better than 50 million Arabs as being so weak that they were helpless victims in the face of a mere few hundred thousand Jewish Zionists.

Your facts are also blatantly wrong.
3million jews/christians/muslims lived in jeurusalem peacefully until the british empire amended the balfour declaration.
Jerusalem's population was nowhere near 3 million then, the entirety of Palestine was likely under 3 million when the Balfour declaration was signed. Population estimates of the time are sketchy at best.

so while the jewish community owned less than 5% of the land the new amended document gave them 56% and hence we see..to this day..strife in that region.
The Balfour declaration amendment wasn't what gave them 56%, it was the UN's recommendation, put forward by both the US and Russia that proposed the borders with 56% attached. It was also proposed not on the premise of a handout for the Zionists, but as a resolution to the civil war within Palestine, which saw the Jewish Palestinians holding most of that 56% as a result of the fighting.

.the supposed "deal of a lifetime" that was offered to the palestinians was absolute garbage.
That's an opinion, not a fact. And I can't help but point out that your opinion assumes that only Arabs are Palestinians, the Jewish Palestinians presumably being stateless?

I'm not content with my previous refutation. Compare here what Enoch has said of my post:
you go right ahead and keep telling yourself that isreal is the victim.
they did nothing wrong,its those arab people..its all their fault.they are the agressors.
...
i am just pointing out that your "isreal is the victim" is utter bullshit

And now I present what I actually said myself:
BOTH sides were fighting dirty and doing horrible things as one might expect in a war.
...
the Arab's were understandably upset
...
Civil wars are so ugly because both sides generally have some very valid concerns.

If that kind of assessment and picture is something you consider my statements equivalent to blaming everything on the Arabs, I think you've revealed nothing more than your own personal biases.

then i misunderstood your premise and for that i apologize.
we are in agreement.
EXCEPT for your refutation of the my statement on peace.
your refutation is based on my population numbers being wrong.
ok..but how does that dismiss that these people were getting along.
and while the 56% number was UN, i conflated it all to the balfour amendment.
thats where this all started..but..i should have stated as such.
my bad.

also let me add that i did mention that i TOO was not dismissing arab culpability but was using your (misunderstood) premise to make a point.
maybe we both assumed too much in our posts eh?

we are in agreement. Hurray

EXCEPT for your refutation of the my statement on peace.
your refutation is based on my population numbers being wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what your meaning is here. My main beef was with the video. It said your same statement about how everyone had been getting along well for a long time before. Then, at the 6 minute mark it suddenly changed course and declared that "in 1900 there were hardly any Jews in Palestine".

My beef is the video selectively wants to be able to use contradictory sets of facts. It will use the peaceful cooperation between Jews and Arabs as proof that before Zionism, things were fine. Then later, when it wants to paint Zionism as a foreign infiltration of Palestine, suddenly there were very few Jews in Palestine in 1900. Either there were centuries of Jews and Arabs living together peacefully or there were very few Jews, NOT both.

I also objected to the video declaring, again in the first 5 minutes, that the Zionists were unwilling to entertain any idea of sharing any land with Arabs. Quite plainly, the strongest counter argument is that in 1948 they went along with the other Jewish Palestinian leaders in declaring independence along the borders the UN had mandated. Clearly there is a time in 1948 where even the Zionists were content to accept a peace on terms that left 43% of Palestine for the Arab Palestinians. Clearly at this point in time, the neighboring Arab states, and not the Zionists, were the ones that instigated further hostilities. This is so clear, that you'd be hard pressed to find any Arab scholar who disagrees. The neighboring Arab nations were absolutely set and intent on rejecting and removing the newly independent Israeli state, no matter how peaceful or friendly it was willing to be.

I'm merely rejecting the video's view of Zionism as the sole instigator and agitator in the entire conflict. I don't deny in any way that Zionist's committed numerous atrocities, and worked actively to incite violence and conflict. I deny only that the Zionists were hardly the only faction in Palestine doing that after the British withdrawal. Ignoring the Arab majority's own active role in prejudice against non-Arab Palestinians is beyond dishonest, it's sinister. To mention how little land the Jewish Palestinians owned, without mentioning the active programs to legally block non-Arabs from purchasing land is sinister.

Sorry, the first 6 minutes of the video leaving me utterly convinced that it is not only one-sided, but deliberately and knowingly one-sided with intent of biasing it's viewers with half-truth.

Can we agree that the 56% was an absurd way to try to end the civil war? Obviously the Arab Palestinians weren't satisfied, and it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.

Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948? I am honestly curious because I am just starting to learn about this period of Israel's history.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Can we agree that the 56% was an absurd way to try to end the civil war? Obviously the Arab Palestinians weren't satisfied, and it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.
Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948? I am honestly curious because I am just starting to learn about this period of Israel's history.


I'll gladly agree that 56% for a group that had less than 50% of the population is hardly what one would call fair. In hindsight, I'd even say it would've been better for the UN to offer much, much less, but only on the condition that it would have been enough of a concession to avoid the war that immediately followed. I think most historians seem sure that even giving 1% to the creation of a Jewish state would have still resulted in the same war and outrage from the neighbouring Arab states.

More importantly than being "fair", the UN borders were arrived at by no special formula planned to take advantage of the Arabs. The UN, as it always has since, was simply picking the existing borders of the day and saying let's all call it quits right now and just get along. The 56% the Jewish Palestinians held was the land they had gained fighting with their Arab Palestinian brothers. The 44% the Arab Palestinians held was the land they'd held fighting their Jewish Palestinian brothers. Or to state it more simply, NO ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!

it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.

I think it's unfair to blame the land Israel gained after declaring independence on Zionist greed. The reality was a war was being fought that left Palestine divided roughly in half with the Jewish side holding the bigger half. The UN recommended ending the fighting and maintaining separate states roughly along those borders.

The Jewish Palestinians said yes, they wanted peace along those borders. Most likely because from any practical standpoint, they were in no position to try and fight for anything better, they were lucky to get as far as they had outnumbered as they were.

The Arab Palestinians for their part were largely ready to say yes as well, only because they were fearful they to would lose in a longer fight. The changing factor was the neighboring Arab states, each of whom vastly outnumbered and outgunned the tiny fledgling state of Israel. All the neighboring Arab states agreed that the conditions for peace were NOT acceptable to them because they were each convinced they could gain more land for themselves from Palestine.

Not even the most zealous Zionist could have seen that not only would they survive such a war, but that they would even manage to gain more land in the process. The expansion of Israel's borders in 1948 can hardly be blamed on Zionist expansion, but instead much more simply on the Arab nations mystifying ability to lose the war they by all rights should have not only won, but won easily. To this day that loss is the single greatest source of shame in much of Arab identity.

Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948?
Of course I'm not denying the huge influx of Jews leading up to 1948. It just can't be mentioned without obviously asking why they were coming. The video would suggest a Zionist plot to invade Palestine. I think you can figure out for yourself though if Jews might have had some other reasons around that time to be looking for a new place to live outside of Europe's borders. I was reluctant to bring it up of course because someone would think I'm trying to justify making Arabs pay the price for the Nazi's crimes, which is in no way my point.

My other point regarding the civil war in Palestine is that there were in fact a great many Jews already living in Palestine before the Zionists figured on it being a good place for their own schemes. In fact, one of the reasons it was high on the list was that there were already a very good number of Jewish Palestinians living there. I don't think even the video denies that the conflict in Palestine prior to 1948 was a civil war. They just suggest that it was Zionists that stirred up a Palestine that had otherwise gotten on well for the last century. I think since the time frame we are talking about is the time where Palestine was a British Colony, and where WW1 and WW2 were being waged, that maybe there were other very big factors in Palestine's newly enflamed ethnic tensions. Factors big enough that Zionism was just another symptom rather than an initial cause.