START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Wes Harris, Arizona Tea Party Leader, Seeks To Recall John McCain Over Huma Abedin Defense


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Clinton, McCain, Bachmann, government, americans, corruption, ethics, politics, republicans, media, propaganda )

Carrie
- 796 days ago - digg.com
Conspiracy theories about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin being linked to the Muslim Brotherhood publicly dribbled down to the lower echelons of conservative politics this week, with an Arizona Tea Party leader promising to launch...



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Susanne R. (249)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 10:27 pm
Is there anyone in this world who takes Michele Bachmann seriously --other than her tea party supporters? Whenever she makes an outrageous and baseless remark or accusation, you get some tea party flunkie who's willing to make a fool of himself to defend her. Perhaps the delusional and intellectually challenged make sense to one another...
 

Jae A. (323)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 11:34 pm
As many of us have suspected...they will eat their own,esepecially if they think it will send them to the top of the crazy meter with their supporters. The only things that they are know as to 'launching' are lies and or just out right crazy B.S. for the 'put it out there and some will believe it true or not", which their past history of doing so show that it's likely that 99.9% of their outragious crazy B.S. put out there is not true in general. As we know...their rule for doing such is rumor before fact...always ! The rumors are ones that they themselves start of course. Their hyped and tabloid style cries of "wolf" have seen beter days...like,no less than a decade ago...even among their own all but brain dead supporters....in my opinion :-).
 

Carol H. (229)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 4:22 am
noted, thank you Carrie
 

Alexandra Rodda (176)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 7:32 am
I work as a psychiatrist, so I have heard a few things that are crazier that the tea party stupidities, but not many.
 

Rob and Jay B. (121)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 9:36 am
It's interesting how many just accept that this call for an investigation into how far the Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR has infiltrated into Obama's White House is slammed by people here who should be the first ones to support it. This is not based on Bachmann's delusions and she is not the only one asking for this. So don't let your own prejudices against these people blind you to the very real danger that they are trying to expose.

Here's what an ex-muslim terrorist has to say about Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama admin. Surely you are not going to call him a liar and more, are you? Where's the documentation/proof that it is not true?

http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bachmann-Final_072312.pdf

The Obama administration has admitted to hundreds of secret meetings with the sinister Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR. So they've admitted their involvement with these enemies of freedom, human, civil, women's, children's, gay rights. (http://news.yahoo.com/administration-admits-hundreds-meetings-jihad-linked-group-163206947.html and http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/08/administration-admits-to-hundreds-of-meetings-with-jihad-linked-group/)

Here's a good article on just how close Obama et al are with the MB and how much the MB has been allowed to infiltrate this White House:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/want-to-know-just-how-close-the-muslim-brotherhood-is-to-the-obama-admin/

Maybe you doubters, without any proofs, would like to defend this too?
CAIR CO-FOUNDER/BOARD MEMBER OMAR AHMAD: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

If you're going to support a cause then at least know what you are defending. You should all be shocked by what this group of fanatics have in store for you - From the Muslim Brotherhood's own stated agenda: 'The Ikhwan (brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions...'
(http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20)
 

monica r. (41)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 10:21 am
Since you all are convinced that there's no connection between the fact that Huma Abedin comes from a family that are/were all very much involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the fact that we are handing one "Arab Spring" country after another to MB hardline Islamists, what harm would investigating do? It will just prove you right, won't it?

Let's just say if you don't see a connection, the sold-out-by-America Egyptian Arab spring revolutionaries certainly do. Why do you think they threw shoes at Mrs. Clinton, and had signs saying "If you like the Ikhwan (MB) so much take them with you"?

And for her troubles, the new (MB) president wouldn't even shake Mrs. Clinton's hand.

The new Muslim Brotherhood regime is doing things like sending mobile FGM clinics out to be sure women are 'circumcised," and debating in Parliament (majority MB) about LOWERING the marriage age and making it legal to have "farewell sex" with your wife up to 6 hours after she is dead. No wonder they are angry at Mrs. Clinton and Obama.

Maybe try reading news from sources outside America. A lot of stuff is widely known by the rest of the world and we here are clueless.
 

monica r. (41)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 10:24 am
I meant no wonder the Egyptians who wanted freedom are angry, not the Egyptian Parliament.
 

Joe R. (191)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 11:10 am
These are the people your party are courting Mr. McCain. Enjoy the pigeons as the come come to roost.
 

Jae A. (323)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 1:24 pm
Thank you Jim !

Thank You Susanne for sharing and giving us a sound board on this topic. If anyone has ties to them it's the Bush family as they are as close 'as thieves' with the royal Saudi's........Muslims...with connections to all their extremist groups..on that you can place your bets,...in my opinion.
 

Jae A. (323)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 1:35 pm
...thanks Susanne for the G.S. and your comment....but the sounding board was shared by Carrie...my ooops.

 

Gene Jacobson (253)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 3:29 pm
Good luck with that recall you flaming fool. John McCain may be the only honorable man left in Arizona. When you've endured his time in a prison camp and the years he has given to serving this country, you still won't be fit to wipe his butt. And I've never voted for the man, but I do respect him. He was an honorable candidate for president, if misguided in his choice of running mates, but he has never dishonored himself. Not like this pig of a man just has.
 

Ge M. (218)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 3:29 pm
There is sufficient evidence and conjecture that requires an investigation. If Abedin has nothing to hide then an investigation should exonerate her. Or are all of the supporters too worried that Abedin is an MB mole and are just scared of being to be made to look stupid?

We do know that Obama has extremist Muslim advisers and did not take a moderate (Dr Jasser) into his administration (he was rejected by the Wahabi* advisors after an offer was made to him). We know that Obama supports CAIR who are in the process of trying to stop the people being protected from terrorists. Employing Abedin could mean that Clinton is just following Obama's orders!

*For those who don't know, Bin Laden had Wahabi advisors.

 

Eternal Gardener (743)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 3:52 pm
Shouldn't that read " The Muslim Sisterhood"? If this wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable :(
 

Michael Carney (209)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 3:59 pm
Someone out to recall Wes Harris, and have him committed to a Mental Hospital, until they do a whole lot of tests, on the sanity of this buffoon...These Baggers are getting crazier, and crazier every day...And embarrassing themselves more and more every day, when does it get to the point, no one listens to them anymore?
 

monica r. (41)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 8:05 pm
"Dear Speaker Boehner:

Three members of the House Intelligence Committee -- Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Thomas Rooney and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland -- have launched an unfounded and irresponsible attack on dedicated public servants, including Huma Abedin, a key aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Their only evidence is conspiracy theories and McCarthy-esque fear tactics (NOT THE CLASSIFIED INFO MENTIONED IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH; OF COURSE NOT). And their accusations are doing real harm.

You were right to call their baseless allegations "dangerous." Now it's time to put your words into action.

Please remove Rep. Bachmann, Rep. Rooney and Rep. Westmoreland from their seats on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence immediately. Members of the House Intelligence Committee are entrusted with classified information (WHICH THEY APPARENTLY DON"T USE BECAUSE EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS SUPPOSEDLY BASED ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND MCCARTHY-ESQUE TACTICS) affects the safety and security of all Americans. That information should not be in the hands of anyone with such a disregard for honesty, misunderstanding of national security, and lack of respect for his or her fellow public servants "

Way to contradict your own self.

Does it occur to you they may indeed have more to go on than you do, since they DO have access to classified info which you DON'T? That said, if you bother to look, for several administrations now there is plenty that supports a problem with infiltration, and it's not that hard to find. For example, why was Al-Awlaki preaching on Capitol Hill to staffers after 9/11? He was imam to at least 3 of the 9/11 hijackers and also advised the Times Square bomber, Undie bomber, and Fort Hood shooter. We finally wised up and he was killed in a drone attack. But prior to that, he was clearly trusted by our government despite being involved in terror plots AT THAT TIME.

If you are all under the illusion that Homeland Security or TSA or whatever are keeping you so safe, guess again.

I'd love to know for a fact there's no problem with Ms. Abedin. An investigation would be welcome to clear her of any suspicion if there's nothing to the allegations. I suspect some of these GOP guys may know how dirty the Republicans hands are in this issue and don't want THAT to become common knowledge.
 

Carol Dreeszen (365)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 10:53 pm
Anyone who only has sarcastic and nasty remarks to say about Michele under the assumption they think these claims are baseless are a couple sandwiches short of of picnic!! I swear every day the liberals show more and more how misinformed they are plus the fact they just don't give a rats A**,,,so pathetic!! To not even want to check into these claims themselves or worse believe that Hillary and Huma are all on the up and up...well... it's obvious they don't have a clue!!
 

Carol Dreeszen (365)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 10:58 pm
Alexandra..Take bias out of it and what do you have!? And I sure would not want my Psychiatrist... if I had one... to be out there talking the way you are about patients no matter if anyone knows them or not or knows who or what they are associated with!! Not classy at all!!!
 

Pat A. (116)
Thursday July 26, 2012, 1:41 am
Green stars to Alexandra R and Michael C and the Eternal Gardener - well done. As for the Right Wing saying that there is enough 'conjecture' to justify an official investigation - well, firstly one is supposed to have evidence, not conjecture, and secondly what a waste of vitally needed revenue for a witch-hunt. Witch-hunt - doesn't that remind me of something to do with Michelle???
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday July 26, 2012, 7:27 am
does this mean he switched from drinking tea to some kind of 'koolaid'?
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday July 27, 2012, 9:27 am
Her mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, the Brotherhood’s female counterpart. She serves in the Bureau with the wife of Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s new Brotherhood president.

She is also a member of the Muslim World League, which terrorism expert Andrew McCarthy describes as "the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” The organization she leads, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, is part of the Muslim World League.

Her organization is not a moderate group that mistakenly got involved with the Muslim World League. Its charter is written by Brotherhood leaders including Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, an open supporter of Hamas. It is therefore unsurprising that the organization wants to get rid of laws against marital rape, permit marriage below the age of 18 and institute other elements of Sharia Law. She is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (which the group she leads is part of), a group banned in Israel because it belongs to Qaradawi’s Union of Good, a network of "charities” set up to fund Hamas. The U.S. froze the Union of Good’s assets in November 2008.

If you have any remaining doubt that Dr. Saleha Abedin subscribes to Islamist ideology, look at a book she translated and published by her organization in 1999 titled, "Women in Islam.” It says that man-made laws enslave women, which is an undeniable call for Sharia Law. It calls for legislation based on Sharia Law, such as stoning adulterers and eliminating the death penalty for those who kill apostates. The Center for Security Policy has a 28-page analysis of it.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/56898


Huma Abedin: Assistant Editor of Islamist Journal

radicalislam.org 26 July 2012
By Ryan Mauro
 

Carrie B. (306)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 11:02 am
Thank you M for your comments. Not sure why you are anonymous because your writing style is quite a tell and I really do appreciate your comments and must say I agree with you.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 2:53 pm
Carrie, like "Dr. Tawfik Hamid, who is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He recognized the threat of Radical Islam and the need for a reformation based upon modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts."

http://www.tawfikhamid.com/

I too would like to see modern peaceful interpretations of Islamic text that's inline with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 21st century, rather than lowering the age of consent for marriage for gilrs, etc. And I would like to see any government pursue the Universal Declaration of Human Rights too, and appose those who oppose the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for All.
 

monica r. (41)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 3:05 pm
Huma Abedin herself worked for years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The IMMA was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is known to be involved in the financing of al-Qaeda, and is also Muslim Brotherhood. The whole point of the IMMA existing was to put out the journal, of which Ms. Abedin, her mother, and her brother all were editors. She was on the board of the IMMA until 2008. Naseef, also on the IMMA board, founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda. In fact, the man selected to run the Rabita trust was the same Wael Hamza Jalaidan who got together with Osama bin Laden as founders of al-Qaeda.

She worked with Naseef AFTER 9/11, and AFTER he was proven to be funding al-Qaeda by the US Treasury Department. So let me get this straight, according to you guys, working for and with someone who is funding al-Qaeda isn't a problem???? You don't at least think it should be looked into to make sure????? In fact she doesn't need to do anything overt to be ineligible for a security clearance. There just needs to be a possibility of conflict of interest. She has associated with funders of al-freaking-Qaeda, and stayed associated after 9/11, for pete's sake. You don't think that's a potential conflict of interest?????

Bachmann et al are not operating from "conjecture" either. The letter was heavily footnoted with sources for these concerns. All this stuff is documented. McCain made his speech without even reading the letter and Boehner chimed in too, but admitted he hadn't read the letter either. McCain said in 2011 he was "unalterably opposed to helping the Muslim Brotherhood." I guess in 2012 he is no longer opposed. Not sure what he thinks "unalterably" means.....

If Abedin was editor of a white supremacist militia journal, and had worked for, say, Terry Nichols for several years, would you think she shouldn't be investigated then either? America is seriously screwed if we won't even acknowledge security threats because it's not PC (which is nothing but a euphemism for "silencing of free speech").
 

monica r. (41)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 3:15 pm
And Margaret, are you conflating associating with al-Qaeda funders as "the basic, fundamental right of religious expression"??? I assure you not all people who call themselves muslim would support al-Qaeda, or have associated with the "godfather" of al-Qaeda.

Michelle Bachmann sucks, but she's right about this.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 4:36 pm
Please let us not get personal here folks!
 

Carrie B. (306)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 4:40 pm
Bachmann is rarely right about anything and in this case she is simply doing what teabaggers do best - lie, and make irrational, unfounded accusations to scare the public.
 

monica r. (41)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 6:00 pm
Actually Carrie, she's not lying this time. It is obvious from actual documents, things like back issues of JMMA, work records, DoJ or Treasury documents, etc, that Huma Abedin did indeed serve on a board with and edited a journal for, the "godfather" of al-Qaeda, who also employed the guy who was a co-founder of al-Qaeda with Osama bin Laden. She was involved in that as recently as 2008 and only stopped then because she stayed with Clinton for the State Dept job instead. Her associate, Naseef's, connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are well documented and his connections to al-Qaeda are solid enough that his organization was deemed a terrorist organization by the US Treasury Dept, so that part is real too.

Please go google the letter. Read it. Check out the footnotes.

I personally can't stand Bachmann, but having bothered to check it out and not just automatically write her off because she's a hateful bigoted Dominionist Tea Partier, I see that this is NOT unfounded, nor is it irrational.

What's irrational is being so partisan that you dismiss out-of-hand everything your political opponent says without taking the time to actually check it out. Especially when there IS documentation including government records showing there's something there.

Everyone here is offering opinions that there is no connection or possibility of conflict of interest. Most of these are based on dislike of Bachmann and nothing more than that. How naive and silly. You accuse her of "conjecture" but conjecture is all you've got against her (what hypocrisy!). What proof do you have, what actual documentation, that she was not editor, was not on the board with Naseef even after 9/11, or that Naseef somehow really isn't linked to al-Qaeda, or her family members really are not still strongly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood?

If anyone here has more than "I hate Bachmann" to prove the allegations are unfounded, I'd love to see it. I won't hold my breath, however.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 6:36 pm
Would someone be able to offer any proof of actual subversive behavior by Huma Abedin? I think not.
 

patrica and edw jones (190)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 7:26 pm
Big O - INTELLECTUALISM IS THE DOCTRINE THAT REASON IS THE ULTIMATE CRITERION OF KNOWLEDGE. WE HAVE NOT OBSERVED THIS ON YOUR POSTS, WHICH SEEK ONLY TO ANTAGONISE AND CAUSE DISSENTION.
 

monica r. (41)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 8:04 pm
Carrie,

You don't have to have done a crime to fail a security clearance. Being associated for that many years with backers of al-Qaeda should be enough. The point is to deny the clearance BEFORE the actual subversion. After it is too late.

More than that, we just handed Egypt to the MB. The MB in their motto and mission statement, which we know from documents seized in a HUGE terror funding trial, and also from their website, is in fact to infiltrate the west, and then destroy western nations from within, and bring them all under shari'a. We just went from Mubarak, yes a dictator, but also an ally, whose administration was against FGM, to the MB, our enemies BY THEIR DEFINITION, who sends out mobile FGM units all over Egypt. The USA absolutely had a hand in the outcome there.

It's entirely possible that Huma Abedin, associate of MB bigwigs and al-Qaeda supporters, had nothing to do with that, but she has more time with Clinton than a lot of people in the State Dept with more important titles.

I can't believe you think a person with ties to a major funder of al-Qaeda should be trusted with a security clearance and access to sensitive information with no questions asked. She should never have been cleared. We should look into why she was.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 8:26 pm
Monica, I think we have reached an impasse here. Perhaps I am naive, perhaps you are more suspicious. Whatever, I agree to disagree, partly because I am also one of "those people" who take a dim view of conspiracy theories and have suffered more than a little abuse for it by other care2 members. I have decided when a discussion reaches the point of this one it is best to just not try to badger others into one point of view. We are all adults and quite obviously have our own opinions. I like that as long as we can all remain civil. I really do appreciate your comments.
 

monica r. (41)
Saturday July 28, 2012, 9:43 pm
That's fine. And I'm not one for conspiracy theories (and also have butted heads with fans of them on C2), but it is idiotic for our lawmakers to be okay with subjecting grandmas and little kiddies to "scope or grope" and then ignore a highly placed government employee's connections to an organization that flew friggin' planes into buildings.

Yes I think you are naive. As an airline employee, I was background checked of course. Then 9/11 happened, and we all had to get fingerprinted and re-checked much more strictly (and I did not go anywhere near planes nor did I have contact with passengers, I was a scheduler). I am appalled that someone working in government did not need to be rechecked in some way, and was able to still maintain her ties with a man who helped make 9/11 possible AFTER 9/11. Of course having two brothers in NYC that day, plus dealing with the aviation side of it, maybe al-Qaeda just pisses me off more than they do you.

I don't think asking you to actually read the letter and see for yourself is "badgering" but whatever. None so blind.....
 

Ge M. (218)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 12:30 pm
So MM, it is acceptable for you to personally abuse people that disagree with you yet you can't take it when the truth and iis pointed out. It is acceptable for you to set up a website to abuse anyone who disagrees with you then complain when your personal rhetoric brings you to care2's notice and then they remove you for abuses. Pathetic.
 

Ge M. (218)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 1:08 pm
Carrie, you repeat that there is no evidence showing that Abedin is a "mole" in the government and passing on sensitive information. However, there is no evidence showing that she isn't.

Abedin is known to come from a family heavily committed to extreme Islam and there is no reason to believe that Abedin is not as committed as they are. It is not illegal to be a Muslim nor is it illegal to be married to a Jew nor is it illegal to work for the American government, according to American law. However, it is illegal to be married to a Jew under Sharia law yet there is no sign of her family attemtping an honour killing or even ignoring her (according to the news items that I have seen). This should raise suspicion amongst any intelligent persons.

Also, I should add that Obama loves to have fellow Muslims in as advisors and as part of the governmeent. He has Wahabi advisors of the kind that brought Bin Laden out to attack the West. Obama also supports CAIR who are forcing the part of the government that protects you from terrorism, the FBI, to reveal how they prevent it. Yet a moderate was offered a government position, Dr Jasser, and the Wahabis refused to allow him to join the administration, why? Could Clinton have taken Abedin on because she was a Muslim and she wanted to show Obama that she was a team player when it came to Muslims? Was she forced into it? iOr was it a show?

There is sufficient circunstantial evidence to warrant concern and any other politician would be considering dumping a potential embarrasment. If Abedin is not passing on information then she should welcome an investigation to clear her name. I do not see why Bachmann is wrong to be concerned and to speak out.

There are people on this board who would support anyone who was a Muslim even if they conducted another 9/11. Not all terrorists are Muslim but all of the terrorists that are attacking the West are. If we are to be secure then any concerns must be thoroughly investigated and, if necessary, the person involved should be removed. My family, my friends and their families are more important to me than a potential spy.

As far as the American government is concerned any American citizen and military killed by Muslim terrorists are just collateral damage as long as Muslims come and live in the country. There is no such antagonism or concern from or about any other immigrant.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 1:50 pm
Yes Michael, and thank you for your comment.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 2:39 pm
There is a calmness in Michael's comments that I find very agreeable after all of the anger in many of the comments left here. I always feel badly when this happens on one of my posts, but haven't yet figured out how to stop it. Disagreeing with one another is certainly acceptable and often provides more information, but getting angry and hostile because of another's opinions and trying to force them to think as you do is really beyond my comprehension. Thanks again Michael.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 6:52 pm
Thanks Kit. Much appreciated. Also thanks to M for her bravery and tenacity.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Monday July 30, 2012, 3:52 am
What is going on here? The person who was being attacked had all comments deleted, while those who were doing the attacking have all of their comments remaining. I am shocked and truly astounded by this unfair behavior! Would someone care to explain this to me? I flagged NO comments by anyone, so who did this and why?
 

Ge M. (218)
Monday July 30, 2012, 10:28 am
Carrie, you say that Michael has presented a calm comment yet it appears to me to be aggressive. I have read the other comments as well as mine and not one of them show anger, merely state facts and offer personal facts.

In fact, the most aggressive comment belonged to MM as she is a Muslim supporter and does so blindly. She hates to be disagreed with and has to insult and personally abuse people. Yet you do not understand why a personal and abusive attack was removed? Is that how you speak to people or allow them to speak to you? I have seen no such indications here but it would be deplorable if you find such behaviour acceptable.

You should state clearly why you find these comments as angry as all they appear to be is disagreeing with your point of view.

 

Carrie B. (306)
Monday July 30, 2012, 12:47 pm
Gillian, MM's comments were no more abusive than some of yours, so please stop pointing fingers and making accusations. I don't feel the necessity for everyone to agree with me, but I don't like being attacked for my opinions or see others attacked for theirs. Play nice or find a different sandbox.
 

Jim Phillips (3209)
Monday July 30, 2012, 3:07 pm
Petition:

http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Bachmann_Intelligence&autologin=true
 
Dear Speaker Boehner:

Three members of the House Intelligence Committee -- Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Thomas Rooney and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland -- have launched an unfounded and irresponsible attack on dedicated public servants, including Huma Abedin, a key aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Their only evidence is conspiracy theories and McCarthy-esque fear tactics. And their accusations are doing real harm.

You were right to call their baseless allegations "dangerous." Now it's time to put your words into action.

Please remove Rep. Bachmann, Rep. Rooney and Rep. Westmoreland from their seats on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence immediately. Members of the House Intelligence Committee are entrusted with classified information that affects the safety and security of all Americans. That information should not be in the hands of anyone with such a disregard for honesty, misunderstanding of national security, and lack of respect for his or her fellow public servants.

Ty, Carrie.
.
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 8:29 am

It would seem that Bachmann and Romney suffer from the same "foot in mouth" problems. On Care2, we are very adapted to seeing this foolish and ill informed sort of chatter. If some one of questionable ethics or information says what others want to hear those same people, will find cryptic and ambiguous sites on the Internet to reinforce their own hateful thinking. That does not make it true or factual, only yet another source of poorly researched ignorance.

There is no way that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton would have any one on her personal staff that had not been fully vetted and then given the highest of security clearance.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 2:49 am
A Muslim Supporter????

What is that supposed to mean. Supporting the right for people to be allowed to practice and express their faith is considered wrong? I don't know about the UK, but where I come from and also the country from where Michele Bachmann comes from, freedom of expression is actually a constitutional right. In addition, even if I was a "Muslim supporter" (which I am not, not religious) what is the problem with that? Again, demonizing of a religion and stereotyping it is inherently racist and bigoted.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 1:35 am
This is so typical here on article posts ~ anyone that doesn't agree with or blindly follows the far left commenters, will be be met with the gifts of ridicule and name calling. What amazes me the most is the anger level of a group that has no problem trashing others and seem to be on here for no other reason than creating havoc. To those of us without rose-colored glasses, we see right through you. Don't forget to go to your final default ~ the playing of the race card and the use of the new term that seeme to have it's origin here ~ "Repug."
 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 2:43 am
. (0) wrote: Supporting the right for people to be allowed to practice and express their faith is considered wrong?

No religion should have the "right of expression or practice" when it contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I'm all for enforcing the UDHR and opposing in stead of supporting any religion person or group that considers it an expression of their religion or religious practice to violate the UDHR.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 4:42 am
You support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Well, I gather you failed to note the word "universal".

Universal -
1. including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society (universal health coverage)
2. present or occurring everywhere
b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions
3. embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) Israeli education ministry censors Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I gather that you apply your own version of theUDHR. God forbid it actually be Universal. How about Article 13?

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Hmm, seems that isn't happening.

How about Article 17?


(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Why don't you go ask some Palestinian whose ancestral home has been demolished for the Abby Liechtman's of the world for her to rediscover her Jewish Roots (born and bred in New Jersey) while she decides who her new hairdresser is going to be in the "new world"?

So perhaps you should actually read the UDHR and not just drop it into conversations so that it looks like you actually are a compassionate, emphathetic supporter of human rights.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 9:52 am
Whoa .. what does Palestinians got to do with this? I have met plenty of Palestinians and their children (I'm a teacher) living in Israel in their ancestral homes in Jaffa, Tel Aviv.

What would be the point of asking them about the demolishment of their ancestral home when it's clearly still standing and they're still living in it? Sorry . (0) you make no sense to me.

Perhaps instead I will go ask one of the Jewish families who had their ancestral family homes in East Jerusalem demolished to make way for Palestinians from Jordon, Turkey, etc how they feel to have had their beautiful ancestral homes turned into terrosits haunts, next time I visit Jerusalem.
 

Ge M. (218)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 9:52 am
little dot who is not brave enough to show your name, when you talk about the rights of Muslims to practice their religion, you have never disagreed, in public, with their paedophilia, human rights abuses, female abuses, abuses against different Muslims, abuses against non-Muslims, desecration of non-Muslim and Muslim religious places, rape, murder, destruction of churches and forcible conversions to name but a few. An example might be the new Egyptian government which has done nothng but waste time and energy in trying to restore the country. The most important and essential task was to introduce legislation to introduce paedophilia (a breach of the child's rights under the UN convention, just a little slip there dotty) by brining down a GIRL'S age of marriage from 18 to 9 years. Also, a breach of human rights under the UN convention of human rights (another dotty slip) where a female slave was married on TV.

Some 80% of mosques in the US (FBI figures) recruit for jihad. And, if you actually read my comments above, you will see thathe I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists but the converse is also true, all attacks on the West by terrorists have been made by Muslim terrorists, something you have never denied.

Whilst I support the right to religious freedom regardless of which god is worshipped or not, I do not support the right of another religion to force their rules onto me especially in my country. There are areas in the UK where the Muslims are refusing to allow non-Muslims in. They are attempting to force these areas into Sharia law and they also insult us by only living on our benefit system and refusing to work.

Now, as to the Palestinians whose homes have been destroyed, are you talking about the Muslim terrorists who have done so? Are you talking about the Muslim controlled countries who refuse to allow the people now known as Palestinians to become part of the population? Are you talking about Syria and Jordan who have the land that the people known as the Palestinians are supposed to be living on? Please define your group of people properly rather than generically. Also, please include the Christians in Gaza who have been forced out of their homes and businesses as they are not Muslims.

Have you also considered the Israelis whose homes have been destroyed by ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza and Syria? Also those blown up by suicide bombers? You only ever show support for Muslims, never criticise them but only criticise Israel and never support them.

You see the dot reminds me of an old story called "Flatland" where all the characters in it were 2 dimensional as they were symbols on paper. The person in the story was introduced to a dot which was 1 dimensional and could not see or understand that there was anyone else in the world.

 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 9:53 am

Irish Examiner


No Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian Arabs

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The accusation that the state of Israel was founded on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs is thrown about with great abandon, most recently in letters from two of your correspondents, Charles Murphy and Kevin Squires (Jul 10), despite there being little historical evidence to substantiate it.

The displacement of 650,000-700,000 Arabs took place, according to the best historical sources, in four stages. In the first, the UN General Assembly resolution of Nov 1947 to divide Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state was immediately followed by an upsurge of Arab violence against Jews accompanied by Jewish self-defence and retaliation. In this phase, which lasted until late March 1948, the Arab upper and middle classes, numbering about 75,000, fled the country to avoid the violence.

In the second phase, lasting from Apr to June 1948, the Jewish armed forces began to win the upper hand over the Arab irregulars and, from May 15 onwards, had to face also the invading armies of five Arab neighbours. About 300,000 of the Arab population fled due to fear and at the urging of the Arab regimes radio stations. None were expelled by Jewish forces in either of these phases, nor was there any Zionist policy aimed at doing so.

The third phase took place during the fighting of July 1948. About 100,000 of the Arab population fled, of whom about 50,000 were expelled by Israeli forces for military reasons from towns along the fiercely contested Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road. Yet no general expulsion directive was given, and the Israeli military was ordered to treat the Arab population with dignity.

The fourth phase involved the flight of another 200,000 Arabs during the fighting of Oct-Nov 1948, of whom a minority were expelled, the rest as before fleeing to avoid the violence. Large numbers of Arabs stayed on.

The real ethnic cleansing was that of the Jewish civilians driven out of east Jerusalem, where there had been a Jewish majority as far back as 1863. That is not even to mention the 900,000 Jews forced to leave the Arab states from 1948.

Dermot Meleady
Clontarf
Dublin 3
 

Ge M. (218)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 10:07 am
Then the totally forgotten 1 million Jewish refugees forced out of the Middle Eastern countries with just a few thousand left in Iran as second class citizens and 1 or 2 elderly people left in other countries. No compensation has ever been offered and people like dotty refuse to mentione them. Why? They are supposed to be part of the peace process but, I assume, like any other Jew, they are to be ignored and their rights forgotten. Dotty has never mentioned them at any time and has only ever called for Palestinian rights. Would this be for ice cream in the 5* hotels in Gaza along with the full markets, shopping malls, water park and quality of life other than Hamas's ill treatment of them by refusing to allow those with critical illnesses to receive help at an Israeli hospital? Would this be the refusing to allow medicines in? Would this include the Israelis helping those living in Gaza to set up their own businesses, training them to succeed and exporting their goods for them? Or would this include Hezbollah who have forced their own people not to work for anyone and are allowing them to live in appalling conditions?

Really dotty, you must be clearer not that you will ever respond to this, you prefer to ignore something that you cannot argue against because it is the truth. They only came into existence under Yasser Arafat who used them to line his pockets, and are abused by their leaders and the terrorist organisations who to speak for them. Other Muslim controlled entities treat them as excrement yet I have yet to see you speak out. Speak out for all and stop being racist.

I
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 12:43 pm
Really mature Gillian. . Do you think calling people names speaks to your intelligence. I am not hiding my identity, but am not going to bother to continue to sign up for Care 2 when we have oppressive members like you flagging right and left when someone who actually provides facts with their posts disagrees with your ignorant, sheeple mentality. We have a whole thread of you posting an article where you did not once address the topic you posted, but instead hysterically carried on like a ninny, name calling rather than defend your article. Where do you have evidence that Huma Abedin or Keith Ellison have done anything to subvert the government? That is what we are discussing. Alexandra claims that she supports UDHR, yet the country she blindly follows doesn't. Where has Huma Abedin or Keith Ellison ever not supported the UDHR? Where have they ever done anything to subvert US policy? Instead you are more comfortable stereotyping and discriminating people because you don't like their faith. Bravo. What a gem you are.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 1:20 pm
Gillian - read a history book and maybe get an education in something other than animal husbandry.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 1:36 pm
British envoy tells Israelis some un-diplomatic truths, and U.K. Jews should also listen in

British envoy tells Israelis some un-diplomatic truths, and U.K. Jews should also listen in
There is nothing new about the U.K.'s foreign policy positions; they have been in favor of a Palestinian state and against West Bank settlements for decades. But Gould was talking about ordinary U.K.citizens who don't see much to like nowadays in Israel.

Matthew Gould, Britain's ambassador to Israel's interview this evening on Channel Ten, was surprising in his willingness to tell some undiplomatic truths to Israelis on primetime. Not that there is anything new about Britain's foreign policy positions; they have been in favor of a Palestinian state and against West Bank settlements for decades. But Gould wasn't talking about Britain's policy. He was talking about the positions of ordinary British citizens who don't see much to like nowadays in Israel. He warned "anyone who cares about Israel's standing in the world" and Gould certainly is one, "should be concerned about the erosion of popular support."

Gould's central warning in the interview was this – "Support for Israel is starting to erode and that's not about these people on the fringe who are shouting loudly and calling for boycotts and all the rest of it. The interesting category are those members of parliament in the middle, and in that group I see a shift." He was trying to say to Israelis what they don't want to hear, that it's not just a group of leftist journalists on BBC and The Guardian and radical anti-Israel campaigners for Palestinian solidarity, it's the mainstream of British society, and not because British people are particularly anti-Semitic or pro-Arab – "I don’t think Britain is by any means unique in this," he said, "there is a growing concern at the lack of progress towards peace."

He refused to respond to Israeli accusations of British media bias, but he had and explanation, it was simple. "Israel is now seen as the Goliath and it’s the Palestinians who are seen as the David" and if Israelis don’t absorb that, they "might wake up in ten years time and suddenly find that the level of understanding in the international community has suddenly changed. That the level of patience for continuing the status quo has reduced.

Gould, it almost doesn't need reminding, is also the first Jewish ambassador to represent Britain in Israel. And while he was addressing himself to the Israeli public, the last section of the interview could also have been directed at the Jewish community back at home.

Ironically, this is also the only part of the interview in which he used a word in Hebrew. "The problem is not hasbara," and seemed to be talking not just to Israelis, but to those Jewish supporters of Israel back in London who always complain that Israelis just don't explain themselves well, that their hasbara isn't good enough. Israel's real problem says Gould is with "the center ground, the majority. The British public may not be expert but they are not stupid and they see a stream of announcement about new building in settlements, they read stories about what's going on in the West Bank, they read about restrictions in Gaza. The substance of what's going wrong is really what's driving this."

Not only is Gould not betraying his roots, he is doing the Jews of Britain a huge favor. Surveys have proven that they care deeply for Israel and support it, but they also support overwhelmingly support a two-state solution and a majority even think Israel should negotiate with Hamas. But community leaders who hold these beliefs are rarely prepared to speak to Israel in this vein, afraid of a vocal minority who will attack them with vehemence for forsaking Israel in her hour of need. Some voices among British Jewry will attack Gould now, accuse him of selling his birthright in exchange for a high-flying Foreign Office career, but other Jews will have been emboldened by Gould, their confidence strengthened, that they can love Israel and criticize its policies at the same time, and perhaps this is a better sort of love than unconditional support.
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 1:43 pm

Carrie, so sorry that your submission has drawn "the vicious barking dogs" they move in packs and attack with out reason or factual evidence. Anyone that happens to have a first or last name that identify them as being Muslim, can expect to be attacked by those who have nothing better to do with their lives then go in search of some one to "dump" their hatred on; such a pathetic group.
Thanks Marg for the efforts of attempting to offer some real facts into this ugly display of racial and religious bigotry.

(apologies to all dogs)
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 2:52 pm
Carrie - Thank you for submitting this article. Kit - I don't think that it has been ruined, I think that it brings to light an important issue regarding this article. How crazy is it that we are now going to accuse people who have been vetted and placed under the microscope of subversion because of their faith?
 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 4:25 pm
. (1) wrote: "Where do you have evidence that Huma Abedin or Keith Ellison have done anything to subvert the government? That is what we are discussing. Alexandra claims that she supports UDHR, yet the country she blindly follows doesn't. Where has Huma Abedin or Keith Ellison ever not supported the UDHR? Where have they ever done anything to subvert US policy?"

Israel is fully signed up to the UDHR, so is the US. The MB (Muslim Brotherhood) is not and refuse to sign up.
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 4:43 pm

The big bad Muslim Brotherhood? For goodness sake would you please, get a life? Do you walk into the bathroom expecting a murderer behind the shower curtain?

Some people of any and all religious or racial orientation are up to no good. Most people have only one desire, to live their life in peace. Stop looking for problems or making them where none exist. Leave this new mother and her child in fact, her whole family out of your scurrying about to look for something to fear.

What part of "already investigated" do you NOT understand?
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 4:48 pm
Evidence from what you have provided isn't evidence it is the equivalent of sensationalism. Signing of for the UDHR doesn't mean you are complying. I am talking about two Americans, not the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, when have I supported religious governance. Never.

Please give me an example where the Muslim Brotherhood refused to sign the UDHR. Since you fail to provide anything to justify your claim, I am not necessarily buying. Not that I even believe that the did or did not refuse to sign, but it has been pretty clear that you often make claims that you can't back up.

Again, signing the UDHR and not abiding by it is hypocritical which we can certainly see that they violate it all of the time.They only seem to abide by the parts which benefits Israel and disregards the application of the UDHR to the Palestinians.

You seem to confuse people's standing up for equal rights for all (whcih is has become pretty clear that you don't seem to believe in) and the freedom of expression of one's faith as supporting Islam or supporting an Islamic State. I support the freedom of religious expression for Jews, Christians, Buddists, etc. That doesn't mean that I believe in their faith, nor do I have any interest in converting. I believe though is equality, not human rights for certain demographic groups.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 4:49 pm
"The displacement of 650,000-700,000 Arabs took place, according to the best historical sources, in four stages. In the first, the UN General Assembly resolution of Nov 1947 to divide Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state was immediately followed by an upsurge of Arab violence against Jews accompanied by Jewish self-defence and retaliation. "

Not only do you plagiarize, you also like to promote myth as fact. Read a book or two Gillian. You can pick up really good history books written by Israeli Jewish historians on Amazon. If you spend more than $25, shipping is free.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 4:59 pm
Kit and M, What is wrong with you? You know that a little technicality like facts won't dissuade some from hate and fear mongering. These are some of the same people who have questioned Obama's birth certificate and of course, his religious beliefs are also suspect. I don't care what religion anyone is or if they even have a particular religious belief. It is none of my business or that of anyone else. Get a life folks and stop attacking this woman because her name sounds odd to you!
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday August 3, 2012, 1:12 am
Carrie B wrote: "stop attacking this woman because her name sounds odd to you! "

BTW, I like odd sounding names Carrie, but not odd sounding dealings of support:

Obama Authorizes Secret U.S. Support For Muslim Brotherhood And Al-Qaida Rebels In Syria
http://www.care2.com/news/member/243081818/3424677

I quote : "“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence ‘finding,’ broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.”"
 

Ge M. (218)
Friday August 3, 2012, 12:15 pm
dotty, you still have not answered my questions nor do you and I doubt that you ever will. You could not possibly ever show a Muslim in a bad light.

As for Abedin, had you actually read my comments you will see that all your bluster really shows is an ongoing and unquestioning support of any Muslim regardless of who or what they are. I but I have not made any accusations but pointed out that there are questions that should be answered and that Abedin should welcome an investigation to stop the whispering.

Dotty instead of your selective reading and memory try this history complete with resources and facts. You have failed to comment on the Jewish refugees but then we know that is because they are not Muslims. Nor have you answered the questions on the appalling treatment of Muslims on Muslims or is that too distressing? How can you support a Muslim ill treating a Muslim? Do you go into meltdown? Pretending that it doesn't happen must seem to be the easiest answer for you and just blaming Israel!

The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.

The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends.

All of those who left fully anticipated being able to return to their homes after an early Arab victory, as Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref explained in his history of the 1948 war:

The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw down his arms and cast himself on their mercy.

By the end of January1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal the borders against them.

Meanwhile, Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to remain in Palestine and become citizens of Israel. The Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued this appeal on October 2, 1947:

We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals.

On November 30, the day after the UN partition vote, the Jewish Agency announced: “The main theme behind the spontaneous celebrations we are witnessing today is our community's desire to seek peace and its determination to achieve fruitful cooperation with the Arabs....“

Israel's Proclamation of Independence, issued May 14, 1948, also invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new state:

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all.

Caught in the Middle
Throughout the period that preceded the May 15 invasion of the Arab regular armies, large-scale military engagements, incessant sniping, robberies and bombings took place. In view of the thousands of casualties that resulted from the pre-invasion violence, it is not surprising that many Arabs would have fled out of fear for their lives.

The second phase of the Arab flight began after the Jewish forces started to register military victories against Arab irregulars. Among the victories were the battles for Tiberias and Haifa, which were accompanied by the evacuation of the Arab inhabitants.

On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, Ash Sha'ab, reported: “The first of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle.”

Another Jaffa paper, As Sarih (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for “bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages.“

John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, said: “Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war” (London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948).

Jewish forces seized Tiberias on April 19, 1948, and the entire Arab population of 6,000 was evacuated under British military supervision. The Jewish Community Council issued a statement afterward: “We did not dispossess them; they themselves chose this course....Let no citizen touch their property.”

In early April, an estimated 25,000 Arabs left the Haifa area following an offensive by the irregular forces led by Fawzi al­Qawukji, and rumors that Arab air forces would soon bomb the Jewish areas around Mt. Carmel. On April 23, the Haganah captured Haifa. A British police report from Haifa, dated April 26, explained that “every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe.” In fact, David Ben-Gurion had sent Golda Meir to Haifa to try to persuade the Arabs to stay, but she was unable to convince them because of their fear of being judged traitors to the Arab cause. By the end of the battle, more than 50,000 Palestinians had left.

Tens of thousands of Arab men, women and children fled toward the eastern outskirts of the city in cars, trucks, carts, and afoot in a desperate attempt to reach Arab territory until the Jews captured Rushmiya Bridge toward Samaria and Northern Palestine and cut them off. Thousands rushed every available craft, even rowboats, along the waterfront, to escape by sea toward Acre (New York Times, April 23, 1948).

In Tiberias and Haifa, the Haganah issued orders that none of the Arabs' possessions should be touched, and warned that anyone who violated the orders would be severely punished. Despite these efforts, all but about 5,000 or 6,000 Arabs evacuated Haifa, many leaving with the assistance of British military transports.

Syria's UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a “massacre” and said this action was “further evidence that the 'Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected.”

The following day, however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous. The same day (April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs “preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town.”

The Invasion
As fear and chaos spread throughout Palestine, the early trickle of refugees became a flood, numbering more than 200,000 by the time the provisional government declared the independence of the State of Israel.

Once the invasion began in May 1948, most Arabs remaining in Palestine left for neighboring countries. Surprisingly, rather than acting as a strategically valuable “fifth­column” in the war, the Palestinians chose to flee to the safety of the other Arab states, still confident of being able to return. A leading Palestinian nationalist of the time, Musa Alami, revealed the attitude of the fleeing Arabs:

The Arabs of Palestine left their homes, were scattered, and lost everything. But there remained one solid hope: The Arab armies were on the eve of their entry into Palestine to save the country and return things to their normal course, punish the aggressor, and throw oppressive Zionism with its dreams and dangers into the sea. On May 14, 1948, crowds of Arabs stood by the roads leading to the frontiers of Palestine, enthusiastically welcoming the advancing armies. Days and weeks passed, sufficient to accomplish the sacred mission, but the Arab armies did not save the country. They did nothing but let slip from their hands Acre, Sarafand, Lydda, Ramleh, Nazareth, most of the south and the rest of the north. Then hope fled (Middle East Journal, October 1949).

As the fighting spread into areas that had previously remained quiet, the Arabs began to see the possibility of defeat. As the possibility turned into reality, the flight of the Arabs increased-more than 300,000 departed after May 15 — leaving approximately 160,000 Arabs in the State of Israel.

The Arabs' fear was naturally exacerbated by the atrocity stories following the attack on Deir Yassin. The native population lacked leaders who could calm them; their spokesmen, such as the Arab Higher Committee, were operating from the safety of neighboring states and did more to arouse their fears than to pacify them. Local military leaders were of little or no comfort. In one instance the commander of Arab troops in Safed went to Damascus. The following day, his troops withdrew from the town. When the residents realized they were defenseless, they fled in panic. “As Palestinian military power was swiftly and dramatically crushed and the Haganah demonstrated almost unchallenged superiority in successive battles,” Benny Morris noted, “Arab morale cracked, giving way to general, blind, panic or a ‘psychosis of flight,’ as one IDF intelligence report put it” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 591).

Although most of the Arabs had left by November 1948, there were still those who chose to leave even after hostilities ceased. An interesting case was the evacuation of 3,000 Arabs from Faluja, a village between Tel Aviv and Beersheba:

Observers feel that with proper counsel after the Israeli­Egyptian armistice, the Arab population might have advantageously remained. They state that the Israeli Government had given guarantees of security of person and property. However, no effort was made by Egypt, Transjordan or even the United Nations Palestine Conciliation Commission to advise the Faluja Arabs one way or the other (New York Times, March 4, 1949).

Arab Leaders Provoke Exodus
A plethora of evidence exists demonstrating that Palestinians were encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies. The U.S. Consul­General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, for example, that “local mufti­dominated Arab leaders” were urging “all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so.”

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”

Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. Starting in December 1947, he said, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.” He concluded, “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these arly Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 590).

The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: “Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts” (Morris, Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986). Morris also documented that the Arab Higher Committee ordered the evacuation of “several dozenvillages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” in April-July 1948. “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 592).

Morris also said that in early May units of the Arab Legion reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, “tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation-women and children first, the men following weeks later-occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places.”

Who gave such orders? Leaders like Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country.”

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948­49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.

“The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two,” Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al­Janub (August 16, 1948). “Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”

On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) said: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem.”

“The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies,” according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin (February 19, 1949).

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: “The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”

“The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade,” said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). “He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”

Even Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue.

Expulsions of Arabs
The Haganah did employ psychological warfare to encourage the Arabs to abandon a few villages. Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (the “shock force of the Haganah”), said he had Jews talk to the Arabs in neighboring villages and tell them a large Jewish force was in Galilee with the intention of burning all the Arab villages in the Lake Huleh region. The Arabs were told to leave while they still had time and, according to Allon, they did exactly that.

In the most dramatic example, in the Ramle-Lod area, Israeli troops seeking to protect their flanks and relieve the pressure on besieged Jerusalem, forced a portion of the Arab population to go to an area a few miles away that was occupied by the Arab Legion. “The two towns had served as bases for Arab irregular units, which had frequently attacked Jewish convoys and nearby settlements, effectively barring the main road to Jerusalem to Jewish traffic.”

As was clear from the descriptions of what took place in the cities with the largest Arab populations, these cases were clearly the exceptions, accounting for only a small fraction of the Palestinian refugees. The expulsions were not designed to force out the entire Arab population; the areas where they took place were strategically vital and meant to prevent the threat of any rearguard action against the Israeli forces, and to insure clear lines of communication. Morris notes that “in general, Haganah and IDF commanders were not forced to confront the moral dilemma posed by expulsion; most Arabs fled before and during the battle, before the Israeli troops reached their homes and before the Israeli commanders were forced to confront the dilema” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 592).

How Many Refugees?
Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947­49. The last census was taken in 1945. It found only 756,000 permanent Arab residents in Israel. On November 30, 1947, the date the UN voted for partition, the total was 809,100. A 1949 Government of Israel census counted 160,000 Arabs living in the country after the war. This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower figure — 472,000.

Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: “The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition.”

The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was roughly equal to the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions. Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries.

The contrast between the reception of Jewish refugees in Israel with the reception of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries is even more stark when one considers the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation experienced by the two groups. Most Jewish refugees traveled hundreds — and some traveled thousands — of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language. Most Arab refugees never left Palestine at all; they traveled a few miles to the other side of the truce line, remaining inside the vast Arab nation that they were part of linguistically, culturally and ethnically.

A second refugee population was created in 1967. After ignoring warnings to stay out of the war, King Hussein launched an attack on Jerusalem, Israel's capital. The UN estimated that during the fighting 175,000 Palestinians had fled for a second time and approximately 350,000 left for the first time. About 200,000 moved to Jordan, 115,000 to Syria and approximately 35,000 left Sinai for Egypt. Most of the Arabs who left had come from the West Bank.

When the Security Council empowered U Thant to send a representative to inquire into the welfare of civilians in the wake of the 1967 war, he instructed the mission to investigate the treatment of Jewish minorities in Arab countries, as well as Arabs in Israeli-occupied territory. Syria, Iraq and Egypt refused to permit the UN representative to carry out his investigation.

UN Resolution 194
Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries (Jerusalem Post, December 4, 2003).

The United Nations first took up the refugee issue and adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948. This called upon the Arab states and Israel to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations either directly, or with the help of the Palestine Conciliation Commission established by this resolution. Furthermore, Point 11 resolves:

that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation... (emphasis added).

The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands.

The resolution met most of Israel's concerns regarding the refugees, whom they regarded as a potential fifth column if allowed to return unconditionally. The Israelis considered the settlement of the refugee issue a negotiable part of an overall peace settlement. As President Chaim Weizmann explained: “We are anxious to help such resettlement provided that real peace is established and the Arab states do their part of the job. The solution of the Arab problem can be achieved only through an all-around Middle East development scheme, toward which the United Nations, the Arab states and Israel will make their respective contributions.”

At the time the Israelis did not expect the refugees to be a major issue; they thought the Arab states would resettle the majority and some compromise on the remainder could be worked out in the context of an overall settlement. The Arabs were no more willing to compromise in 1949, however, than they had been in 1947. In fact, they unanimously rejected the UN resolution.

The General Assembly subsequently voted, on November 19, 1948, to establish the United Nations Relief For Palestinian Refugees (UNRPR) to dispense aid to the refugees. The UNRPR was replaced by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on December 8, 1949, and given a budget of $50 million.

UNRWA was designed to continue the relief program initiated by the UNRPR, substitute public works for direct relief and promote economic development. The proponents of the plan envisioned that direct relief would be almost completely replaced by public works, with the remaining assistance provided by the Arab governments.

UNRWA had little chance of success, however, because it sought to solve a political problem using an economic approach. By the mid­1950s, it was evident neither the refugees nor the Arab states were prepared to cooperate on the large-scale development projects originally foreseen by the Agency as a means of alleviating the Palestinians' situation. The Arab governments and the refugees themselves were unwilling to contribute to any plan that could be interpreted as fostering resettlement. They preferred to cling to their interpretation of Resolution 194, which they believed would eventually result in repatriation.

While Jewish refugees from Arab countries received no international assistance, Palestinians received millions of dollars through UNRWA. Initially, the United States contributed $25 million and Israel nearly $3 million. The total Arab pledges amounted to approximately $600,000. For the first 20 years, the United States provided more than two-thirds of the funds, while the Arab states continued to contribute a tiny fraction. Israel donated more funds to UNRWA than most Arab states. The Saudis did not match Israel's contribution until 1973; Kuwait and Libya, not until 1980. As recently as 1994, Israel gave more to UNRWA than all Arab countries except Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco. In 2003, the United States contributed more than $134 million of UNRWA's $326 million budget (41%). All of the Arab countries combined contributed less than $11 million (3%) and $7.8 million of that was from Saudi Arabia, meaning the rest of the Arab world contributed less than $3 million (1%).

Israel's Attitude Toward Refugees
When plans for setting up a state were made in early 1948, Jewish leaders in Palestine expected the population to include a significant Arab population. From the Israeli perspective, the refugees had been given an opportunity to stay in their homes and be a part of the new state. Approximately 160,000 Arabs had chosen to do so. To repatriate those who had fled would be, in the words of Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, “suicidal folly.”

Israel could not simply agree to allow all Palestinians to return, but consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. Israel's position was expressed by David Ben­Gurion (August 1, 1948):

When the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty with Israel this question will come up for constructive solution as part of the general settlement, and with due regard to our counter­claims in respect of the destruction of Jewish life and property, the long-term interest of the Jewish and Arab populations, the stability of the State of Israel and the durability of the basis of peace between it and its neighbors, the actual position and fate of the Jewish communities in the Arab countries, the responsibilities of the Arab governments for their war of aggression and their liability for reparation, will all be relevant in the question whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, the former Arab residents of the territory of Israel should be allowed to return.

The Israeli government was not indifferent to the plight of the refugees; an ordinance was passed creating a Custodian of Abandoned Property “to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops....”

The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return; agreed to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953); offered to pay compensation for abandoned lands and, finally, agreed to repatriate 100,000 refugees.

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.

Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees' blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million. In addition, through 1975, the Israeli government paid to more than 11,000 claimants more than 23 million Israeli pounds in cash and granted more than 20,000 acres as alternative holdings. Payments were made by land value between 1948 and 1953, plus 6 percent for every year following the claim submission.

After the Six-Day War, Israel allowed some West Bank Arabs to return. In 1967, more than 9,000 families were reunited and, by 1971, Israel had readmitted 40,000 refugees. By contrast, in July 1968, Jordan prohibited persons intending to remain in the East Bank from emigrating from the West Bank and Gaza.

Arab Attitudes Toward the Refugees
The UN discussions on refugees had begun in the summer of 1948, before Israel had completed its military victory; consequently, the Arabs still believed they could win the war and allow the refugees to return triumphant. The Arab position was expressed by Emile Ghoury, the Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee:

It is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews, as the latter would hold them as hostages and maltreat them. The very proposal is an evasion of responsibility by those responsible. It will serve as a first step towards Arab recognition of the State of Israel and partition.

The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the “right” of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since.

One reason for maintaining this position was the conviction that the refugees could ultimately bring about Israel's destruction, a sentiment expressed by Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah al-Din:

It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With a greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel (Al-Misri, October 11, 1949).

After the 1948 war, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and its more than 200,000 inhabitants, but refused to allow the Palestinians into Egypt or permit them to move elsewhere.

Although demographic figures indicated ample room for settlement existed in Syria, Damascus refused to consider accepting any refugees, except those who might refuse repatriation. Syria also declined to resettle 85,000 refugees in 1952-54, though it had been offered international funds to pay for the project. Iraq was also expected to accept a large number of refugees, but proved unwilling. Lebanon insisted it had no room for the Palestinians. In 1950, the UN tried to resettle 150,000 refugees from Gaza in Libya, but was rebuffed by Egypt.

Jordan was the only Arab country to welcome the Palestinians and grant them citizenship (to this day Jordan is the only Arab country where Palestinians as a group can become citizens). King Abdullah considered the Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians one people. By 1950, he annexed the West Bank and forbade the use of the term Palestine in official documents.

In 1952, the UNRWA set up a fund of $200 million to provide homes and jobs for the refugees, but it went untouched.

The plight of the refugees remained unchanged after the Suez War. In fact, even the rhetoric stayed the same. In 1957, the Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria, passed a resolution stating:

Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason (Beirut al Massa, July 15, 1957).

The treatment of the refugees in the decade following their displacement was best summed up by a former UNRWA official, Sir Alexander Galloway, in April 1952: “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

Little has changed in succeeding years. Arab governments have frequently offered jobs, housing, land and other benefits to Arabs and non-Arabs, excluding Palestinians. For example, Saudi Arabia chose not to use unemployed Palestinian refugees to alleviate its labor shortage in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Instead, thousands of South Koreans and other Asians were recruited to fill jobs.

The situation grew even worse in the wake of the Gulf War. Kuwait, which employed large numbers of Palestinians but denied them citizenship, expelled more than 300,000 of them. “If people pose a security threat, as a sovereign country we have the right to exclude anyone we don't want,” said Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasir Al-Sabah (Jerusalem Report, June 27, 1991).

The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was roughly equal to the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions. Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries.

The contrast between the reception of Jewish refugees in Israel with the reception of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries is even more stark when one considers the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation experienced by the two groups. Most Jewish refugees traveled hundreds — and some traveled thousands — of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language. Most Arab refugees never left Palestine at all; they traveled a few miles to the other side of the truce line, remaining inside the vast Arab nation that they were part of linguistically, culturally and ethnically.

A second refugee population was created in 1967. After ignoring warnings to stay out of the war, King Hussein launched an attack on Jerusalem, Israel's capital. The UN estimated that during the fighting 175,000 Palestinians had fled for a second time and approximately 350,000 left for the first time. About 200,000 moved to Jordan, 115,000 to Syria and approximately 35,000 left Sinai for Egypt. Most of the Arabs who left had come from the West Bank.

When the Security Council empowered U Thant to send a representative to inquire into the welfare of civilians in the wake of the 1967 war, he instructed the mission to investigate the treatment of Jewish minorities in Arab countries, as well as Arabs in Israeli-occupied territory. Syria, Iraq and Egypt refused to permit the UN representative to carry out his investigation.

UN Resolution 194
Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries (Jerusalem Post, December 4, 2003).

The United Nations first took up the refugee issue and adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948. This called upon the Arab states and Israel to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations either directly, or with the help of the Palestine Conciliation Commission established by this resolution. Furthermore, Point 11 resolves:

that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation... (emphasis added).

The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands.

The resolution met most of Israel's concerns regarding the refugees, whom they regarded as a potential fifth column if allowed to return unconditionally. The Israelis considered the settlement of the refugee issue a negotiable part of an overall peace settlement. As President Chaim Weizmann explained: “We are anxious to help such resettlement provided that real peace is established and the Arab states do their part of the job. The solution of the Arab problem can be achieved only through an all-around Middle East development scheme, toward which the United Nations, the Arab states and Israel will make their respective contributions.”

At the time the Israelis did not expect the refugees to be a major issue; they thought the Arab states would resettle the majority and some compromise on the remainder could be worked out in the context of an overall settlement. The Arabs were no more willing to compromise in 1949, however, than they had been in 1947. In fact, they unanimously rejected the UN resolution.

The General Assembly subsequently voted, on November 19, 1948, to establish the United Nations Relief For Palestinian Refugees (UNRPR) to dispense aid to the refugees. The UNRPR was replaced by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on December 8, 1949, and given a budget of $50 million.

UNRWA was designed to continue the relief program initiated by the UNRPR, substitute public works for direct relief and promote economic development. The proponents of the plan envisioned that direct relief would be almost completely replaced by public works, with the remaining assistance provided by the Arab governments.

UNRWA had little chance of success, however, because it sought to solve a political problem using an economic approach. By the mid­1950s, it was evident neither the refugees nor the Arab states were prepared to cooperate on the large-scale development projects originally foreseen by the Agency as a means of alleviating the Palestinians' situation. The Arab governments and the refugees themselves were unwilling to contribute to any plan that could be interpreted as fostering resettlement. They preferred to cling to their interpretation of Resolution 194, which they believed would eventually result in repatriation.

While Jewish refugees from Arab countries received no international assistance, Palestinians received millions of dollars through UNRWA. Initially, the United States contributed $25 million and Israel nearly $3 million. The total Arab pledges amounted to approximately $600,000. For the first 20 years, the United States provided more than two-thirds of the funds, while the Arab states continued to contribute a tiny fraction. Israel donated more funds to UNRWA than most Arab states. The Saudis did not match Israel's contribution until 1973; Kuwait and Libya, not until 1980. As recently as 1994, Israel gave more to UNRWA than all Arab countries except Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco. In 2003, the United States contributed more than $134 million of UNRWA's $326 million budget (41%). All of the Arab countries combined contributed less than $11 million (3%) and $7.8 million of that was from Saudi Arabia, meaning the rest of the Arab world contributed less than $3 million (1%).

Israel's Attitude Toward Refugees
When plans for setting up a state were made in early 1948, Jewish leaders in Palestine expected the population to include a significant Arab population. From the Israeli perspective, the refugees had been given an opportunity to stay in their homes and be a part of the new state. Approximately 160,000 Arabs had chosen to do so. To repatriate those who had fled would be, in the words of Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, “suicidal folly.”

Israel could not simply agree to allow all Palestinians to return, but consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. Israel's position was expressed by David Ben­Gurion (August 1, 1948):

When the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty with Israel this question will come up for constructive solution as part of the general settlement, and with due regard to our counter­claims in respect of the destruction of Jewish life and property, the long-term interest of the Jewish and Arab populations, the stability of the State of Israel and the durability of the basis of peace between it and its neighbors, the actual position and fate of the Jewish communities in the Arab countries, the responsibilities of the Arab governments for their war of aggression and their liability for reparation, will all be relevant in the question whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, the former Arab residents of the territory of Israel should be allowed to return.

The Israeli government was not indifferent to the plight of the refugees; an ordinance was passed creating a Custodian of Abandoned Property “to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops....”

The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return; agreed to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953); offered to pay compensation for abandoned lands and, finally, agreed to repatriate 100,000 refugees.

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.

Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees' blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million. In addition, through 1975, the Israeli government paid to more than 11,000 claimants more than 23 million Israeli pounds in cash and granted more than 20,000 acres as alternative holdings. Payments were made by land value between 1948 and 1953, plus 6 percent for every year following the claim submission.

After the Six-Day War, Israel allowed some West Bank Arabs to return. In 1967, more than 9,000 families were reunited and, by 1971, Israel had readmitted 40,000 refugees. By contrast, in July 1968, Jordan prohibited persons intending to remain in the East Bank from emigrating from the West Bank and Gaza.

Arab Attitudes Toward the Refugees
The UN discussions on refugees had begun in the summer of 1948, before Israel had completed its military victory; consequently, the Arabs still believed they could win the war and allow the refugees to return triumphant. The Arab position was expressed by Emile Ghoury, the Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee:

It is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews, as the latter would hold them as hostages and maltreat them. The very proposal is an evasion of responsibility by those responsible. It will serve as a first step towards Arab recognition of the State of Israel and partition.

The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the “right” of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since.

One reason for maintaining this position was the conviction that the refugees could ultimately bring about Israel's destruction, a sentiment expressed by Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah al-Din:

It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With a greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel (Al-Misri, October 11, 1949).

After the 1948 war, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and its more than 200,000 inhabitants, but refused to allow the Palestinians into Egypt or permit them to move elsewhere.

Although demographic figures indicated ample room for settlement existed in Syria, Damascus refused to consider accepting any refugees, except those who might refuse repatriation. Syria also declined to resettle 85,000 refugees in 1952-54, though it had been offered international funds to pay for the project. Iraq was also expected to accept a large number of refugees, but proved unwilling. Lebanon insisted it had no room for the Palestinians. In 1950, the UN tried to resettle 150,000 refugees from Gaza in Libya, but was rebuffed by Egypt.

Jordan was the only Arab country to welcome the Palestinians and grant them citizenship (to this day Jordan is the only Arab country where Palestinians as a group can become citizens). King Abdullah considered the Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians one people. By 1950, he annexed the West Bank and forbade the use of the term Palestine in official documents.

In 1952, the UNRWA set up a fund of $200 million to provide homes and jobs for the refugees, but it went untouched.

The plight of the refugees remained unchanged after the Suez War. In fact, even the rhetoric stayed the same. In 1957, the Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria, passed a resolution stating:

Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason (Beirut al Massa, July 15, 1957).

The treatment of the refugees in the decade following their displacement was best summed up by a former UNRWA official, Sir Alexander Galloway, in April 1952: “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

Little has changed in succeeding years. Arab governments have frequently offered jobs, housing, land and other benefits to Arabs and non-Arabs, excluding Palestinians. For example, Saudi Arabia chose not to use unemployed Palestinian refugees to alleviate its labor shortage in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Instead, thousands of South Koreans and other Asians were recruited to fill jobs.

The situation grew even worse in the wake of the Gulf War. Kuwait, which employed large numbers of Palestinians but denied them citizenship, expelled more than 300,000 of them. “If people pose a security threat, as a sovereign country we have the right to exclude anyone we don't want,” said Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasir Al-Sabah (Jerusalem Report, June 27, 1991).

The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was roughly equal to the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions. Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries.

The contrast between the reception of Jewish refugees in Israel with the reception of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries is even more stark when one considers the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation experienced by the two groups. Most Jewish refugees traveled hundreds — and some traveled thousands — of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language. Most Arab refugees never left Palestine at all; they traveled a few miles to the other side of the truce line, remaining inside the vast Arab nation that they were part of linguistically, culturally and ethnically.

A second refugee population was created in 1967. After ignoring warnings to stay out of the war, King Hussein launched an attack on Jerusalem, Israel's capital. The UN estimated that during the fighting 175,000 Palestinians had fled for a second time and approximately 350,000 left for the first time. About 200,000 moved to Jordan, 115,000 to Syria and approximately 35,000 left Sinai for Egypt. Most of the Arabs who left had come from the West Bank.

When the Security Council empowered U Thant to send a representative to inquire into the welfare of civilians in the wake of the 1967 war, he instructed the mission to investigate the treatment of Jewish minorities in Arab countries, as well as Arabs in Israeli-occupied territory. Syria, Iraq and Egypt refused to permit the UN representative to carry out his investigation.

UN Resolution 194
Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries (Jerusalem Post, December 4, 2003).

The United Nations first took up the refugee issue and adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948. This called upon the Arab states and Israel to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations either directly, or with the help of the Palestine Conciliation Commission established by this resolution. Furthermore, Point 11 resolves:

that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation... (emphasis added).

The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands.

The resolution met most of Israel's concerns regarding the refugees, whom they regarded as a potential fifth column if allowed to return unconditionally. The Israelis considered the settlement of the refugee issue a negotiable part of an overall peace settlement. As President Chaim Weizmann explained: “We are anxious to help such resettlement provided that real peace is established and the Arab states do their part of the job. The solution of the Arab problem can be achieved only through an all-around Middle East development scheme, toward which the United Nations, the Arab states and Israel will make their respective contributions.”

At the time the Israelis did not expect the refugees to be a major issue; they thought the Arab states would resettle the majority and some compromise on the remainder could be worked out in the context of an overall settlement. The Arabs were no more willing to compromise in 1949, however, than they had been in 1947. In fact, they unanimously rejected the UN resolution.

The General Assembly subsequently voted, on November 19, 1948, to establish the United Nations Relief For Palestinian Refugees (UNRPR) to dispense aid to the refugees. The UNRPR was replaced by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on December 8, 1949, and given a budget of $50 million.

UNRWA was designed to continue the relief program initiated by the UNRPR, substitute public works for direct relief and promote economic development. The proponents of the plan envisioned that direct relief would be almost completely replaced by public works, with the remaining assistance provided by the Arab governments.

UNRWA had little chance of success, however, because it sought to solve a political problem using an economic approach. By the mid­1950s, it was evident neither the refugees nor the Arab states were prepared to cooperate on the large-scale development projects originally foreseen by the Agency as a means of alleviating the Palestinians' situation. The Arab governments and the refugees themselves were unwilling to contribute to any plan that could be interpreted as fostering resettlement. They preferred to cling to their interpretation of Resolution 194, which they believed would eventually result in repatriation.

While Jewish refugees from Arab countries received no international assistance, Palestinians received millions of dollars through UNRWA. Initially, the United States contributed $25 million and Israel nearly $3 million. The total Arab pledges amounted to approximately $600,000. For the first 20 years, the United States provided more than two-thirds of the funds, while the Arab states continued to contribute a tiny fraction. Israel donated more funds to UNRWA than most Arab states. The Saudis did not match Israel's contribution until 1973; Kuwait and Libya, not until 1980. As recently as 1994, Israel gave more to UNRWA than all Arab countries except Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco. In 2003, the United States contributed more than $134 million of UNRWA's $326 million budget (41%). All of the Arab countries combined contributed less than $11 million (3%) and $7.8 million of that was from Saudi Arabia, meaning the rest of the Arab world contributed less than $3 million (1%).

Israel's Attitude Toward Refugees
When plans for setting up a state were made in early 1948, Jewish leaders in Palestine expected the population to include a significant Arab population. From the Israeli perspective, the refugees had been given an opportunity to stay in their homes and be a part of the new state. Approximately 160,000 Arabs had chosen to do so. To repatriate those who had fled would be, in the words of Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, “suicidal folly.”

Israel could not simply agree to allow all Palestinians to return, but consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. Israel's position was expressed by David Ben­Gurion (August 1, 1948):

When the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty with Israel this question will come up for constructive solution as part of the general settlement, and with due regard to our counter­claims in respect of the destruction of Jewish life and property, the long-term interest of the Jewish and Arab populations, the stability of the State of Israel and the durability of the basis of peace between it and its neighbors, the actual position and fate of the Jewish communities in the Arab countries, the responsibilities of the Arab governments for their war of aggression and their liability for reparation, will all be relevant in the question whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, the former Arab residents of the territory of Israel should be allowed to return.

The Israeli government was not indifferent to the plight of the refugees; an ordinance was passed creating a Custodian of Abandoned Property “to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops....”

The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return; agreed to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953); offered to pay compensation for abandoned lands and, finally, agreed to repatriate 100,000 refugees.

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.

Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees' blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million. In addition, through 1975, the Israeli government paid to more than 11,000 claimants more than 23 million Israeli pounds in cash and granted more than 20,000 acres as alternative holdings. Payments were made by land value between 1948 and 1953, plus 6 percent for every year following the claim submission.

After the Six-Day War, Israel allowed some West Bank Arabs to return. In 1967, more than 9,000 families were reunited and, by 1971, Israel had readmitted 40,000 refugees. By contrast, in July 1968, Jordan prohibited persons intending to remain in the East Bank from emigrating from the West Bank and Gaza.

Arab Attitudes Toward the Refugees
The UN discussions on refugees had begun in the summer of 1948, before Israel had completed its military victory; consequently, the Arabs still believed they could win the war and allow the refugees to return triumphant. The Arab position was expressed by Emile Ghoury, the Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee:

It is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews, as the latter would hold them as hostages and maltreat them. The very proposal is an evasion of responsibility by those responsible. It will serve as a first step towards Arab recognition of the State of Israel and partition.

The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the “right” of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since.

One reason for maintaining this position was the conviction that the refugees could ultimately bring about Israel's destruction, a sentiment expressed by Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah al-Din:

It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With a greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel (Al-Misri, October 11, 1949).

After the 1948 war, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and its more than 200,000 inhabitants, but refused to allow the Palestinians into Egypt or permit them to move elsewhere.

Although demographic figures indicated ample room for settlement existed in Syria, Damascus refused to consider accepting any refugees, except those who might refuse repatriation. Syria also declined to resettle 85,000 refugees in 1952-54, though it had been offered international funds to pay for the project. Iraq was also expected to accept a large number of refugees, but proved unwilling. Lebanon insisted it had no room for the Palestinians. In 1950, the UN tried to resettle 150,000 refugees from Gaza in Libya, but was rebuffed by Egypt.

Jordan was the only Arab country to welcome the Palestinians and grant them citizenship (to this day Jordan is the only Arab country where Palestinians as a group can become citizens). King Abdullah considered the Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians one people. By 1950, he annexed the West Bank and forbade the use of the term Palestine in official documents.

In 1952, the UNRWA set up a fund of $200 million to provide homes and jobs for the refugees, but it went untouched.

The plight of the refugees remained unchanged after the Suez War. In fact, even the rhetoric stayed the same. In 1957, the Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria, passed a resolution stating:

Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason (Beirut al Massa, July 15, 1957).

The treatment of the refugees in the decade following their displacement was best summed up by a former UNRWA official, Sir Alexander Galloway, in April 1952: “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

Little has changed in succeeding years. Arab governments have frequently offered jobs, housing, land and other benefits to Arabs and non-Arabs, excluding Palestinians. For example, Saudi Arabia chose not to use unemployed Palestinian refugees to alleviate its labor shortage in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Instead, thousands of South Koreans and other Asians were recruited to fill jobs.

The situation grew even worse in the wake of the Gulf War. Kuwait, which employed large numbers of Palestinians but denied them citizenship, expelled more than 300,000 of them. “If people pose a security threat, as a sovereign country we have the right to exclude anyone we don't want,” said Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasir Al-Sabah (Jerusalem Report, June 27, 1991).

Source: UNRWA

By the end of 2010, the number of Palestinian refugees on UNRWA rolls had risen to nearly 5 million, several times the number that left Palestine in 1948. In just the past three years, the number grew by 8 percent. Today, 42 percent of the refugees live in the territories; if you add those living in Jordan, 80 percent of the Palestinians currently live in “Palestine.” Though the popular image is of refugees in squalid camps, less than one-third of the Palestinians are in the 59 UNRWA-run camps.

During the years that Israel controlled the Gaza Strip, a consistent effort was made to get the Palestinians into permanent housing. The Palestinians opposed the idea because the frustrated and bitter inhabitants of the camps provided the various terrorist factions with their manpower. Moreover, the Arab states routinely pushed for the adoption of UN resolutions demandin
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 9:13 am
Still plagiarizing Gillian. This time the Jewish Virtual Library. Considering virtually all Israeli historians disagree with their assessment, the Dept. of Propaganda seems to be a little weak as a source.

If it makes you feel "cool" calling people names like "dotty" and "pillow" to John D. let it empower you. Every time I witness your behaviour, it reminds me of the girl in grade school, looking in from outside, the one without the prom date in high school, and it makes me quite sad. So if it makes you feel better, you go girl.

You seem to believe that support for equal rights to those who practice all faiths is somehow supporting their religion. This is clearly indicative of those who have bigoted and racist opinions. They often seem to believe that their belief system supercedes everyone else's, including those who really don't believe at all.

Trying to convince you of anything regarding me is of no consequence. As for answering questions, there is a whole post where you failed to answer any questions, but instead name called people instead of defending your own post. So forgive me if I feel that I don't have to answer to you. Usually, unless it is your usual bastardization of the historical record, I don't even read what you have to say.

Now in this case though, you are referring to the historical record, so of course, I will respond. I just wonder where you cribbed your material from this time. Your well of known hate sites is so deep, I never am quite sure which racist you are going to cite (which of course you will fail to cite or reference at all). Will it be Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer???

This is my response to your interpretation to the exodus of the Palestinian population from Palestine.

"The idea of transfer for the Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionist thought. Moral scruples hardly intervened in what was normally seen as a realistic and logical solution, a matter of expediency. Israel Zangvill, the founding father of the concept, advocated transfer as early as 1916. For, as he said, ‘if we wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two peoples. . . . One of the two – a different place must be found either for the Jews or for their neighbours.’" (Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, Ben Ami, Shlomo)

The reality on the ground was at times far simpler and more cruel than that which Ben-Gurion was ready to acknowledge. It was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, and at times atrocities and massacres, it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs’ monument of grief and hatred, like those of Dir Yassin, Ein Zeitun, Ilabun and Lydda; of operational orders like those of Moshe Carmel, the commander of the Carmeli Brigade in Operations Yiftah and Ben-Ami, ‘to attack in order to conquer, to kill the men, to destroy and burn the villages of Al-Kabri, Umm al Faraj and An Nahar’; and by the mass expulsions during the Yoav Operation. (Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, Ben Ami, Shlomo, p. 42)

"Yaacov Hazan, warned that ‘the robbery, killing, expulsion and rape of the Arabs could reach such proportions that we would no longer be able to stand’. And another member of the party, Aharon Zisling, even exclaimed in November 1948 that ‘Jews too have committed Nazi acts’." ((Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, Ben Ami, Shlomo, p. 43)

They could not fathom, a Palestinian historian was later to write, why 37 percent of the population had been given 55 percent of the land (of which they owned only 7 percent). And "the Palestinians failed to see why they should be made to pay for the Holocaust ... they failed to see why it was not fair for the Jews to be a minority in a unitary Palestinian state, while it was fair for almost half of the Palestinian population the indigenous majority on its own ancestral soil to be converted overnight into a minority under alien rule." (Righteous Victims, Morris, Benny, p. 203)

"According to Jerusalem Shai commander Levy (reporting on April 12), "the conquest of the village was carried out with great cruelty. Whole families women, old people, children were killed, and there were piles of dead [in various places]. Some of the prisoners moved to places of incarceration, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors." In a report the following day, he added: "LID members tell of the barbaric behavior [hitnahagut barbarit] of the IZL toward the prisoners and the dead. They also relate that the IZL men raped a number of Arab girls and murdered them afterward". (Righteous Victims, Morris, Benny, p. 203)


So I would like to ask why is it that people who aren't calling for a reversion of pre-1948 and support a two state solution where rights of all people are upheld is considered an anti-semite view point, yet the expulsion of a population from their ancestral homes is considered morally right? What would you like to do with them Gillian? Obviously, a two state solution is not something you are onboard with, nor does it seem that you support a one state solution with equal rights and citizenship to the Palestinians. That leaves very little left, so I ask, what solution do you support Gillian. Do you support expulsion murder? Do you even have a line drawn in the sand that you won't cross. I doubt it. It has become pretty clear that it doesn't matter what is done to the Palestinian population or those who reside in an Arab Staet or those who are Muslim. It seems that you believe that these people are sub human and don't deserve the same rights as the Jewish Israeli population.

Bringing in what other countries do, is not only ineffectual, but also is demonstrated by people whose argument are non existent and essentially "they have nothing else". If we all thought that way, we would have no problem with people stating that pre-civil rights America was a good time for African Americans because they would have been treated worse in Africa.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 1:51 pm
Should Britain now cry victim because America has more land than it, or Japan cry victim because China has more land than it?

Should Britain and Japan now blame their lack of prosperity/happiness on the size of America and China respectively?

Or should Israel cry victim because the neighbouring countries have so much land and Israel is so very tiny? Should Israel blame her lack of prosperity/happiness on the size of all the Arab lands surrounding Israel? In spite of all the troubles the surrounding Arab countries cause Israel (and increasingly EU countries), she's prosperous and happy.

Sorry, your argument makes no sense to me at all.
 

Lydia S. (71)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 7:14 pm
@ Alexandra Rodda who wrote: "I work as a psychiatrist, ..."

Well then, you automatically lose ALL credibility ... it's a profession dedicated to the concept of categorizing everyone as having an "illness", "syndrome", "disorder" -- and putting all people on some mind altering prescription drug! An unethical, Multi Billion dollar industry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_8hZoVKjE
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 7:17 pm
Alexandra - And what does your post have to do with anything???

Lydia - Yes, the credibility of youtube. You are actually categorizing someone now by their profession which is something you are accusing them of doing. Makes a whole load of sense.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 8:13 pm
Lydia S. Perhaps you should seek some psychiatric help for your very obvious problems!
 

Alexa R. (333)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 12:06 am
Lydia S, excellent comment. Star on its way to you.

Psychiatrists are simply legalised drug lords, getting rich through exploiting ignorant patients, often even to death.

Michael Jackson is but one example of someone who died on an ever-increasing cocktail of psychiatric drugs and other legalised drugs.

The fatal casualties list on the back of the psychiatric door is increasingly alarming. Their drug industry is booming.

 

Beth S. (330)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 12:39 am
I agree, Monica. I'm no fan of Michelle Bachman, but on this one, the evidence is squarely in her corner.

This should be investigated for the good of the whole country.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 1:02 am
Please tell us why Beth. There is NO evidence to support any of these claims!
 

Rob and Jay B. (121)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 3:33 am
Carrie et al, here is an excellent and well documented article about Huma Abedin's ties with the sinister Muslim Brotherhood and the MB's reach into this administration. There is so much info on this but sadly so many who are so blinded by their need to be politically correct, even to the point of appeasing and defending our enemies (just like so many liberals did with Hitler and the Nazis) that the MB could tell you to your faces what their goals are and you'd just call them islamophobes.

http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bachmann-Final_072312.pdf

This article is written by an ex-Muslim Palestinian Terrorist. Are you going to dismiss his well resourced proofs too? Do you hate the Conservatives so much that you'll refuse to believe anything they say, no matter if it is true? How sad. You're playing right into the hands of these nuts who have sworn to destroy our civilization (http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20). Do you think they're kidding? Just look at the daily carnage from these Islamists around the world.

Islam has been at war with us all for 1400 years, just as Mohammed did and commanded them to do. Muslims are commanded to conquer the world for Allah and they are told to do it by the sword, deceit, infiltration, outbreeding and to lie to us until they 'get the advantage' over the infidel (they even list 4 different methods of lying to promote Islam and conquer us).

The Iranian people opened the door and welcomed them in and look where it got them.

Here's an article about how Arab Liberals lament how the West has been fooled by the MB, and they should know. We've let them down and their dreams of freedom and true democracy: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=356704

Here's the MB and its connection with the Nazis (one of its founders had close ties with Hitler and was passionate about exterminating all Jews, as Islam commands): http://www.educationnews.org/breaking_news/106849.html

Here's one about Obama's ties to the MB and their reach into his administration: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/want-to-know-just-how-close-the-muslim-brotherhood-is-to-the-obama-admin/

Here's one about the Obama administration admitting to 'hundreds' of secret meetings with the MB US front CAIR: http://news.yahoo.com/administration-admits-hundreds-meetings-jihad-linked-group-163206947.html

Hundreds of meetings with a convicted terrorist funding group who has stated a goal of making Islam dominant in the US. There are so many articles about this evil group and how they are infiltrated into every level of government and education throughout the country and how they've even managed to get textbooks changed starting with 7th grade to teach their propaganda that Mohammed was a Christ-like man of love and peace and people flocked to Islam because of its glorious loving message! Total lies, but the PC brigade attacks anyone who tries to expose what these enemies of freedom are up to. You'd never put up with what these creeps are doing from any other group.

You all who keep defending this cult of death and hate should learn about it before you jump on those of us who have actually studied it. We used to be ignorant of Islam, just like you, and are embarrassed to admit it. We've read the Qur'an and hadith. Have you? You should. It's sickening in its debauchery, cruelty, hate, violence, mass murder, banditry, rape, sexual slavery, pedophilia, and everything that normal people would think of as ungodly. This is not a religion of peace, tolerance, love, turn the other cheek, nonviolence or forgiveness. Quite the opposite.

Ignorance may be bliss but it is no excuse. Get some knowledge, then decide whose side you're on - human and civil rights, freedom of speech, conscience and religion, or the side of Islam - oppression and death for those who question, criticize or leave it and for gay people. Women are to be treated as 'domestic animals' and children are for sexual gratification.

Here's the online sites for the accepted translations of the Qur'an:
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/ And the ahadith (the words and actions of Mohammed that makes the Qur'an make some sense):
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/ (although some of the most graphic chapters of Bukhari, the best and most accepted, have been removed so as not to 'confuse' us poor infidels with the truth of Mohammed's debauchery and the admission of the flaws in the qur'an)

Read these, then try to defend this bunch. You should start trying to defend the victims of this evil cult, which includes millions of Muslims who are trapped in it. You do them and all the other victims any favors by appeasing, promoting and defending their oppressors. Whose side are you on?
 

Carola May (20)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 6:05 am
Doesn't anyone ever stop and think there is some truth to these accusations? Buddhism is a much faster growing religion in the US than Islam but when is the last time a convert to Buddhism murdered someone in the name of Buddha, even though they face some very harsh persecution and ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh and Thailand from Muslims who are trying to drive them out of their traditional homes so Islam can establish total rule over their lands. Just like has happened for 1400 years. (Where is the outrage over this?)

When is the last time there was a Buddhist suicide bomber? A Jewish one, even though the Jews are being persecuted greatly by Muslims here in Europe right now, just like it was in the 1930s with the Nazis? Now it is Muslims driving them out of the places where they once found refuge (like Malmo, Sweden), because Mohammed and his hateful deity said Muslims must kill all Jews or their Day of Resurrection won't come. Nice. Where is your outrage for this? And this is part of the dogma of these groups that have their tentacles in many parts of the US government, if you bothered to do some real research instead of just believe the propaganda of the puppets.

Hinduism is growing faster in the US than Islam too. Where are their terrorists? When was the last Hindu in the news for plotting a terror act to murder people? Hinduism and Buddhism don't teach murder and conquest as Islam does. In fact, if you knew any history at all, you'd know that the Islamic conquest of India slaughtered 80million non-Muslims who refused to convert to this religion of war and hate. 'Pagans' like Hindus and Buddhists are only given the choice to convert or die. The Muslim conquistadors virtually exterminated Buddhism in its birthplace and destroyed its shrines and temples and many of Hinduism's too. The oldest Muslim mosque in India is built with the stones of an ancient Hindu temple destroyed by the Muslims.

Only Islam produces and teaches violence and conquest over those who are not members of it. Only Islam produces suicide bombers and terrorists despite the fact that across the Muslim occupied world right now Muslims are ethnically cleansing, burning out, driving out and murdering non-Muslims and little violence in return is found. War, killing, banditry and lying to infidels are major tenets of this 'religion', commanded by its founder and god, and, sadly, so many westerners fall for the lies so easily. Where is the outrage over this?

Duke University research reports during the ten years that followed 911 “Almost 200 Muslim-Americans have been involved in violent plots of terrorism over this decade, and more than 400 Muslim-Americans have been indicted or convicted for supporting terrorism.” See conclusion on page 8 of report.

http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tcths/documents/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_the_Decade_Since_9_11.pdf

There are four kinds of lies Muslims are encouraged to use against us and they are masters at lying:
Taqiyya, Kitman, Tawriya and Muruna. Look them up and see if you can figure out which ones are being used in the denials of the MB infiltration in this government (they were in both Bushes's and Clinton's administrations too, and now they have great influence to silence all criticism of the Islamist threat in both US mainstream corporate-owned parties. You should all be very concerned about this).

"They (Muslims) may say one thing to you in front of CNN but I can assure you behind your backs... they are standing with their Muslim brother and sisters... It is an Islamic obligation."
-- Imam Anjem Choudary UK Islamic Scholar, Theologian, Lecturer London School of Sharia

Are you going to laugh off this Orthodox Muslim leader's statement too? Scary.
 

Ge M. (218)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 6:37 am
Carrie, is there any evidence to show that Abedin isn't?

You have been offered facts but you choose to ignore them rather like dotty. She still have not answered any of my questions which I have asked her over a couple of years and, obviously, cannot.
 

Ge M. (218)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 6:37 am
Darwish: Why Muslims Hate Jews
Former Muslim and freedom activist Nonie Darwish is a great warrior for human rights. She joined me at our AFDI/SIOA Summer Night for Human Rights in Manhattan Beach, California on June 23:

Why Muslims Must Hate Jews Nonie Darwish

Recently a Pakistani religious leader, Pirzada Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai,
said: 'When The Jews Are Wiped Out... The Sun Of Peace Would Begin To Rise On The Entire World'. The same preaching is routinely done not only by clerics but politicians, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. This is not just Ahmedinijad, it is at the heart of Islamic theology that world peace will be established only when all the Jews are wiped from the earth. But few people in Western media are alarmed by this kind of rhetoric or care to expose this dreadful dark side of Islam's obsession with Jew hatred.

I do not believe one has to be an authority on human behavior or group thinking to find out the obvious pathology in Islamic Jew hatred. It is time for all of us to uncover and expose this atrocity against the Jewish people.
We owe that to humanity and the truth.

No true Muslim can see that such hatred is unbecoming and unholy for a world religion to focus on and that the credibility of Islam is tarnished by such hatred. No Muslim is allowed to go far enough to self analyze or question why such hatred. Muslims defend Jew hatred by claiming that Jews betrayed Muhammad and thus deserving of this kind of treatment. Even when I was a Muslim, I believed that the one sided story against Jews by Islam, was enough to justify all the killing, terror, lies and propaganda by Islamic leaders against Jews. To the average Muslim, routinely cursing Jews in mosques feels normal and even holy!

After a lot of thinking, analysis, research and writing I discovered that Jew hatred in Islam is an essential foundation to the Islamic belief system that Muslims cannot seem to be able to rid themselves of. Jew hatred masks an existential problem in Islam. Islam is terrified of the Jews and the number one enemy of Islam is the truth that must be constantly covered at any cost. It does not matter how many Muslim men women and children die in the process of saving Islam's reputation. The number one duty of Muslims is to protect the reputation of Islam and Mohammad. But why would a religion burden its followers like that? This is why:

When Mohammed embarked on his mission to spread Islam, his objective was to create a uniquely Arabian religion, one created by an Arab prophet, which reflected the Arabian values and culture. Yet to obtain legitimacy, he had to link it to the two previous Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity. He expected the Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia to declare him their Messiah and thereby bring him more legitimacy with Arabs, especially with his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraish. Because his own tribe had rejected and ridiculed him, Mohammed needed the approval of the Jews, whom he called the people of the book. But the conversion of Jews to Islam was part of the scenario that Mohammed had to accomplish in order to prove to Meccans that they had made a mistake by rejecting him.

That was one of the reasons Mohammed chose to migrate to Medina, a town that had predominantly been settled by Jewish tribes and a few impoverished Arabs who lived around the Jews. The Jews allowed Mohammed to move in. At the beginning, the Koran of Mecca was full of appeals to the Jews, who were then described as "guidance and light" (5:44) and a "righteous" people (6:153-154), who "excelled the nations" (45:16). But when the Jews rejected the appeasement and refused to convert to Islam, Mohammed simply and literally flipped. The Quran changed from love to threats and then pure hatred, cursing and commandments to kill Jews. Rejection by the Jews became an intolerable obsession with Mohammed.

Not only did the Jews reject him, but also their prosperity made Mohammed extremely envious. The Jewish Arabian tribes earned their living from legitimate and successful business, but Mohammed earned his living and wealth through warfare, by attacking Arab tribes, some of whom were from his own tribe, and trade caravans and seizing their wealth and property. That did not look good for a man who claimed to be a prophet of God. The mere existence of the Jews made Mohammed look bad which led Mohammed to unspeakable slaughter, beheading of 600 to 900 Jewish men of one tribe, and taking their women and children as slaves. Mohammed had the first pick of the prettiest woman as his sex slave. All of this senseless slaughter of the Jews was elaborately documented in Islamic books on the life of Mohammed, not as something to be ashamed of, but as justified behavior against evil people.

One does not have to be a psychiatrist to see the obvious, that Mohammad was a tormented man after the massacre he orchestrated and forced his fighters to undertake, to empower and enrich himself and his religion. To reduce his torment, he needed everyone around him as well as future generations, to participate in the genocide against the Jews, the only people whom he could not control. An enormous number of verses in the Koran encouraged Mohammed's fighters to fight, kill and curse Muslim fighters who wanted to escape fighting and killing Jews. The Quran is full of promises of all kinds of pleasure in heaven to those who followed Mohammed's killing spree and curses and condemnation to those who chose to escape from fighting. Muslims were encouraged to feel no hesitation or guilt for the genocide because it was not they who did it, but "Allah's hand" was behind the killing.

Mohammed never got over his anger, humiliation, and rejection by "the people of the book" and went to his grave tormented and obsessed that some Jews are still alive. At his deathbed Mohammed entrusted Muslims to kill Jews wherever they found them, which made this a "holy commandment" that no Muslim can reject. Muslims who wrote Sharia, understood how Mohammed was extremely sensitive to criticism and that is why criticizing Mohammed became the highest crime in Islam that will never be forgiven even if the offender repents. Mohammed's message on his deathbed was not for his followers to strive for holiness, peace, goodness, and to treat their neighbors as themselves, but a commandment for Muslims to continue the killing and the genocide against the Jews.

Killing thus became a holy act of obedience to Mohammed and Allah himself.
Mohammed portrayed himself as a victim of Jews and Muslims must avenge him till judgment day. With all Arab power, money and influence around the world today they still thrive at portraying themselves as victims. Sharia also codified into law the duty of every Muslim to defend Mohammed's honor and Islam with their blood and allowed the violation of many commandments if it is for the benefit of defending Islam and Mohammed. Thus Muslims are carrying a huge burden, a holy burden, to defend Mohammed with their blood and in doing so they are allowed to kill, lie, cheat, slander etc.

Mohammed must have felt deep and extreme shame after what he had done to the Jews and thus a very good reason had to be found to explain away his genocide. Thus by commanding Muslims to continue the genocide for him, even after his death, Mohammad expanded the shame to cover all Muslims and Islam itself. All Muslims were commanded to follow Mohammed's example and chase the Jews wherever they went. One hundred years after Mohammed's death, Arabs occupied Jerusalem, and built Al Aqsa mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple ruins, the holiest spot of the Jews. Muslims thought they erased all memory of Jewish existence.

Mohammed's genocide of the Jews of Arabia became an unholy dark mark of shame in Islamic history, and that shame, envy, and anger continues to get the best of Muslims today. In the eyes of Mohammed and Muslims, the mere existence of the Jewish people, let alone an entire Jewish state, de-legitimizes Islam and makes Mohammed look more like a mass murderer than a prophet. For Muslims to make peace with Jews and acknowledge that Jews are humans who deserve the same rights as everyone else would have a devastating effect on how Muslims view their religion, their history and the actions of their prophet.

Islam has a major existential problem. By no will of their own, the Jews found themselves in the middle of this Islamic dilemma. Islam must justify the genocide that Mohammad waged against the Jews. Mohammad and Muslims had two choices: either the Jews are evil sub-humans, apes, pigs, and enemies of Allah, a common description of Jews still heard regularly in Middle Eastern mosques today, or Mohammad was a genocidal warlord and not fit to be a prophet of God, a choice that would mean the end of Islam.

Then and now, Mohammad and Muslims clearly chose the first worldview and decreed that any hint of the second must be severely punished. Jews must remain eternally evil enemies of Islam, if Islam is to remain legitimate.
There is no third solution to save the core of Islam from collapsing; either Mohammed was evil, or the Jews were evil. Any attempt to forgive, humanize, or live peacefully with Jews is considered treason against Islam. How can Muslims forgive the Jews and then go back to their mosques, only to read their prophet's words, telling them they must kill Jews wherever they find them? It does not add up, if someone wants to remain Muslim.

That is why, the number one enemy of Islam is, and must remain, the truth.
If the truth exposes Islam's unjustified Jew hatred, Muslims will be left with an empty shell of a religion, a religion whose prophet was a murderer, a thief and a warlord; without Jew hatred Islam would self-destruct.
 

Ge M. (218)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 6:50 am
dotty dislikes any source that provides substantiation to its comments. Anyone can write a history from their point of view and I am fully aware that those called the Palestinians are rewriting theirs to try and look like a genuine people with a history. Their history starts after the 6 Day War and not before.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 5:32 pm
If it was actually accurate history Gillian. Always the little girl looking in from the outside to where she doesn't belong. Breaks my heart. If you actually knew any historical fact Gillian maybe you wouldn't have made a complete fool of yourself on your own article which you couldn't defend. Remember that? I would be happy to provide a link if you have misplaced it. As for Nonie Darwish? Give me a break Gillian. That really is funny.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 8:08 pm
Just want to share this too, which is what I have been saying all along. You see, real friends don't let other friends drive off a cliff at high speed for amusement. This is from Walt.

"By contrast, Israel's loudest defenders (and those in the middle who are cowed by them) are the ones whose short-sighted focus has allowed the occupation to persist and deepen over time. Their unthinking loyalty has helped squander genuine opportunities for peace, empowered extremists on both sides, and prolonged a long and bitter conflict. The question to ask is simple: Where do they think this is headed? "
 

Alexa R. (333)
Monday August 6, 2012, 1:28 am
Perhaps it would be wise to listen to/speak with some real Palestinians, a variety of Israelis whether academic or not - who walks the walk and talks the talk, instead of only those "top tier Jewish academics" you mentioned. Just a suggestion, please don't shoot the messenger ..

http://www.care2.com/news/member/963664183/3070364

According to research done by a Palestinian economics student (Issa Smeirat) for his master’s thesis, over 16,000 Palestinian businessmen invested between 2.5 billion and 5.8 billion dollars in Israel in 2010. These businessmen, who live in Palestinian-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria, have established companies and factories throughout Israel (gasp!).

Interestingly, most of these businessmen speak Hebrew and have a median age of 40. 20% of these businessmen told Smeirat that they only invest in Israel and in the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria–while another 20% reported that their investments are evenly divided between Israel, the Jewish communities, and other countries abroad.

So why do these Palestinians invest in Israel and in the Jewish communities? They told Smeirat that they do so for 7 reasons:

1. Incompetent business management in Palestinian controlled areas (the Palestinian businessmen prefer hiring Israelis to manage their businesses)

2. An Israeli tax system that encourages investment

3. A friendly and more experienced business environment in Israel

4. Israel’s more highly developed international trade relations

5. Easy access to banks

6. Familiarity with Israeli society and how it works

7. The higher cost of production in Palestinian controlled areas and other Arab countries

Finally, where does the money end up that these Palestinian businessmen make? In Palestinian towns and villages throughout Judea and Samaria."

by George Rooks

77% Palestinian Arabs: We like Living in Israel best
By Judith A. Klinghoffer

It is difficult to find a more neglected story than the relative satisfaction of Palestinian Arabs living in Israel as is revealed from a recent Harvard Study. (Palestinians Arabs (including those living in greater Jerusalem) constitute 20% of the population). Aware of inconvenient polls which reveal that Palestinian living in Israel are vehemently opposed to becoming citizens of Palestine, the researchers did their best to lower the satisfaction number by phrasing the question so as to receive the most negative number. They asked Palestinian Arab if they would rather live in Israel or in any other country in the world.

77% of the State of Israel’s Arab citizens would rather live in the Jewish state than in any other country in the world, according to a new study titled “Coexistence in Israel”. The study was aimed at examining the relations between Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens on the State’s 60th anniversary, and included 1,721 respondents.

The findings also revealed that a great majority of Israel’s citizens (73% of the Jews and 94% of the Arabs) want to live in a society in which Arab and Jewish citizens have mutual respect and equal opportunities.

66% percent of Jewish citizens and 84% of Arab citizens believe the Israeli government investments should begin now, and not wait until the end of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians."

 

Past Member (0)
Monday August 6, 2012, 2:50 am
Alexandra - Why would it be shocking that Palestinian business men would invest in Israel which has an unrestricted economy? Palestinians savings stand at about $7 billion, $ 5billion is invested internationally (this does not include investment in Israel) which certainly indicates that there is an absence of investment opportunity in the West Bank. Is this supposed to be shocking that investment would lie outside of the West bank?

What does that have to do with

a) checkpoints (restriction of movement - contrary to Artice 13 - UDHR)

b) collective punishment (contrary to 4th Geneva Convention, Article 33, Geneva Convention, Protocol I), Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d)

c) Human Rights Violations - contrary to United Nations Charter, Article 1(3) & 55, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1 & 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (18 July 1976), articles I & II, Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Principle 5, Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), articles 72-79 (Articles 72, 73, 75 )

d) Illegal Acquisition of Land by Force - contrary to UN Charter, Article 2, para. 4, Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970), Principle 1, Hague Regulations IV, Articles 43 & 55, Geneva Conventions IV, (Article 47 & 54)

e) Illegal Population Transfer - contrary to Geneva Conventions, Article 49(6),
Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) Article 85(4a)

f) Destruction of Holy Places, interfering with Ministers of Religion performing their religious duties - contrary to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 5(d.vii), The Hague Regulations, Article 55 & 56, Geneva Conventions of 1949, Articles articles 30, 38, 58, 76, 78, 86, 93 & 142

g) Practice of Racism - contrary to International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 1(1), Declaration of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Article 2, International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Articles 3 & 4, International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Articles I & II

h) Practice of Apartheid - contrary to International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Articles I & II

i) Violation of Arab Family Unity - contrary to 2003 Law, Articles 3(1), 3(1), 3(2), 4(1), 4(2), 3, 3A(1), 3A(2), 3B(1), 3B(2), 3B(3), 3C, 3D, contrary to Amendment (2005), Article 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D.

j) Illegal Modification of Local Law - contrary to Hague Regulations IV, article 43

k) Illegal Defacto Annexation - contrary to UN Charter, article 2, para. 4 ,Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations, Article 1 , Hague Regulations IV , Articles 43 & 55, Geneva Conventions IV, Article 54 , Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), article 4

l) Right to Self Determination - UN Charter, Article 1, para. 2; Article 2, para. 4; Articles 55 & 56, Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations, Principle 1 & 5, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1(1), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) (8 June 1977), Article 1(4)

m) Genocide - International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Articles 2&3, Geneva Conventions IV, Article 147, Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 85 (1977)

I think that covers everything, but I could be wrong, there could be many, many more. Just as Sarah Palin likes to say the English is a living language, this occupation is a living and evolving occupation. So who knows what they are up to now.

As for living within the State of Israel. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't. Even with discrimination which exists within Israel it still beats living in the West Bank or Gaza for that matter due to all of the reasons a -m listed above. Further " Arabs say they prefer Israel's jobs, schools, health care and welfare benefits to those of a Palestinian state -- and their nationalism is not strong enough for them to set aside these advantages in order to live in an Arab country. The East Jerusalemites don't much love Israel -- they say they suffer from discrimination" ("Why Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens", Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2011)

With that said, do you really think that Israel wants this too? Do you think that they are going to be handing out citizenship to those in East Jerusalem, Hebron, etc? If you think so, then I guess you have just solved the whole peace process, given up the "Jewish" state in favour for a one-state solution. Bravo Alexandra, go tell Bibi of your new plan and see what reaction you get.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday August 6, 2012, 3:21 am
Rob/Jay - Well documented? I gather the academic rigor in Spain or maybe just in the Rob/Jay world seems to be significantly lower or non existent than the rest of the world. And you left America for intellectualism?????

Your article or pdf file is not well documented. Walid Shoebat? Maybe he could marry Nonie Darwish and they could both live in the land of delusion.

Walid Shoebat - lived in the land in question for only the beginning of his life, converted in 1983 (way before any intifada, any big restriction or impact on his life). His "PLO affiliations" are found to be very questionable by any self respecting academic or intellectual (which you seem to hold in such high esteem - so it doesn't meet your bar of standard, unless you truly are not an intellectual of any sort). His claim to throwing a bomb at Bank Leumi is dubious as there is no record of it whatsoever. His response when questioned in an interview with JPost (2008) regarding the lack of reporting of this incident was "I don't know. I didn't read the papers because I was in hiding for the next three days". In addition, after he claimed that Islam had a huge influence in his education, his own uncle contradicted this and stated that Walid had left Bethlehem when he was 16.

In addition, Debbie Schussel, poster child for Islamophobia, Israeli absolutism claims that Walid Shoebat is a fraud and that he has plagiarized her work. Walid Shoebat claims that his work is a registered charitable organization, registered in Pennsylvania, yet when JPost (yes, poster child for Israeli also) checked, they found no record of this registration as a charitable organization in the records of the State Attorney's office (WHERE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD BE REGISTERED).

Due to a report by Anderson Cooper on CNN, the Israeli government also denies Shoebat's claims of the bank bombing. In other words, didn't happen. Also contrary to his claims of being imprisoned in an Israeli jail, there also is no record of this according to the State of Israel.

Aside: Interesting fact, Walid Shoebat also lectures often to "End of Times" Groups. Not that it is relevant to his claim of terrorist extraordinaire who has now devoted his life to God (maybe his devotion has something to do with his bank account), but is quite interesting and kind of elevates him to the nutbar status.

So this wonderful source you have come up with, is not only disputed by people like me, but also by people like you. Come on, if you are going to go down this road, at least spend a little more time researching and a little less pasting and cutting. It seems the people who support Walid Shoebat are the people who are proven time after time, and yes, after time that they fail to bother fact checking anything and their response to proof which demonstrates that they are wrong are met with a Gillian response which seems to consist of hysterical ranting.

Yes, I see that much of this "proof" comes from Oxford, as we well know is the hotbed of terrorist activity. Give me a break. Use your noodle Rob/Jay.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Monday August 6, 2012, 8:55 am
Naming or listing a bunch of regulations, etc proves nothing. If you accuse Israel of having broken those points a to m (Israel has not been convicted of any of those, not even investigated as regards those), I can go into detail refuting each of those points a to m in Israel's defense, if I had the time to share it here, but I don't. As each point has several exhibits of proof of Israel's innocence.

All I can say is please feel free to be the 'judge/jury' that 'convicts' Israel with baseless opinions a-m without any proof to substatiate your wild accusations, if it somehow makes you 'happy' as nothing I say will ever change your mind -- or alternatively do your own investigation and you will discover Israel is not the demon or monster you seem to claim she is.
 

Kit B. (276)
Monday August 6, 2012, 9:38 am

All of this nonsense and repetition of empty rhetoric over a statement made by none other than the IDIOT Michelle Bachmann. Like the Idiot Bachmann who speaks before having any viable information or those pesky things called FACTS. You gang of twits have done the same. Though you may devote your time and energy to digging out unsubstantiated information, like Bachmann you offer no fact, only conjecture.

Conjecture: Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

Gillian, you ask that Margaret prove a negative? That may be part of your legal system but, fortunately not a part of ours. No one needs prove that Huma Abedin is not a part of any so called terror group, rather accusers must prove the opposite and so far, in all of ramblings here, that PROOF is lacking.

When Michelle Bachmann is taken seriously by any one it simply casts them in the same light as this lunatic. This is the woman who tossed her hat in the ring for presidential candidate, because god told her to do that. While those who pray are hoping to speak to god, those who believe god speaks to them are considered to be less than stable, or as many professionals would say; "she suffers from a form of schizophrenia."

This is the woman [Bachmann] you have chosen to believe and gather around? Or is this just another attempt to corrupt any thread that gives the ugly "gang of barking dogs" an opportunity to act out in their typical cultish and highly misguided angst to show their undying devotion to Israel? Then of course, is the need to slander and corrupt any one that might of the Islamic faith. I don't know about your country, but here that is encompassed by one word, bigotry.

(once again I apologise to all dogs for any mischaracterization by association)
 

Arielle S. (317)
Monday August 6, 2012, 9:45 am
Dear Kit - AMEN
 

Lydia S. (71)
Monday August 6, 2012, 1:43 pm
@ "Anonymous 'No Picture' " (Is this allowed on Care2 ? or is this Margaret/Dotty Mayer?) who wrote: "How crazy is it that we are now going to accuse people who have been vetted and placed under the microscope of subversion because of their faith?"

Crazy? Let's see, from the Wikipedia article, link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

"The Fort Hood shooting took place on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood. The sole suspect is Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army Major -- serving as a PSYCHIATRIST. He was shot and taken into custody by Department of the Army Civilian Police officers. Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; he may face additional charges at court-martial. If he is convicted, he could be given the death penalty.

Hasan is a Palestinian-American. Internal Army reports indicate officers within the Army had discussed what they characterized as Hasan's tendencies toward radical Islam since 2005. Investigations before & after the shooting discovered e-mail communications between Hasan & Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who quickly declared Hasan a hero, as "fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty". (according to many "knowledgeable" muslim apologists, jihad is not an islamic duty!)

After communications between the two were forwarded to FBI terrorism task forces in 2008, ** they determined that Hasan was not a threat prior to the shooting and that his questions to al-Awlaki were consistent with medical research.**

(I wonder if this "task force" was comprised of some Care2 muslim apologists, as are attacking those who think Abedin should be investigated?)

As for "faith", we're talking about islam -- a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY! Enough said!
 

Lydia S. (71)
Monday August 6, 2012, 1:52 pm
Another statement to note in reference to Hasan:

"Michael Welner, M.D., a leading forensic psychiatrist, with experience examining mass shooters, said that the shooting had elements common to both ideological and workplace mass shootings. Welner, who believed the motivation was to create a "spectacle", said that a trauma care worker, even one afflicted with stress, would not be expected to be homicidal toward his patients -- unless his ideology trumped his Hippocratic oath – and this was borne out in his shouting "Allahu Akhbar" as he killed his unarmed victims."

This is a Jihadists call to war! and an expression of his "faith" ! And this is NOT Constitutionally protected "speech"!
 

Carrie B. (306)
Monday August 6, 2012, 2:39 pm
Lydia, why are quoting a psychiatrist to make your case, but you earlier stated that care2 member Alexandra Rodda's statement had no credibility because she was a psychiatrist. Have you decided what side of the fence you are on here? Maybe the psychiatric profession is only credible in your eyes when it agrees with your misguided belief system.
 

Carrie B. (306)
Monday August 6, 2012, 2:40 pm
Sorry Dotty, I guess our comments crossed paths.
 

Lydia S. (71)
Monday August 6, 2012, 9:29 pm
@ Carrie B who wrote: "Lydia, why are quoting a psychiatrist to make your case, but you earlier stated that care2 member Alexandra Rodda's statement had no credibility because she was a psychiatrist. Have you decided what side of the fence you are on here? Maybe the psychiatric profession is only credible in your eyes when it agrees with your misguided belief system."

You silly twit -- I see you totally missed the point ... and fell into the big hole of your own making, LOL!

Here we have a PSYCHIATRIST, who despite "professional training" and an "honorable/credible profession", embraces Jihad ... and this ideology is more important to him than his allegience to his country, his fellow servicemen, and even to his family!

Furthermore, his fellow PSYCHIATRISTS were unaware that he was going off the "deep end", perhaps even medicating himself -- showing once again, the complete failure of this "profession", to police itself, "Treat" its patients, etc.

Despite his "Profession", and acces to all those "effective drugs" -- he was persuaded to become a homicidal maniac, gunning down all those people -- including a 21 year old PREGNANT woman -- for "allahu akhbar" ...

Need I explain this any further ... who judges "crazy" here???
 

Lydia S. (71)
Monday August 6, 2012, 9:46 pm
@ Dotty Mayer who wrote: "Lydia - Using Wiki as a source is like me using the National Enquirer as a source. Not very credible."

Hmmm, I guess all those "WikiLeaks" were also "not very credible" ... now be a good girl, and get Julian Assange released ;-) ... it's all been a big mistake, all those "leaks" were not reliable.

I don't take your word or your "sources" too seriously, Dotty, Margaret, or whoever you are .... you can't even get your own name straight, lol ... as for National Enquirer, I have never bought nor read a single issue. Now, what do YOU know so much about that "source" ... seems you might be a fan?
 

Carrie B. (306)
Monday August 6, 2012, 10:11 pm
Lydia, not a very good save. This is your complete comment:


@ Alexandra Rodda who wrote: "I work as a psychiatrist, ..."

Well then, you automatically lose ALL credibility ... it's a profession dedicated to the concept of categorizing everyone as having an "illness", "syndrome", "disorder" -- and putting all people on some mind altering prescription drug! An unethical, Multi Billion dollar industry!"

That comment was followed by a link to this video The Marketing of Madness

You really shouldn't try to side step like that or you are going to be the one falling in that big hole you created for yourself.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.