[art_director]

I've wondered about the Palestinians and their fight for land. They shout about what the Israelis have taken but say nothing of what Egypt, among other nations, took from them.

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

As if there would be only one nuclear detonation and that would end the dispute?

Guess again.

It's better than the USA trying to "solve" the problem every time, and only getting dragged through the mud for doing so. Iran wants to escalate the tension for political reasons. Let them do it; maybe they'll stop their pansy-ass passive-agressive Hezbollah proxy-terrorism and actually fight it out. I'm sure Tehran will love the new infrastructure. Perhaps then, the populace will reign in their leaders -- including states like Lebanon that are "helplessly" letting it all happen.

If we're there to keep everything above-board and fair, then guess who the loser will always be...

Regardless any of this, we need to get off oil.

Soon.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Population transfer? Explain please.

I am referring to the ideology of Rabbi Meir Kahane or that of Rehavam Ze'evi, both of whom were assasinated by terrorists.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director 

I've wondered about the Palestinians and their fight for land. They shout about what the Israelis have taken but say nothing of what Egypt, among other nations, took from them.

Like what?

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

It's better than the USA trying to "solve" the problem every time, and only getting dragged through the mud for doing so. Iran wants to escalate the tension for political reasons. Let them do it; maybe they'll stop their pansy-ass passive-agressive Hezbollah proxy-terrorism and actually fight it out. I'm sure Tehran will love the new infrastructure. Perhaps then, the populace will reign in their leaders -- including states like Lebanon that are "helplessly" letting it all happen.

If we're there to keep everything above-board and fair, then guess who the loser will always be...

Regardless any of this, we need to get off oil.

Soon.

Outline a nuclear scenario that wouldn't result in the US becoming involved.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ink 

Regardless any of this, we need to get off oil.

I think we can all agree on this.

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

Outline a nuclear scenario that wouldn't result in the US becoming involved.

Iran and Israel point enough nukes at each other to achieve mutual assured destruction.

The end.

See also: USA and Soviet Union.

Edit: ugly infinitive

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ink 

Iran and Israel point enough nukes at each other to assure mutual assured destruction.

The end.

Wrong. People like marden would then argue that the US get involved by giving Israel more nukes than Iran and by destroying Iran's nukes.

[Mark Larr]

Excellent thought!

Would make the world much safer for Jews.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wrong. People like marden would then argue that the US get involved by giving Israel more nukes than Iran and by destroying Iran's nukes.

The whole point of MAD is that adding any more is superfluous.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ink 

Iran and Israel point enough nukes at each other to achieve mutual assured destruction.

The end.

See also: USA and Soviet Union.

Edit: ugly infinitive

MAD only works when both parties are invested in their continued existence. Are you so sure this is the case for Iran?

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Iran and Israel point enough nukes at each other to achieve mutual assured destruction.

The end.

See also: USA and Soviet Union.

Edit: ugly infinitive

Ugly infinitive back at you.

That is a rather one dimensional scenario.

And you think the Iranians would only use nukes as a threat to Israel?

Why not look at what the Turks and Saudis and Egyptians and Jordanians and Europeans and Pakistanis and Indians and others might do? You think they would just sit idly by while Iran gained an unbeatable advantage over the currently non-nuclear powers? Hmmm?

Look, for anyone who objects to my frequent cutting and pasting, if some of you did more Googling you'd be less inclined to espouse simplistic theories.
Learn why this theory of yours will be a bad idea.

Also, make sure you also look at the information about Ahmadinejad, who wants to have a nuclear war because that will be the only way to bring forth the 9th Century "12th Imam" back from the dead to save humanity.

You know very little about the Muslims and appear content to remain unfamiliar with them. You are attempting to appear a player in this discussion but with meager information to back you up your plays.

Try these searches:

"concern over iran's nuclear program"
"12th Imam"
"what are the dangers of nuclear proliferation"

Speaking of the last topic, here's a clue...

The greatest nuclear danger that I am concerned with is not the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other states, though that is a grave danger. Of even greater concern is the invidious belief of policy makers in a small number of states that they have a right to maintain nuclear weapons indefinitely, and that in their hands nuclear weapons do not constitute a threat either to their own citizens or to the remainder of humanity. This is a foolish belief that discounts the principle that if something can go wrong it will go wrong. It is also a belief that is likely to encourage proliferation to other states and possibly to terrorist groups as well.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...er_dangers.htm

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wrong. People like marden would then argue that the US get involved by giving Israel more nukes than Iran and by destroying Iran's nukes.

We have no intention of allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons. There are many nations which have expressed quiet support for our opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has a thing or two up their sleeve designed to help them achieve their multi-level goals.

We have to prepare for any and every possibility when dealing with Iran and be on our toes at every level.

Those who believe nuking Iran into the next century will solve the problem haven't a clear understanding of the situation.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

We have no intention of allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons. There are many nations which have expressed quiet support for our opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has a thing or two up their sleeve designed to help them achieve their multi-level goals.

We have to prepare for any and every possibility when dealing with Iran and be on our toes at every level.

Those who believe nuking Iran into the next century will solve the problem haven't a clear understanding of the situation.

If Iran is such a threat, how do you feel about the Bush Administration empowering them by turning their biggest enemy (Iraq) into a sphere of Iranian influence?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by ink 

It worked the last time there was a nuclear arms race.

Yeah but back then (U.S. vs U.S.S.R) you didnt have one side fueled by disillusioned, archaic, mistranslated, militant and downright racially motivated ancient texts promoting suicide bombings with the promise of virgins for murderers.

I have no problem with the Israelis having nuclear weapons, cause i know they can handle it and would never vote a maniac into power who'd actually use em. On the other hand look at the lebaneeses/jordanian/syrian refugees "voting" an internationally recognized terrorist orginazation into power to represent them. i do have a problem with an orginization like Hammas being in the posession of nuclear weapons.

Talesin, thanks for answering my question.... "Palestine" does not exist as a country/state/entity...thus making any staged claim to being a country invalid. The answer is either yes/no. And 'not yet' qualifies as 'no'. So as far as im concerned the people who choose to claim to be Palestinean and who have chosen to brand themselves as Palestinean can get fu*ked cause that prediciment is of their own choice...they could have chosen to be part of Syria/Jordan/Egypt/Israel/Lebanon...but they rejected that and chose refugee camps and breeding grounds of terror.

Palestine(today's definition) has never existed, does not exist today...and probably will never exist(hopefully). There are no "Palestineans" only refugees and terrorists.

Israel has existed for a mere 50 years (just like India, modern Germany, modern Japan)....look at how far these nations have come in civility....then you look at places like Turkey, Syria, Iran, S.Arabia....hell on earth.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Israel has existed for a mere 50 years (just like India, modern Germany, modern Japan)....look at how far these nations have come in civility....then you look at places like Turkey, Syria, Iran, S.Arabia....hell on earth.

Germany and Japan have existed for far longer than that, there is a history as a nation for over 1000 years. If you wish to pick examples, you should pick the right ones.

[Mark Larr]

Germany and Japan weren't under seige every day for the past 50 years either.

[OreoCookie]

Both, Germany and Japan, had a direct border with Warsaw Pact countries up until 1990. Although it's not the same, it was still close enough to potential action. If the Cold War had turned into a real war, this was where the party was at …

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Palestinean can get fu*ked cause that prediciment is of their own choice...they could have chosen to be part of Syria/Jordan/Egypt/Israel/Lebanon...but they rejected that and chose refugee camps

The mind boggles!! You honestly think that people CHOOSE to live in refugee camps, that the Palestinians choose the squalor that is the Occupied Territories? Obviously you've never been there and never spoken to a Palestinian. In my experience, there are two kinds of Palestinians: those (mostly young) Palestinians who would give their left testicle to leave Palestine and start a new life in the West but can't because they have no money, no passport and no freedom of movement; and those who every night before they go to sleep look across at the parts of Israel and Israeli settlements where they used to live before being forcibly displaced and vow to return.

When the state of Israel was created and later when it went on wars of territorial acquisition, you do, I take it, concede that people were forced off their land. Why shouldn't those people be allowed back onto their land? How the hell do you justify forced removals, forced emigrations? The irony that some people can't see parallels in packing Palestinians up and forcing them to move to a different part of the world is astounding! About as astounding as the attempt by some to wipe a people off the face of the earth by pretending they don't exist.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll 

The mind boggles!! You honestly think that people CHOOSE to live in refugee camps, that the Palestinians choose the squalor that is the Occupied Territories?

YES! The vast majority moved there just to take their Jihad against Israel to the next level, I've personally seen it. Have you talked to them? I have, and received this answer countless times. "We moved here from Syria (or Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) because we believe that Israel has no right to exist."

You're a fool if you think otherwise (or an Islamic militant who knows the truth but won't admit it).

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

YES! The vast majority moved there just to take their Jihad against Israel to the next level, I've personally seen it. Have you talked to them? I have, and received this answer countless times. "We moved here from Syria (or Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) because we believe that Israel has no right to exist."

You're a fool if you think otherwise (or an Islamic militant who knows the truth but won't admit it).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

chain, chain, chain... chain of fools.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

YES! The vast majority moved there just to take their Jihad against Israel to the next level, I've personally seen it. Have you talked to them? I have, and received this answer countless times. "We moved here from Syria (or Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) because we believe that Israel has no right to exist."

You're a fool if you think otherwise (or an Islamic militant who knows the truth but won't admit it).

What nonsense. You're trying to tell is that "the vast majority" of the people in the Occupied Territories are immigrants that moved into the OT's to threaten Israel? Hell, man you're more cooked than I thought. I have been there and I have spoken to many families. I have yet to meet someone who voluntarily migrated into the Occupied Territories.

4,255,120 Palestinians are registered as refugees with UNRWA. That includes the descendants of refugees from the 1948 war and it EXCLUDES those who have emigrated to areas outside of the UNRWA's jurisdiction. Which means that nearly HALF of all of the people that call themselves Palestinians are not only directly related to people displaced by Israel but are still living in squalor.
http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications...tryandarea.pdf

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll 

What nonsense. You're trying to tell is that "the vast majority" of the people in the Occupied Territories are immigrants that moved into the OT's to threaten Israel?

Yes. That's a fact, Jack.

Go there, dig for yourself. Ask questions.

Edit: You even admit that HALF of them aren't descendants. In reality, however, it's more like 80% of them aren't.

[Mark Larr]

Israel GAVE them Gaza and what did they CHOOSE to do within hours?


Set up a militant terrorist state and continue to allow themselves to be squalid.

NOT Israel's fault, they had a choice and they made it.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Edit: You even admit that HALF of them aren't descendants. In reality, however, it's more like 80% of them aren't.

No I did not. I said that half of the entire global population of Palestinians are still listed as refugees and can independently prove that they are directly linked to the people displaced in 1948. That's NOT what you said I said.

You seem very hesitant to post facts. Why is that? Here are some facts for you:

In 1949, the United Nations Conciliation Commission put the number of Palestinians that fled the 1948 fighting at 726,000. This figure was revised by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency which put the number at 957,000 in 1950. The Israeli government has in the past suggested numbers as low as 520,000, while Palestinian researchers have suggested up to 850,000. Of this population, approximately one-third fled to the West Bank, another third to the Gaza Strip, and the remainder to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or farther afield.
Palestinian Refugees: An Overview

So, somewhere between half a million and a million people were forced out of their homes and off their land by violence. Do you know what happens when you leave your home and run for your life? You tend to lose everything you own. And so your solution of going to another country is not only one that is emotionally uncaring (what right does anyone have to force people to immigrate?) but it is a practical issue (how do you start a new life in a new country that itself is poor with nothing but the shirt on your back). What happens in those circumstances is that generations of people are poor and depend on others to survive. Not to mention angry and looking to go back to the land they were forced off.

Besides, you're saying that 50 years later, those 520,000 - 950,000 people and their descendants represent less than 20% of the population of the 3,000,000 people living in the Occupied Territories? The only way that could be true is if basically none of those people had any children! This is because you're saying that there are less than 600,000 (20%) direct descendants of 1948 refugees in the OTs which is only 80,000 more than the most conservative estimate of the number of refugees in 1948. Even if you consider that one third of the original number of refugees did not wind up in the OT's, given the reproduction rate and the amount of time that has passed, your statement that 80% of the people there are not related to displaced people is clearly bull. One would assume, as the facts show, that the number of refugees would have grown quite a lot in 50 years.

Some more facts:

Global Palestinian Population
West Bank and Gaza Strip - 3,000,000
Jordan - 2,598,000
Syria - 395,000
Lebanon - 388,000

Israel - 1,213,000
Chile - 300,000
Saudi Arabia - 287,000
The Americas - 216,000
Egypt - 58,000
Other Gulf states - 152,000
Other Arab states - 113,000
Other countries - 275,000
TOTAL 9,395,000

There are UNRWA refugee camps in the places marked in green. The total number of Palestinians in those areas is approximately 6,300,000. In those areas, 4,200,000 are listed as UN refugees that are direct descendants of people displaced in 1948. By my maths, that amounts to about two thirds of the total population. Already it's patent that your statement is utter nonsense. Now consider that many of the other 1/3 are not counted as refugees because they have managed to rebuild their lives. If you go to Gaza city, you will see that there is a large Palestinian population that is NOT living in camps and are no longer classified as refugees. Doesn't mean they are not related to people displaced in '48. It just means that they aren't counted as refugees. What is clear is that a number somewhat higher than 66% of the population of these areas and about half of the total global population of Palestinians are still directly suffering the consequences of the creation of the state of Israel and the 1948 war. 50 years later!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

Israel GAVE them Gaza and what did they CHOOSE to do within hours?

What??? Israel couldn't possibly give Gaza to anyone. It never belonged to Israel and still doesn't. Not even Israel makes that ridiculous argument.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yeah but back then (U.S. vs U.S.S.R) you didnt have one side fueled by disillusioned, archaic, mistranslated, militant and downright racially motivated ancient texts promoting suicide bombings with the promise of virgins for murderers.

Yes, Lennin and Stalin were peaceful, rational leaders who wouldn't hurt a fly...

I have no problem with the Israelis having nuclear weapons, cause i know they can handle it and would never vote a maniac into power who'd actually use em. On the other hand look at the lebaneeses/jordanian/syrian refugees "voting" an internationally recognized terrorist orginazation into power to represent them. i do have a problem with an orginization like Hammas being in the posession of nuclear weapons.

I suspect that Israel already has plenty of nuclear weapons. I think that Iran believes this also, which is why they want them -- to remove the trump card that Israel has.

If you believe that the USA or the UN can pick-and-choose which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, then you are deluded (see: Korea, Pakistan, India).

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

You know very little about the Muslims and appear content to remain unfamiliar with them. You are attempting to appear a player in this discussion but with meager information to back you up your plays.

Great, have fun with that then. You've already convinced yourself that there are billions of Muslims that are looking forward to nuclear destruction. Meanwhile, we can't even keep Pakistan, India or North Korea from getting nuclear weapons.

You can live your life in perpetual fear of the 12th Imam, a new Caliphate and Muslim jihad. I have better things to do with my time.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll 

*snip*

I know of quite a few places that cook-up "facts". "violence"... yeah, right. I'd like to see where Israel published that they displaced 500K "Palestinians", the numbers I've seen put it closer to 150K who were bought out and/or intergrated.

Nice spin.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

I know of quite a few places that cook-up "facts".

Yeah and some people that don't have any facts at all.

590,000 refugees is the number contained in a report of the Israeli Foreign Ministry published in translation by the East Jerusalem daily Al-Quds on 10 September 1992.

The British government's official figure is 810,000 refugees.
The US government's official figure is 875,000 refugees.

520,000 (the lowest figure I've ever seen) is the figure used by Benny Morris in his book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem published in 1989 (p. 297). I take it you know who Benny Morris is. Benny Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More confirmation of those figures here:
McGill University/Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet
MidEast Web
About.com


... or you could just keep flailing in the face of clear evidence that you're wrong. It makes absolutely no sense at all to argue that 2.2 million people would have immigrated INTO the Occupied Territories - an area that has the lowest life expectancy rate in the region, the highest unemployment rate in the region, the highest violent death rate in the region, the highest infant mortality rate ... take any darn indicator you want and the OTs are worse off than anywhere else. It simply is not the case. Most Palestinians I've met say that they would leave the OTs tomorrow if the Israelis would give them a passport and the rest cling to the hope that one day they will be able to return to their homes.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll 

*snip*.

OR, be an idiot and use terms like "violence" and "displacement" to fabricate up your own hyperbole.

No controversy regarding Morris' numbers, none at all...

"Efraim Karsh, Professor of War Studies at King's College London has repeatedly claimed that Morris fabricated his data about atrocities, stating that other historians who examined the same documents did not arrive at the same conclusions. Karsh wrote a book with a full exposition of his claims, "Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians"."

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

OR, be an idiot and use terms like "violence" and "displacement" to fabricate up your own hyperbole.

No controversy regarding Morris' numbers, none at all...

"Efraim Karsh, Professor of War Studies at King's College London has repeatedly claimed that Morris fabricated his data about atrocities, stating that other historians who examined the same documents did not arrive at the same conclusions. Karsh wrote a book with a full exposition of his claims, "Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians"."

I'm sorry but what would you call it when people are forced to flee a war ... if not violence and displacement?

The point is that Morris has lower numbers than anyone else. Look, I've shown you data from the UN, Israel, the UK, the United States and a variety of individuals that all say between half a million and a million people were displaced by the 1948 war. If you don't have any concrete data to suggest otherwise, then it seems to me you're just in denial. I mean even Israel disagrees with you!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I'm sorry but what would you call it when people are forced to flee a war ... if not violence and displacement?

The point is that Morris has lower numbers than anyone else. Look, I've shown you data from the UN, Israel, the UK, the United States and a variety of individuals that all say between half a million and a million people were displaced by the 1948 war. If you don't have any concrete data to suggest otherwise, then it seems to me you're just in denial. I mean even Israel disagrees with you!

There is no point in rehashing numbers, even if they are confirmed by the UN, Israel, US, Britain, whatever, some people will stick to what they want to believe no matter what.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I'm sorry but what would you call it when people are forced to flee a war ... if not violence and displacement?

The point is that Morris has lower numbers than anyone else. Look, I've shown you data from the UN, Israel, the UK, the United States and a variety of individuals that all say between half a million and a million people were displaced by the 1948 war. If you don't have any concrete data to suggest otherwise, then it seems to me you're just in denial. I mean even Israel disagrees with you!

Except that they weren't forced. In Haifa, for example, they were approached, asked to stay, guaranteed safety, and after consulting with the Arab states, chose to refuse to sign onto an agreement guaranteeing their safety and equality in community, but instead to leave. The Jews at the time were very upset at this, viewing them a valuable part of the community.

A reprint of Karsh's article talking about this is reprinted at http://www.netanyahu.org/werpalex.html

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

There is no point in rehashing numbers, even if they are confirmed by the UN, Israel, US, Britain, whatever, some people will stick to what they want to believe no matter what.

Taliesin

The fact is, the lies regarding the matter (such as Troll posted) have been spread for so long that people simply accept them now.

Israel doesn't disgree with me at all Troll, you're just delusional again.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that they weren't forced. In Haifa, for example, they were approached, asked to stay, guaranteed safety, and after consulting with the Arab states, chose to refuse to sign onto an agreement guaranteeing their safety and equality in community, but instead to leave. The Jews at the time were very upset at this, viewing them a valuable part of the community.

A reprint of Karsh's article talking about this is reprinted at Were the Palestinians Expelled?

Yeah, well it's Karsh against the new historians as it has been for some time. Karsh has been quite roundly discredited for using half-truths and distortions to further a political agenda of denial. Which is why Israeli school history books reject the old history that people like Karsh cling to and teach the new historians' works. Work like that of Morris and Shlaim. Here's an article that gives some insight into Karsh's errors.

I love the reasoning he employs in that article. Stuff like, "These make it possible to establish the truth about what happened in Haifa–and by extension, elsewhere in Palestine." Contrast with a new historian like Morris who looked at 280 villages, Karsh looked at 1 and extrapolated that to the rest of the region. Even if what he says had actually happened in Haifa, it is an explanation for a maximum of 20,000 refugees, a tiny fraction of all of the refugees from that period.

In any event, Karsh isn't saying what you are. You make it sound like the Palestinians were already in a safe place and decided to pack up and go. Karsh says, "AS THE British Mandate in Palestine neared its end in 1947-48, the city of Haifa became engulfed in intermittent violence that pitted Arab fighters, recruited locally as well as from neighboring Arab countries, against the Jewish underground organization known as the Hagana." Notice how the Jewish terrorists are referred to as an "underground organisation"! That aside, does this sound like a place devoid of violence? His entire argument is undermined by his own statement that Jews and Arabs were not only fighting each other but the British occupation and in addition neighbouring countries were in on the act. He then tries to indict Arab leaders for telling people that they envisaged things getting worse and encouraging them to leave. And they were right, war broke out in 1948!

Towhit, not once does he mention the fact that the Zionists were a terrorist organisation that had gone into Haifa and waged a terrorist war with the locals. A war they eventually won, sure. But if that happened today, who would talk about it the way Karsh does? Imagine blaming the people who fled a terrorist attack and suggesting that they should have negotiated a deal with the terrorists that had taken over their city? The mind boggles!

The point is, Karsh himself admits that people in Haifa fled violence that had already started and from violence that everyone knew was coming when the British Mandate ended. Even on his own, distorted version of the truth which only explains a tiny, tiny minority of the total number of refugees, he admits that people were displaced by violence (the words that MacNStein objects to).

Israeli kids are at least being taught the truth and not the lies that people like Karsh cling to.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Israel doesn't disgree with me at all Troll, you're just delusional again.

You said 150,000 refugees and Israel says 590,000 refugees. It's very simple - they disagree with you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll 

You said 150,000 refugees and Israel says 590,000 refugees. It's very simple - they disagree with you.

"Israel" says? That's comical. Morris is not "Israel".

[Big Mac]

Troll calls the Hagana terrorists. ROFL. Completely and utterly clueless Jew-hater.

[vmarks]

The interesting thing is that when I have cited Morris to Troll in the past in these forums, he loudly rejects Morris, and here he cites him as the source he wants to rely upon.

[Hawkeye_a]

hand picking information, taking it out of context and using it as "proof". having lived there myself... i have no source to cite, and the numbers of it all are inconsequential. All you have to do is to live there to see which side "deserves" to exist.

And yes, the UN does get to choose which countries get to have Nuclear weapons. If countries dont abide.... it can choose which way to deal with them. not all countries are equal, so not all countries get will get the same treatment. get used to it.

Cheers

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

"Israel" says? That's comical. Morris is not "Israel".

Proof that you don't read! Here it is for you YET AGAIN:

590,000 refugees is the number contained in a report of the Israeli Foreign Ministry published in translation by the East Jerusalem daily Al-Quds on 10 September 1992.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The interesting thing is that when I have cited Morris to Troll in the past in these forums, he loudly rejects Morris, and here he cites him as the source he wants to rely upon.

I think you're missing the point! I specifically used Morris because most Israel supporters approve of him. My point is that everyone from Israel to the UN to Western superpowers to Israeli historians says that hundreds of thousands of refugees resulted from the 1948 war. Honestly, denying this ... well similar to other behaviour I've seen from the other side of the spectrum.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Troll calls the Hagana terrorists. ROFL. Completely and utterly clueless Jew-hater.

I've been tolerant with you about calling me a Jew hater. If you don't apologise, I am going to report you because this is completely uncalled for.

I voted for a terrorist organisation - a few times. They were called the ANC. How you get from me calling the Haganah terrorists to being a Jew hater, I don't know, but it's completely uncalled for. The Haganah and its various offshoots committed terrorism. That is a fact. From Wikipedia:

"After the war, the Haganah carried out anti-British operations in Palestine, such as the liberation of interned immigrants from the Atlit camp, the bombing of the country's railroad network, sabotage raids on radar installations and bases of the British police. It also continued to organize illegal immigration."

[Nicko]

Isn't it kind of lame to debate how many refugees there are? I mean come on, just look at the official UN census.

A quick google and you find that there are "4.3 million registered Palestine refugees in the Middle East"

Further, according to the World Bank:

The West Bank and Gaza has a Population of 4 million
and an annual population growth rate of 4.1%

Israel has a population of 7 million
and an annual population growth rate of 1.9%

---

So project these numbers into the future by 20 years and you can see that what is now a crisis will become a catastrophe if not dealt with. Ofcourse, the West bank and Gaza are among the most densly populated places in the world today, so I can only imagine how much worse it will become.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Isn't it kind of lame to debate how many refugees there are? I mean come on, just look at the official UN census.

A quick google and you find that there are "4.3 million registered Palestine refugees in the Middle East"

Further, according to the World Bank:

The West Bank and Gaza has a Population of 4 million
and an annual population growth rate of 4.1%

Israel has a population of 7 million
and an annual population growth rate of 1.9%

---

So project these numbers into the future by 20 years and you can see that what is now a crisis will become a catastrophe if not dealt with. Ofcourse, the West bank and Gaza are among the most densly populated places in the world today, so I can only imagine how much worse it will become.

We know that the UNRWA which generated these numbers has done so fraudulently, in order to increase funds.

That the World Bank just recycles that fraudulent numbers is no surprise, after all they have the UN stamp of approval on them.

The JPost : Refugees forever?

In 1961, UNRWA director, Dr. John H. Davis, admitted that his statisticial report of the number of refugees was inaccurate, due to the many unreported deaths and the growing number of forged cards granting access to UNRWA benefits and services. UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen has recently acknowledged that deaths in the camps may not be reported as assiduously as births. In 1960, US Congressmen visiting Jordan cited official estimates of forged UNRWA cards at over 150,000. Furthermore, the more refugees, the more justification there is for the work of the 22,000 Palestinian UNRWA employees. It is one of the ironies of the problem that as the number of "refugees" has increased through falsehood, their plight has become all the more real.

Just how many refugees are there?
The first serious assessment of the number of refugees based on demographic data was carried out by Dr. Walter Pinner. (How Many Arab Refugees?, London, 1960).

Out of 1,282,000 - the total Arab population of Mandatory Palestine in April 1948, 548,600 were counted as refugees. At UN sessions the Arabs repeatedly inflated the figures. Lebanon spoke of over a million, (UN DOC/ASP/SA). Morocco gave a more "accurate" figure of 1,120,000. Swept up by an Oriental imagination, the Palestinian Emil Houry came up with 2 million.

Palestinian sources, with an obvious interest in increasing the potential benefits of a future settlement and increasing Israel's supposed responsibility for the refugee problem, have consistently inflated their figures.

The highest figure was that quoted in 1998, when Salman Abu Sitta - the most vaunted of Palestinian researchers - attempted to add credence to a grossly exaggerated study by claiming that there were exactly 7,778,186 Palestinians, an amazing 5,325,000 of whom he called refugees.

Figures on this scale are commonly bandied about when discussing the need for a just solution to the Palestinian problem, but they are false: UNRWA - while admitting that its own figures are inflated - recognizes some 3.8 million Palestinians today.

Not far off is the day when the number of refugees claimed will be the same as the number of Palestinians. According to their definition, nearly every Palestinian can be considered a refugee in one way or another. So there will be no escape from the need to negotiate who is a refugee, and who was uprooted from his home, yet still lives in his homeland.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Not far off is the day when the number of refugees claimed will be the same as the number of Palestinians. According to their definition, nearly every Palestinian can be considered a refugee in one way or another. So there will be no escape from the need to negotiate who is a refugee, and who was uprooted from his home, yet still lives in his homeland.

So what is your point? You think there is some kind of vast conspiracy by the UN, World Bank and others to miscount how many refugees there are? Not that you even consider them refugees to begin with. Gimme a break, the World Bank is currently run by the biggest neocon of them all, Paul Wolfowitz!

Actually, in the world today there are more people internally displaced than externally displaced. A current example is Darfur.

One can argue about the semantics all they want I suppose, but its not going to change the fact that the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza who live under horrible conditions is growing at a steady pace.

IMO its only a matter of time before the situation in Gaza and West bank reaches a crossroads not unlike South Africa did in the early 90's. There will come a point when there are only two options, everyone loses or there is a negotiated peace. It could take another decade or two... or three, but it will happen eventually.

The fact that you can't see the people in Gaza and West Bank as refugees just shows how much further attitudes will have to change for there to be progress.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

So what is your point? You think there is some kind of vast conspiracy by the UN, World Bank and others to miscount how many refugees there are? Not that you even consider them refugees to begin with. Gimme a break, the World Bank is currently run by the biggest neocon of them all, Paul Wolfowitz!

The UNRWA did conspire to inflate numbers and is the UN organization specifically dedicated to perpetuating palestinian refugee status, where the UN has one organization for other refugees in the world and that org is dedicated to diminishing the numbers of refugees through absorbtion into whatever country they may be seeking refuge. UNRWA does no such thing for Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or elsewhere in the world.

That the World Bank uses the inflated and fraudulent numbers is because they mistakenly believe the UN. And they can't really be faulted for that, the UN still has credibility where it ought to have none.

IMO its only a matter of time before the situation in Gaza and West bank reaches a crossroads not unlike South Africa did in the early 90's. There will come a point when there are only two options, everyone loses or there is a negotiated peace. It could take another decade or two... or three, but it will happen eventually.

Negotiations are what happens after one party loses until it can afford to lose no more. Negotiating before that point is premature and prolongs the suffering of all. Or were all the talks the Palestinians were invited to negotiate to successful?

The fact that you can't see the people in Gaza and West Bank as refugees just shows how much further attitudes will have to change for there to be progress.

You do not understand the meaning of the word refugee.

It means only the people who were displaced in 1948. One generation, because the next generation is born in their new country, not displaced. That's how the word is defined for every refugee in the world, except where the UNRWA changed the definition only for Palestinians.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You do not understand the meaning of the word refugee.

It means only the people who were displaced in 1948. One generation, because the next generation is born in their new country, not displaced. That's how the word is defined for every refugee in the world, except where the UNRWA changed the definition only for Palestinians.

Ok so you have your personal definition of what something is and the rest of the world has theirs - I get it. There are people who have been born, lived, and died in refugee camps in different parts of the world (in their home country or in another) and they remain refugees. Most countries don't magically grant a person citizenship because they happened to be born in it.

However you completely ignored my main point, which was that there are millions of people in the 'West Bank' and 'Gaza strip' living under conditions not unlike a refugee camp.

You also conveniently ignore my comparison of the way Israel is treating the Palestinians to South Africa's Apartheid era. As you wish.

As in Apartheid era S.Africa, Israel is able to contain the Palestinian problem (ie. targeted assassinations, detentions, controlling population movements, restricting civil rights ect..). But there will come a time in the future when those methods will lose all effectiveness and the hard choice to make peace will be imperative. It will be a choice between utter chaos and untold misery or peace.

The argument of 'only make peace when one side can't fight back' is a fantasy. Heh, one only need look at the US invasion of Iraq for the folly of that kind of thinking.