Realityman, I may have left out a few less relevant facts, but the history of the regions supports my assertion. The region was populated by Arabs, Jews began to move en masse into the region, a Jewish state was declared and the Arabs were expelled from their land. The fact that the international community mandated the project is hardly relevant: does it change the facts that it was land that Arabs lived on? The fact that the region had been under Turkish rule is also irrelevant, as is the fact that the Palestinians nation did not exist at the time. In fact, you seem to be alluding to the idea that the Arabs in Israel/Palestine should have just left and lived with other Arabs, regardless of the fact that it was their home. If you can think of something non-trivial that I have left out then feel free to raise it.

Terry, I appreciate your candor... and I hope this explanation sheds some light on how and why I answer to issues the way I do...

I'm aware that I often come across as abrasive, and that some (particularly those on the receiving end) often don't like my directness... but by being direct, asking direct questions, and "calling people out" when they appear unable or unwilling to give direct answers, everyone learns... They learn by having to research and back up their opinions/points, or they learn by recognizing that they can't support their conclusion (whether they want to acknowledge it or not).

I've been on and off of forums such as this over the years, and been involved in many debates on various Israel related topics over the years ... and one thing I've learned (as you may know as well) is that those with a strong bias and/or agenda often form their opinions FIRST, then go to look for/try to find supporting facts (of which they'll always be able to find some)... In doing so, they often have to ignore other facts which don't fit their agendas to keep their biased opinions

Everyone has an opinion, but I think you'll agree that all opinions are not created equal.  Some are based on all available and relevant facts and the logic from those facts, others are based on half-truths, purposeful deceptions, and some others based on thin air or little more than wishful/want-ful  thinking... If someone is expressing an opinion, and it appears illogical based on basic known facts, I reserve the right to call them on it... (just as people would me if I stated a ridiculous opinion or one based on half-truths, etc)... Along those lines, if someone accuses me of stating something I haven't stated or expressing an opinion which I haven't expressed, I'm going to directly call them on it... AND MANY PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THAT... especially when they know fully well I never stated anything of the kind.

If I, for an example, stated that you, Terry, think the Ku Klux Klan is a great organization and should conduct more violence, etc ... and you've never stated anything of the sort... certainly you would ask me to back that up, or ask me directly to show you and the forum where you stated such a thing... If I couldn't do so, but continued on... not answering you, yet sticking to that opinion, you'd continue to call me out to back that up (or at least I would in your shoes)... If I stated that clearly the answer to the topic being debated is "5"... And I use as supporting evidence that 2 + 2 = 5.... people could either accept my opinion of "5", or call on me to back it up by some other means... showing that 2 + 2 isn't actually 5, but 4...  It sounds overly basic, but it always amazes me how some people attempt to hold on to opinions, when they clearly can't support them or answer for them..

When I see someone make a statement as if it's a fact, when there's a plethora of evidence leading one to believe the opposite, I'm going to expose it... This may not mean that the opposite is true, but it certainly would indicate there's enough question to the issue's validity that it can't logically be assumed a "fact"...

If someone contradicts himself while attempting to make a point (which happens very often in debate, and is often how debates are won and lost), I'll point that out as well  and ask for a clarification (as I'm going to below)...

Thanks Terry...

If you're implying or feel that I'm somehow trying to condemn you or an opinion, that's certainly not my intent... You seem like a bright guy Cass... Please accept my apologies if you feel I've offended you, as that was not my intent...As I stated above, I tend to be direct... I think you'll agree, being direct tends to cut through the B.S. and exposes the opinions which can be supported, versus those which are weaker... I enjoy debate (as you may have noticed), and my posts here are often in "debate style"... breaking down the facts versus "theory", exposing bias, and exposing inconsistencies... Through it may seem abrasive, the intent is to learn... for everyone reading to learn.

Again... maybe we got off to a "rocky" start... but I'm willing to start fresh if you are 

You also might note, while Peisi and I seem to agree on very little... and "go at" one another's opinions and words quite often... I'm glad he's here...and enjoy debating the issues with him (as I hope he does me)... Everytime we "clash", I learn something new...


"IamMe"... With the above I don't disagree... Certainly the region was populated in a majority by Arabs, Jews did migrate in mass (and certainly some Arabs too), and certainly a Jewish state was declared.

But then you said (again):

Which I do disagree with for reasons I've previously pointed out... ..
.. However, you ALSO previously said:


Which I agree with... as I explained before:
Israel fully admits, and did long ago, that some Arabs were expelled or pushed out, as happens in any war... But the majority of evidence I've seen clearly points the the overwhelming majority of Arabs leaving on their own, often at the urging of their own who were invading.  We also shouldn't forget WHO was instigating the war, causing the flight...

 ...Being "expelled".... or having "fled" are too very different explanations... So which is it you're trying to say "IamMe"??  If you want to stand by the "expelled" quote... I would think you might want to back that up. 

And now you say:

And I agreed, it was the land that Arabs lived on (as well as Jews and Christians)... (But does that make it "theirs"??)...

And THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU STATED BEFORE... You previously stated:

I think you'll agree that saying "their own land" and "land that Arabs lived on" are can be taken to mean very different things... No one here (that I'm aware of) is denying that Arabs lived on those lands (as did Jews and Christians)... But stating "their own land" implies ownership, rule, and/or control.... Simply living somewhere doesn't make it yours (as in ownership/rule/control)... If it did, maybe the apartment "renters" down the street could declare those apartments "theirs", when clearly they're owned and under the control of another.

So which statement, that it was "land that Arabs lived on"... OR "their own land" implying ownership/rule/control... are you standing by??


Interesting how 400 years of rule/control are to you... "irrelevant" (among other facts)... when it clearly contradicts your statement "their own land" which could easily be taken to mean ownership/rule/control (which clearly they didn't have during the Palestine Mandate, or prior to the Palestine Mandate).


I never "alluded" or implied anything of the kind... In fact, had the Arabs have chosen peace and accepted the partition over choosing to go to war, they'd have a nation and far more land than the best they can hope for today... It should be noted that the Arabs who stayed to live peacefully within Israel enjoy far more prosperity than most of their neighboring counterparts.. (but let me guess, that's "irrelevant" too??)...


Thanks, and likewise... but I suppose that depends on the point you're trying to make, and how you answer to the inconsistencies above...

Well allow me to apologize first for referring to you as a "guy" ... No offense intended as I just "assumed"...

Certainly everyone is here for different reasons... The Israel/Palestinian conflict appeals to me particularly because of all the controversy and agendas at play with regard to it.... There are certainly no easy answers. 

Have a nice evening.

Yes, I dispute that... The creation of the State of Israel... created the state of Israel... The ATTACK by 6 Arab nations caused the Arabs to flee...


You mean like when under the rule of the Palestine Mandate/Britain??  Or like under the Rule of the Ottoman Empire prior to that??  This is why I stressed the point that Arabs in Palestine (long before they identified themselves as "Palestinians") have lived under the rule of others for hundreds of years...The fact is that even today, Arabs in Israel live at a far higher standard of living than do the majority of Arabs in surrounding Arab nations... Or do you mean "2nd class citizens" like Jews in surrounding Arab nations??


And it's valid to "feel that way"... but unfortunately, the precident for this is weak at best... especially when you consider the fact that the Ottoman Turks, who ruled/controlled the region from 1517 recognized no such ownership (as a whole).. The overwhelming majority of those who left had no title or deeds, and many were believed to be recent migrants themselves (as even the UN recognized in adjusting residency requirements down to only 2 years to claim "refugee status" in this situation)... Consider also the fact that as the Arabs were leaving, Jews were being pushed out of/fleeing surrounding Arab nations, their possessions being confiscated, their land, which they often had legal title to was being confiscated... And they're certainly not being invited back or compensated in any way... Wars usually create refugees... Refugees are often/usually absorbed by other nations... But in this case, the Arab nations who stated the war generally did not absorb them on purpose to be a thorn in Israel's side for future Arab conquests (or so they thought)... This is not Israel's fault, nor Israel's responsibility...


I don't know how to delicately put this, but you can't have it both ways (though you obviously want to)... The words have 2 different meanings if you'd care to look them up..... though it's clear you do acknowledge that "many of them chose to flee".  Yes, "some" Palestinian Arabs were expelled, but the majority of evidence I've seen points to the majority leaving on their own.


You may think it doesn't apply, but actually, while it's certainly not intended as an exact analogy, it gets the point across quite well... if you'd care to read/research the Ottoman Land Code and Registration Laws of 1858 and 1859.... The majority of Arabs in the region at that time were working on land recognized by the authorities as being owned mostly by others, often wealthy foreign Arab owners/investors, or "common lands" owned by, at that time, the Ottoman/Turkish Empire.... Early on, most of the land which the Jews purchased was not purchased from local Arabs, but from foreign Arab owners.

And YES, "the region was originally conquered by the Ottoman empire in the 1500s"...... And the Ottoman Empire conquered it from the "Mamluks" (who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt)...who conquered it from The Ayyubi dynasty,  who conquered Jerusalem and most of Palestine from: The European Christian Crusaders, and SO ON... ..And HOW DO YOU THINK THE ARABS/MUSLIMS got to "Palestine" in the first place?? 

Well Cass, if you're talking "ancient" history, I'd tend to agree (with relation to current events)... but it often comes up as a topic of discussion when anti-Israel posters attempt to paint a misleading picture of "Palestinian history"...If you're referring to more recent history, then I have to disagree to some extent.  While certainly "current events are very important, history (last 50-100 years, etc) is often a very good predictor of future events and actions.  History also often clearly exposes the agendas which have created the "track record" of events which follow... This doesn't mean that things can't change... they can... But it would be naive to ignore history, especially when the "track record" of action (versus words) speak loudly.


I wonder this too... And I would HOPE that this time would be different (as I hope each time there are opportunities for peace, or even "quiet").  I hope also that a lasting/meaningful peace could/would eventually emerge, but I'm seeing little evidence to make me optimistic ...

This "ceasefire" is an example of where history leads me to be skeptical... VERY skeptical... This is certainly not the first "ceasefire"... Hamas likes ceasefires because it generally allows their militant operatives to freely wonder the streets without fear of being arrested or targetting by Israel...Each time before, Hamas used the "quiet" to "quietly" re-arm, reorganize, and strengthen it's resolve to terrorize Israel...  Hamas has agreed to ceasefires in the past, but has yet to hint at ever being willing to recognize Israel's right to exist, or ever agreeing to permanent peace with Israel... "Ceasefires" by nature are temporary.  COULD this time, finally, be different?  SURE... But I also believe it would be very premature to believe so or to be more than simply "hopeful".

And they've been pleasantly surprised... and I hope someday I am...

So are you going out on a limb and say THIS TIME THE CEASEFIRE WILL LAST "IamMe"??

I hope it does... I also hope it leads to a meaningful lasting peace... But it would be naive of me to "assume" it will last or end up significantly different given the history and agendas involved.

And I hope you're right... but I remain very... very skeptical, as with previous ceasefires.

AND, just to set the mood, we're ALMOST off to a great start