[MERGED] Holocaust

sonny~~

:hmm:

H猷L鰃頧

next time they should be;

"thou should kill your neighbours"

Debmey

Thats what the Quran teaches.

sonny~~

Originally posted by Debmey at 2004-5-4 10:32 PM:
Thats what the Quran teaches.

where quran teaches that jews must genocide PALESTINIANS n rape PALESTINE so as to get their socalled covenanted land?  where?  no HARDevidence from u means u're hecklin liar.  simple  

peace  

Debmey

Where teh Quran teaches that Israelbelongs to Palestinians?

sonny~~

Originally posted by Debmey at 2004-5-5 01:30 PM:
Where teh Quran teaches that Israelbelongs to Palestinians?

quran dont teach nuthin on israel n PALESTINE.

nonetheless un has divided PALESTINE so that israel can exist.  without un's grace, jews gonna be nomads till doomsday  

peace

Debmey

Thats right, Palestinian sdon't have any rights to Israel then.

peace

sonny~~

Originally posted by Debmey at 2004-5-5 09:39 PM:
Thats right, Palestinian sdon't have any rights to Israel then.

peace

n outcast imported jews have no rights over PALESTINE + occupied PALESTINIAN territories  

peace

sonny~~

  

[From Z Magazine, May 2002]
Question & Answer
Background to the Israel-Palestine Crisis
by Stephen R. Shalom

How did the Zionists acquire land in Palestine?

Some was acquired illegally and some was purchased from Arab landlords with funds provided by wealthy Jews in Europe. Even the legal purchases, however, were often morally questionable as they sometimes involved buying land from absentee landlords and then throwing the poor Arab peasants off the land. Land thus purchased became part of the Jewish National Fund which specified that the land could never be sold or leased to Arabs. Even with these purchases, Jews owned only about 6% of the land by 1947.

Was Palestinian opposition to Zionism a result of anti-Semitism?

Anti-Semitism in the Arab world was generally far less severe than in Europe. Before the beginning of Zionist immigration, relations among the different religious groups in Palestine were relatively harmonious. There was Palestinian anti-Semitism, but no people will look favorably on another who enter one's territory with the intention of setting up their own sovereign state. The expulsion of peasants from their land and the frequent Zionist refusal to employ Arabs exacerbated relations.

Debmey

Jews bought larghe tracts of teh land  at exhorbitant prices.
There is nothing illegitinate about buying land from non resident land owners and evicting illegal occupiers. The Arabs are in fact illegal occupiers of the land.

cheers

sonny~~

Originally posted by Debmey at 2004-5-7 07:09 PM:
Jews bought larghe tracts of teh land  at exhorbitant prices.
There is nothing illegitinate about buying land from non resident land owners and evicting illegal occupiers. The Arabs are in fact il ...

u're sure?  theres no illegitimate hanky panky?  read  

peace

THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE PALESTINE PROBLEM 1917-1988
UNITED NATIONS
New York, 1990

Zionist policies of territorial expansion

As the British Government progressively disengaged from Palestine, and the United Nations was unable to replace it as an effective governing authority, the Zionist movement moved to establish control over the territory of the nascent Jewish State. At the same time the bordering Arab States made clear that they would intervene.

From writings of Zionist leaders, it is evident that Zionist policy was to occupy, during the period of withdrawal, as much territory as possible (including the "West Bank") beyond the boundaries assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution. A comprehensive military plan, called Plan "D" (or Dalet) was described by an Israeli official:

"In March 1948, Haganah High Command prepared a comprehensive operational Plan 'D', replacing plans 'A', 'B' and 'C' which had governed Haganah strategy in previous years. Zero hour for Plan D was to arrive when British evacuation had reached a point where the Haganah would be reasonably safe from British intervention and when mobilization had progressed to a point where the implementation of a large-scale plan would be feasible. The mission of Haganah was as simple as it was revolutionary: 'To gain control of the area allotted to the Jewish State and defend its borders, and those of the blocs of Jewish settlements and such Jewish population as were outside those borders, against a regular or pararegular enemy operating from bases outside or inside the area of the Jewish State'". 66/

Begin writes:

"In the months preceding the Arab invasion, and while the five Arab States (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan) were conducting preparations for concerted aggression, we continued to make sallies into the Arab area. In the early days of 1948, we were explaining to our officers and men, however, that this was not enough. Attacks of this nature carried out by any Jewish forces were indeed of great psychological importance, and their military effect, to the extent that they widened the Arab front and forced the enemies on to the defensive, was not without value. But it was clear to us that even most daring sallies carried out by partisan troops would never be able to decide the issue. Our hope lay in gaining control of territory.

"At the end of January, 1948, at a meeting of the Command of the Irgun in which the Planning Section participated, we outlined four strategic objectives: (1) Jerusalem; (2) Jaffa; (3) the Lydda-Ramleh plain; and (4) the Triangle.

"Setting ourselves these objectives we knew that their achievement would be dependent on many factors but primarily on the strength in men and arms that we would have at our disposal. We consequently decided to treat the plans as 'alternatives': we would carry out what we could. As it happened, of the four parts of the strategic plan we executed only the second in full.

"In the first and third parts we were able to record important achievements on the battlefield - but we did not attain decisive victories.

"As for the fourth part, we were never allowed an opportunity even to begin to put the plan into operation. The conquest of Jaffa, however, stands out as an event of first-rate importance in the struggle for Hebrew independence."

(The "Triangle" is explained as "the generally used name for the Arab-populated area in the centre of western Eretz Yisrael lying roughly in a triangle whose points are the towns of Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarim and comprising the bulk of the non-desert area west of Jordan which is now outside the State of Israel".) 67/
Ben-Gurion writes:

"... Field troops and Palmach in particular were thus deployed and quickly showed the mettle that was soon to animate our army and bring it victory.

"... New Jerusalem was occupied, and the guerrillas were expelled from Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias, Safad while still the Mandatory was present. It needed sagacity and self-control not to fall foul of the British army. The Hagana did its job; until a day or two before the Arab invasion not a settlement was lost, no road cut, although movement was seriously dislocated, despite express assurances of the British to keep the roads safe so long as they remained. Arabs started fleeing from the cities almost as soon as disturbances began in the early days of December 1947. As fighting spread, the exodus was joined by bedouin and fellahin, but not the remotest Jewish homestead was abandoned and nothing a tottering Administration (meaning the British Mandatory) could unkindly do stopped us from reaching our goal on May 14, 1948 in a State made larger and Jewish by the Haganah ..." 68/

sonny~~

toptoink

sonny~~

is bbc pro PALESTINIANS?  dont think so  :hmm:

Spotlight
Is BBC coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict biased?
Elias Davidsson*
30 September 2002

The British Broadcasting Corporation has been accused of anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The accusers, Trevor Asserson, a UK lawyer who was called to the Israeli Bar in 1992, and Elisheva Mironi, an Israeli lawyer, say that, while the BBC "preserves a superficial impartiality", it is guilty of "a marked and consistent pro-Palestinian bias". Below, Elias Davidsson, a Palestinian Jew, rebuts Asserson's and Mironi's claims and urges the BBC "not to let itself be bullied by the oppressors of my Palestinian brothers and sisters, whom the world should regard as the 'Jews of the Jews'".

1. Asserson's and Mironi's report begins by presenting the issue as a "conflict" with "two sides". The aim is to paint the relationship between the colonizer (Israel) and the colonized (the Palestinians) as a symmetrical conflict. This is a fallacy. There is no symmetry whatsoever between the oppressor and the oppressed. Symmetry exists when two sovereign states engage in a dispute (particularly if each state possesses the means of preserving its integrity). Symmetry does not exist between a colonial power and the colonized, between the apartheid state and the disenfranchized blacks, between the torturer and the detainee. The situation in Palestine is that of a belligerent occupier (as defined under international law and regarded so by the overwhelming majority of states) and a population prevented from exercising its right to self-determination and its inalienable rights, which are recognized by the international community. So, there is no "conflict" between "two sides", but a situation of oppression that the international community has attempted to end (but did not succeed due to the fact that the US has blocked any such attempts at the level of the Security Council).

2. The controversy regarding the label "terrorist" and the alleged refusal by the BBC to label certain Palestinian organizations as "terrorist" organizations.

The BBC is acting wisely by refusing to do so, particularly because certain states have, for political reasons, decided to criminalize these organizations. A clear distinction is made, wisely, by the BBC between the criminalization of organizations (a political decision by a handful of governments) and the finding of a court of law. The BBC is acting wisely by not espousing the claims by states against various groups as "terrorist" groups. Many states claim that their opponents are "terrorist". This does not create a duty on the BBC to espouse such claims. The term "militants" distinguishes between a label and the act committed, an approach which is both wise and in conformity with the principle of due process. (A person is not labelled as a "criminal". He may, however, be charged for crime. The distinction is important).

3. The term "occupied Palestinian land" is an internationally-recognized term used in UN resolutions dealing with the Palestine question. It is not an invention of the BBC. The BBC would find itself supporting Israel's territorial claims, were it to use Israeli terms for these territories. It may be pointed out that many Palestinians do not use the term "occupied Palestinian land" for the areas occupied by Israel in 1967, but talk about the 1967-occupied and the 1948-occupied territories. By doing so, they indicate their view that, in addition to those territories occupied in 1967, Israel has also occupied Palestinian territories in 1948, including Jaffa, parts of the Galilee and West Jerusalem. The BBC is bowing neither to the more extensive definition of occupation used by many Palestinians nor to the definition desired by the occupier, but sticks to the internationally accepted definition.

4. By using the term president for Mr Arafat, the BBC is not implying any political recognition. The term may for all purposes be honorific and recognizes simply the implied representative nature of Mr Arafat.

5. The BBC correctly refers to the Israeli settlements in the "occupied Palestinian land" as illegal. Their illegality is based on the illegality of the acquisition of territory by force, a principle of international law. The illegality of Israeli settlements in the 1967-occupied territories is disputed only by Israel and the US. These two countries do not establish BBC policy. To use another term would indicate that the BBC expresses an opinion that is not even shared by the British Government, let alone by most UN member states.

6. A number of sentences, disparaging Ariel Sharon or respectful of Arafat are mentioned in Asserson's and Mironi's report. It is not indicated when exactly, by whom and in which context they were expressed in the BBC. It is therefore difficult to judge the extent to which such sentences should not have been expressed.

7. The BBC is under a heavy constrain to report truthfully about various acts of violence committed in Palestine and Israel. It is being charged that the BBC does not balance its coverage of such acts of violence. Such charges have been levelled on the BBC not only by pro-Israel listeners and viewers but also from Palestinians and Muslims.

8. As a Palestinian Jew (person of Jewish parents born in Palestine at the time of the British Mandate), I have at times been flabbergasted by the pro-Israel bias of the BBC and its reluctance to deal with Israeli policies of outright racial discrimination (as defined in international human rights treaties) and with the racist nature of Zionism as the state ideology permeating Israeli legislation and practice. I have not the financial capacity to undertake an assessment of BBC coverage but wish to urge the BBC not to let itself be bullied by the oppressors of my Palestinian brothers and sisters, whom the world should regard as the "Jews of the Jews". I urge the BBC to give voice to those courageous Israelis and Palestinians who work together on the basis of equality against the occupation and for the right of return of Palestinian refugees, for justice and peace in their common homeland.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Elias Davidsson is a Palestinian Jewish composer living in Reykjavik, Iceland.



[ Last edited by sonny~~ on 23-6-2004 at 05:02 PM ]

"As the Arabs see the Jews"
  
His Majesty King Abdullah,
  
The American Magazine
  
November, 1947

http://www.al-bushra.org/palestine/abdallah.html

sonny~~

gee tq for the info.  am gonna paste it 'ere  

peace

"As the Arabs see the Jews"
His Majesty King Abdullah,
The American Magazine
November, 1947
  
Summary
This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein's grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948  Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of  longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe.
  
Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of  Europe.
King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
  
continue

sonny~~

continue  ;)

"As the Arabs see the Jews"
His Majesty King Abdullah,
The American Magazine
November, 1947
   
I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of  Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy,  American support.
  
So many billions of words have been written about Palestine  perhaps more than on any other subject in history that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do  so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular,  knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.
  
We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.
  
There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of   Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.  The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.
  
Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish  immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumbered minority in our home. Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.
  
Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.
  
We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever. Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population  forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?
  
Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.   No people on earth have been less "anti-Semitic" than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours.
  
Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centres have always contained large and  prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatment, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us  present, as we do, the coming of these strangers.

to be continued  


[ Last edited by sonny~~ on 26-6-2004 at 02:13 PM ]

hyphrigian

assalamualaikum....
apa itu HOLOCAUST?
dah baca tapi still nak tau pendapat semua kat sini....baca pun tak berapa nak paham..diharap semua dapat membantu
kalau dah ada thread ni sebelum ni buleh la delete...dah selak sampai belakang tapi tak jumpa atau tak perasan...

[ Last edited by  amazed at 10-1-2009 07:37 PM ]

payrol

wsalam hype...
yang aku paham holocaust ni time WW2 dulu....permbunuhan besar-besaran org2 jewish...ni semua mastermind org2 nazi...tu je yg aku ingt...yg laen...den tak tau sgt..

hyphrigian

itu saya tau la...
yang syaa tau sikit

payrol

ko cuba check kat wikipedia..sure panjang lebar explanation...