jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (123 posts)

Should Israel be allowed expansion on the West Bank?

  1. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 8 years ago

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he had authorized 455 new units of housing within disputed settlement areas in the West Bank. This comes even as he is expected to agree to a demand by the U.S. President Barack Obama to freeze developments there. Predictably, the announcement has brought calls of disapproval from both the left and the right in Israel, and brought sharp expressions of disapproval from Palestinians, the E.U. and the U.S.

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image71
      IntimatEvolutionposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      NO!

    2. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes!

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Here we go again.  Can you explain why?

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          NO!

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I rest my case.  See wasn't that easy?

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              NO!

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I guess the question has left you speachless to reply.

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  That would be speechless, in case you didn't know, which obviously you didn't.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Why so coy then?

    3. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think that we are living now in a more civilized world, there is no more room for annexation or expansion etc. That is why we have international organizations to settle everything, and they have to punish everybody if they will not follow and respect territory etc. Cultural repect is needed!!!!

    4. Make  Money profile image82
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "Should Israel be allowed expansion on the West Bank?"

      Not a chance.

      If Netanyahu is just giving lip service and continuing the expansion of settlements in the West Bank then all support from every country in the world, not just the US should stop immediately and sanctions should be put on the state of Israel.

      The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is the major problem between the West and the Muslim world because the West, especially the US has consistently taken the Israeli side with the US veto power in the UN.  The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is the largest problem in the world today and for the last 60 years.

      Israel should be made to go back to the 1947 UN agreed borders or less and Jerusalem should be made an international city like the 1947 UN mandate stated.

      See there is also concern about the Al-Aqsa Mosque now too.

      @ Marc Salyer - every one of your posts is full of BS as has been proven in many other threads in this forum.

    5. TimTurner profile image75
      TimTurnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely not!

    6. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What good would the Palestinians do with more land, another refugee camp? Israel just may do something too make it better.

      1. TimTurner profile image75
        TimTurnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Israel is a bully.  The sooner the U.S. cut ties with them, the better off we are.

        I have no problem with Jewish people but it's their government that doesn't get it.  They were given land in a deal and they just want more and more and don't care how they get it.

      2. mikelong profile image72
        mikelongposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        It's very important to point out racism and other forms of bigotry when they pop up.

        It is the responsibility of each person to highlight such behaviors whenever they manifest themselves.

        Ignorance should not be tolerated anywhere.

        Sir (Mr. Stelman), it is thinking like yours that enables imperialistic profiteers to manipulate nations like the United States.

  2. profile image0
    Marc Salyerposted 8 years ago

    Why shouldn't Israel build? Who does it harm?

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The harm is when it is rubbed in the face of the Palestinians and peace talks.  Our support of Israel for the last 60 plus years has done nothing to help along peace talks.  And by allowing the support to go along unfettered speaks volumes to the Palestinians trust in us and our ability to wage a peace deal.

      1. profile image0
        Marc Salyerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        What is our obsession with making Palestinians peaceful? Presidents want to be the peace broker because it gives them an instant, positive legacy (thanks to Carter who hosted the Camp David talks). Westerners are obsessed with peace in Israel as if it’s the only country with terrorism issues.

        Bebe Netanyahu represents the typical Israeli sentiment concerning Palestinians - The average families, in particular the children, are regularly victimized by all manner of thug and terrorist who vie for control of one Palestinian city or another. Those same thugs constantly stir up new descent against Israel that never before existed.

        Israelis don't randomly attack Palestinians for sport. They strategically defend themselves against competing terror groups within their own boarders. Imagine a regular 9/11 event annually stretched out over the year occurring year after year. That's about what it is like living as an Israeli. Also “Israeli” doesn’t mean Jewish citizen. It refers to all who hold citizenship: Jews, Druze, Bedouins, Arabs (Muslims, Christians), Somalians, and a hodgepodge of regional ethnic groups who share in the society we call Israel.

      2. profile image0
        SirDentposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Hamas has rubbed it in the face of Israel since its beginning. They don't care to lob rockets at civilian areas of Israel. They also don't mind putting suicide bobmers out in Israeli areas.

        Our support of Israel has nothing to do with us being hated. We would be hated regardless. According to what you wrote; (Our support of Israel for the last 60 plus years has done nothing to help along peace talks.  And by allowing the support to go along unfettered speaks volumes to the Palestinians trust in us and our ability to wage a peace deal) It seems that the Palestinians are attempting to blackmail us.

        I also must further add that there never was a Palestinian people in the history of the world. Even Yassar Arafat said that. He also went on to sday that the reason they stayed where they did was for the destruction of Israel. Maybe some are naive enough to believe that oeace will be possible through talks and concessions, but only those who truly know what is going on will know when and how preace will come to Israel.

        1. TimTurner profile image75
          TimTurnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Palestinians "lobbing" rockets into Israel and then Israel retaliating is like comparing throwing rocks with nuclear weapons.

          Israel kills 1,000s of people when they attack to Palestinians maybe a hundred.  Neither is right but I'm glad the U.N. condemned Israel with war crimes over last years attacks.

          Neither side is right but Israel is the bigger force and should act like a civilized country instead of picking on a weaker opponent.  They could easily work this out if they really wanted to.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            There is too much money and greed for them to work it out right now.  The only way they will change their ways is to have no other alternatives but to work it out.  Us witholding monetary and military support would help this along immeasurably.

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well War was very good for Yassar Arafat, it made him a very wealthy man.  Talks and concessions are not enough without actions.  True there was not an ancient people known as the Palestinians but there was an indigenous civilization who now refer to themselves as Palestinians.  That does not mean they were organized but the advent of Israel did make it neccessary for them so that they could protest the taking of their land.

          What then,  if you persist in a wrong long enough then the wrong becomes right?

          1. profile image0
            SirDentposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Whose land was it before Muslims started living there?

            You must also remember that all those who were there when Israel regained control were given the option to leave and go to other nations around them. Some did indeed leave, but I believe others stayed simply to be a sacrifice for the greater vision of the Muslim nations around Israel.

            We see it almost constantly on the news how many disregard their own lives. Suicide bombers trying to kill a few civilians.



            If someone started shooting at me with a 410 gauge shotugn and I had an AK47, they would kiss themselves goodbye. I will not wait until some of my family is killed before trying to defend them.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I would hope that you would leave when given the opportunity but with your access to an AK47 seems to answer the question as to whether you would stay and fight.

  3. ixwa profile image85
    ixwaposted 8 years ago

    No,they should not build, and why are they oppressing and depressing the Palestinians? Have they not taken enough of their land in 1948 and in 1966/'67? This is not right, and these people, The Israelis, mostly are from Europe and the Former Soviet Union. How can we even say they have a right to wipe out a whole people, send them into exile, destroy their cities and fields, and rename the Palestine's cities to their own them and renaming them, and encroach on the Palestine's' land, and even bomb them into the stone age? This is ridiculous, and must stop. The American Government should stop arming Israel if they keep on annihilating the Palestinians. The answer is NO!!!

    1. profile image0
      Marc Salyerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think your description is a little over the top. Many people have been poorly informed on the events that have led to the current state of things in Israel. Israel does not have a spotless human rights record but it shines like the sun compared to all the nations around them.

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

      Did you know Yasser Arafat was worth hundreds of millions of dollars before he died? Did you know that Arafat was an Egyptian national and not Palestinian.

      http://www.masada2000.org/been-had.html

      Israel has done more for the common displaced Palestinian people than the Arab states around them. Unfortunately, the common Palestinians are pawns of the religio-political terror regimes from Egypt to Iran who want the “European” Jews out of the land. (That’s a racist/anti-Semitic attitude of many Jew hating Arabs).

      Historically Jews flooded into Palestine from Europe after the Holocaust. The English, who controlled the region (it was never an actual state) saw the deluge of Jews and began to import Christian and Muslim Arabs and others from the East and the Mediterranean. These peoples were given partitioned land as well as Jewish populations and then cam one war after another. These were attacks on Israel by her neighbors. Land was taken in these wars and though some was given back, some was also kept.

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … _97228020/

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        So, they should be awarded all the lands they can take because of that? Interesting way of thinking...

        1. profile image0
          Marc Salyerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Trying to make sense of your statement. Did you mean that you had an interesting way of thinking?

          I didn't suggest that Israel deserved to take any lands that they wanted. Nor has Israel made a practice of doing so.

          I was responding to the following statement because it is beyond inaccurate and based on false information.

               "How can we even say they have a right to wipe out a whole people, send them into exile,       
               destroy their cities and fields, and rename the Palestine's cities to their own them and 
               renaming them, and encroach on the Palestine's' land, and even bomb them into the stone
               age?"

  4. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years ago

    GO! Israel! Kick Butt and take names!

  5. profile image0
    Marc Salyerposted 8 years ago

    The title of this thread is awkward in itself.

    Should Israel be allowed to expand on the West bank?

    Allowed by whom? Their own constitution? Arab states? The U.S.? Israel is an autonomous state. They aren't prohibited from taking anything they want to take. If they wanted more land who would stop them from taking it? And why aren't they taking all of the territories for themselves today?

    The fact is they have been giving up land and releasing ground to palestinians and Arab nieghbors. Any settlements that will be built are on empty plots of land.

  6. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image59
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 years ago

    The topic itself is strange! Who allows Israel what it is doing now? They think what they are doing is for their peoples' security. So, we need not worry about Israel's activities. If the Palelstinians feel threatened, let them retaliate and save themselves; if they cant, let them make peace with Israel. Meddling by others will make things worse.

  7. aware profile image70
    awareposted 8 years ago

    if a house is for sale in the west bank and a Israeli wants to buy it.and no Palestinian buyers make a better offer .then why  shouldn't the Jew be allowed. same  goes for a Palestinian buying a home in Israel ..

  8. Make  Money profile image82
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    But that is not the reality on the ground aware.

    This is what has been happening in East Jerusalem alone not including the rest of the occupied territories.

  9. mikelong profile image72
    mikelongposted 8 years ago

    1) Israel and the modern Middle East are the creations of European nations (Britain and France)who were divvying up their world war one Ottoman Empire acquisitions....this can be discussed more because its a favorite topic of mine...

    But, with this said, it is the British government that failed to uphold its promises to the Arabic speaking peoples of the Middle East, while enabling Israel at ever point to strengthen its hold on territory that was outside of its original mandate....

    Any expansion stands against and in violation of agreements and understandings made in the early 20th century....and it is the ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the populaces of the "free" world that these tragedies are allowed to continue.

  10. livelonger profile image95
    livelongerposted 8 years ago

    I find it emblematic of the problems in the Middle East that both sides of the conflict (and their supporters) seem to question the legitimacy of the other side's right to exist. All sorts of quotes, historical timelines, and minutiae are exploited by both sides to defend their position and totally discredit the other's.

    Until that bridge has been crossed - where both sides recognize that the other side is not going to go away, they are not going to get everything they want, and that both deserve their own country - the conflict will continue to rage. And the bickering about details will not help.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Why can't they be left to figure it out on their own?  We continue to back one side that is in opposition to the other side. We are in essence the problem.  All bickering aside we need to mind our own business.

      1. livelonger profile image95
        livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        By "we" you mean Americans. The entire Arab world plus a few other assorted countries, like Iran, back the Palestinians (they're the ones who started the wars against Israel in the 20th century). If *everyone* backed off and let the Israelis and Palestinians sort out their differences, maybe they'd get somewhere. But only the US withdrawing support would leave Israel a vulnerable island surrounded by hostile enemies.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry,  I do mean "we" as an American.  I think what you say makes sense and that by allowing Israel to stand on its' own would give them a sense of responsiblity in the process.  If we continue to allow them to operate with no regard to their actions why would they want anything to change.  Do we let them fail? I don't know. But if you give them ownership of their situation then maybe there could be an opening for discussion in negotiations.

          1. livelonger profile image95
            livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I believe that pressure is already happening. The problem is that Israel was "coddled" for too long under Bush, which really didn't improve its security situation at all but gave it a false sense of a permanent green light from the U.S. That emboldened the hawks and ultra-Orthodox there.
            But having your counterpart (Hamas) in the peace process not even recognize your right to exist, and have a call for your destruction in their charter, doesn't help anything either. How can you negotiate with someone whose idea of a settlement is writing you off the map entirely?

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              They can start by showing restraint and not escalating the settlements cropping up.  Come to the table without demands and negotiate needs on both sides.  Share some of the power in earnest and allow the Palestinians some freedoms as a citizen.  This could work wonders.  But right now they have nothing to lose in their stance to not negotiate because the big hammer is right behind them to clean up the mess.

  11. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 8 years ago

    Why is this question relevant to America? It is Israel's problem. America shouldn't be involved. If Israel wants to do something and the land is theirs....then what is the problem.

    America needs to start taking care of it's own problems and stop policing the World.

    That's all I have to say on this matter.

    1. TimTurner profile image75
      TimTurnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly but because of the closeness of Christians and Jews, we protect Israel because of religion.  And, as we all know, religion causes some pretty big wars.

      I really wish we would cut our ties with Israel because we get NOTHING out of defending Israel.  They get money, protection and our resources.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I agree that there is a religious connection but that is far from the reason our government backs Israel.  They provide a great deal of political clout through the Jewish lobby and not many of our politicians will go up against them.  The other thing is our Military Industrial Complex that is always for war and profits.  I think you would find a little more sympathy for the Palestinians plight if you took care of these other factors. We give 3.1 Billion dollars of support to Israel annually.

      2. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Nah, you support and protect them cause a few wealthy Jewish families lobby your government. Religion as usual serves as a smoke screen. smile

        1. TimTurner profile image75
          TimTurnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Hmmm...interesting.

          Seriously, the ONLY thing we get out of protecting Israel is Middle East terrorist groups wanting to attack us.

          Seems like a one-sided relationship to me.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            No, we get to be the perenial peace broker, the weapons supplier, getting someone else minding the wars and relieve our guilty concience about the Holocaust and a distraction from us getting as much oil as we can while we carry on this ruse.

            1. livelonger profile image95
              livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Do we (again, Americans) have a guilty conscience about the Holocaust?
              I think your point about being a weapons supplier might be closer to the target.

          2. livelonger profile image95
            livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, it might be a good idea to capitulate to terrorists' demands. Israel first, Spain and all other "historically Islamic" lands next.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Do you believe there is only a military solution to the conflict?

              1. livelonger profile image95
                livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                No. I believe the opposite - that a diplomatic approach is the only viable solution.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I am sorry but I thought I detected a note of sarcasm in your response.  If a diplomatic approach is your preference then how could it be accomplished without delivering on some demands?

                  1. livelonger profile image95
                    livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Sorry - your question took a decidedly different direction. The original quote above was clearly sarcastic.

                    Re: a diplomatic approach. What demands do you mean?

              2. TimTurner profile image75
                TimTurnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Unfortunately, it seems we created that as the only option.  Both sides are on the extreme opposite sides that it will take a major shift in leadership on both sides to find a peaceful resolution.

                I hope it happens but it just seems to be getting worse.

                And I don't think we can lead the talks because everyone knows the U.S. wouldn't be unbiased.  We need like Russia or someone to lead  haha

                I dunno....I'm so disgruntled on how the U.S. and Israel represent the interests over there.

        2. TimTurner profile image75
          TimTurnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Oh and protecting a few religious rocks and buildings.  Whoop-dee-do.

          Not to offend Jews or Christians but is all this trouble worth a piece of land with old rocks and buildings?

        3. livelonger profile image95
          livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Funny that those few Jewish families didn't have much of an influence on the US before the 1960s. Maybe they sprang into existence in the 1960s.

          1. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the giggles. Do you mean there were no wealthy Jewish families in US before 1960, or that they did not have any influence on government? wink

            1. livelonger profile image95
              livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I don't know. You seem to suggest that the US supports Israel due to the lobbying of wealthy Jews. The US didn't support Israel up through the 1950s (remember the Suez crisis?). Why not?

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                We gave them a million dollars to wage the war to take the land.

                If you want a little light reading about it read this:

                On November 29, 1947, the night partition was announced in Palestine, Zionist settlers danced through the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. When some dancers burst onto David Ben-Gurion's study, he hurried them away and returned to poring over military maps. The maps showed that over one-half of all Jewish settlers lived in three major cities, while the Palestinian Arabs lived in every city and in Arab villages throughout Palestine. Ben-Gurion studied each Arab village, focusing on the details of its strategic importance, its inhabitants, and its surrounding terrain.

                Ben-Gurion had already ordered a secret mobilization of all soldiers in the Zionist army, the Haganah, and in the Palmach, the assault troops of the Haganah. Earlier in November, four special agents had departed for Europe with three million dollars of credits raised in the United States. Their mission was to buy rifles, machine guns, airplanes and artillery. In the outlying kibbutzim, secret arms factories, built from smuggled materials supplied by American Zionists, turned out small arms. Zionists were negotiating with Czechoslovakia for a large arms purchase.1 Ben-Gurion was preparing a military offensive designed to seize much more of Palestine for the Zionist state than the United Nations had assigned to it. He called this offensive "Plan Dalet." It would begin as soon as enough British troops withdrew from Palestine.2

                For Palestinian Arabs, the threat of war hung heavy in the air the night of partition. They listened to the wild celebration in the streets. They talked of how to defend their nation in the upcoming fight. No arms were arriving from Europe for the Palestinians. The weapons they possessed dated from the 1936 rebellion. In all of Jaffa, there were only eight machine guns. The British Emergency Laws, enacted during the 1936 Palestinian rebellion, still condemned to death any Palestinian found with a gun. Two small Palestinian guerrilla groups had continued to train in the hills throughout the Second World War. The only central leadership, the Arab Higher Committee, had been banished ten years ago. Recently re-formed, it no longer had the power to rally Palestinians behind it. The Palestinians faced a Zionist military that was perhaps the best led and best organized of all European settler armies.

                The hopes of many Palestinians turned to the other Arab countries. The Arab League, formed at the end of the war to coordinate the activities of Arab countries, was quick to issue scores of statements expressing solidarity with the Palestinians. But it failed to train Palestinians or to provide them with arms. Arab leaders depended on Britain and the United States to maintain their power. Several, like Prime Minister Nuri es-Said of Iraq, were more employees of Western oil companies than independent leaders. They did not want to challenge imperialism by giving full support to the Palestinians.

                There were those among the Arab peoples, however, who had an understanding of Western imperialism born from decades of resistance. Through demonstrations and in organizations, they pressured their governments to do more than pay lip service to the Palestinian cause. Some Arab organizers suggested a powerful weapon: an oil boycott against the United States and Britain. In 1947, Syria had refused to sign an agreement with the United States to complete an oil pipeline. Workers in Lebanon and Transjordan stopped work on the line in enthusiastic support. But King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia sabotaged the work stoppage to protect the royalties that flowed directly into his palace from the profits of United States oil corporations. Palestinians understood from betrayals like this that they could expect only token help from the Arab governments.

                In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem's streets almost immediately. The Zionists were prepared to seize every opportunity to escalate the fighting. A lightning war was their only hope to defeat the Palestinians, who outnumbered the Zionists and lived in all parts of the partitioned country. A lengthy battle could only favor the Palestinians. Violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war.


                Zionist soldiers invade a town.

                Palestinians fought in small guerrilla bands, in village militias, or in the ranks of the Arab Liberation Army, a poorly armed force of a thousand Palestinians and three thousand volunteers from other Arab countries. The people of Palestine supported the fighters as best they could. Women organized groups called "daisy chains" to smuggle arms into the hills, to dig trenches and to organize medical supplies. Casualties were high. By February the Palestinians were outmatched with twenty-five thousand Arabs fighting fifty thousand Zionist troops.3

                Plan Dalet
                Throughout the winter of 1948 Haganah and Irgun soldiers carried out night raids on Arab villages. The Haganah defined the purpose of these raids as "not to punish but to warn." Soldiers attacked quiet villages that had not been involved in the fighting to demonstrate "the Haganah's long arm."4 Haganah troops entered a village and silently placed dynamite around the stone houses, drenching the wooden doors and window frames with gasoline. Then, stepping back, they opened fire with their guns. The sleeping inhabitants died in the explosion and fire that destroyed their homes.5

                Such "warnings" caused some villagers to flee their homes, but often only to another part of Palestine, no far enough away for the Zionists. The Zionist goal was to "clear the land" of its Arab inhabitants, but Palestinian leaders urged the people to stay and fight. In March Ben-Gurion put Plan Dalet - an all-out attack throughout the whole of Palestine - into effect.6 At the heart of his strategy was the systematic expulsion of the Palestinian Arab population. As long as most Palestinians stayed in Palestine, the Zionists could not win a decisive victory.

                The attack began with the use of psychological terror. On March 28, the Zionist Free Radio broadcast this warning in Arabic:

                Do you know it is a sacred duty to inoculate yourselves against cholera, typhus and similar diseases, as it is expected that such diseases will break out heavily in April and May among Arabs in the cities?7
                Such broadcasts were not directed at Palestinian soldiers. Their purpose was to create fear in villagers, farmers and families in the cities and encourage them to flee. At Deir Yassin, a small Arab village near Jerusalem, psychological terror turned into a full-fledged massacre.

                Deir Yassin was a quiet village. Its inhabitants had cooperated with the Jewish Agency and kept Arab troops out of their town.8 On April 9, Irgun soldiers entered the village and told the residents they had fifteen minutes to abandon their homes. Then the bands of soldiers attacked. In a few hours, the Irgun had murdered two hundred fifty-four people - men, women and children - in cold blood.9 Over the protests of the Jewish Agency, Jacques de Reynier of the International Red Cross visited Deir Yassin a few days later. He met the soldiers of the Irgun in the process of "cleaning up." This is what he reported:

                I found some bodies cold. Here the "cleaning up" had been done with machine guns, then hand-grenades. It had been finished off with knives, anyone could see that... As the [Irgun] gang had not dared to attack me directly, I could continue. I gave orders for the bodies in this house to be loaded on the truck, and went into the next house, and so on. Everywhere, it was the same horrible sight. I found only two more people alive...10
                The Irgun took the few survivors to Jerusalem and paraded them through the streets as crowds spit upon them. Although the Jewish Agency piously condemned the massacre at Deir Yassin, the Irgun was admitted to the Joint Command of the military with the Haganah the same day.11 The actions of the Irgun served the Zionist plan well. The destruction of Deir Yassin, which was skillfully publicized by the Zionists, sparked an exodus of Palestinian families who feared a similar fate. During the joint Irgun-Haganah attack on the Palestinian quarter of Haifa, the news of the massacre which had occurred twelve days before convinced many to flee.

                On April 21, 1948, the British commander of Haifa advised the Zionists that he was withdrawing his troops. He did not tell Palestinian leaders. At sundown the Zionists began their attack on Haifa Arabs with Davidka mortars, which hurled sixty pounds of explosives about three hundred yards into the crowded Arab quarter. Barrel bombs, which were casks filled with gasoline and dynamite, rolled down the narrow alleys and crashed, creating an inferno of flames and explosions. Haganah loudspeakers broadcast "horror recordings" that filled the air with the shrieks and anguished moans of Arab women, interrupted by a booming sorrowful voice that called out in Arabic, "Flee for your lives! The Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapons!" As Palestinians fled their city, the Irgun commander reported that they cried, "Deir Yassin! Deir Yassin!"12

                Palestinians flee Jaffa.

                Within a week the same psychological blitz," as the Zionists called it, emptied the port city of Jaffa, a city designated as part of the Arab state. Only three thousand of he eighty thousand Arabs of Jaffa remained. Jon Kimche, a Zionist historian, reported that the soldiers "commenced to loot in wholesale fashion... Everything that was movable was carried from Jaffa [and] what could not be taken away was smashed."13 From the fertile fields of Galilee to the fortress city of Acre, the Zionist campaign drove the Palestinians from their homes, their villages, their lands. The several hundred thousand who remained lived under Zionist occupation.

                During that fateful April of 1948, eight out of the thirteen major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the territory granted to the Arab state by the United Nations.14 By May 15, as the British ended their long rule over Palestine, three hundred thousand Palestinians were exiles, living hand-to-mouth in the Jordan valley, Lebanon and Syria. The Jewish Agency cynically announced that the exodus of Arabs from Palestine was due to "flight psychosis."15

                Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel.

                "Proclaim the State, No Matter What"
                On Passover, April 24, Ben-Gurion had announced at a victory feast in Jerusalem: "We stand on the eve of a Jewish State." He had already set the date in his mind. As the British ended their rule on May 15, 1948, the Zionists would begin theirs. Ben-Gurion planned to cut off the lingering debate in the UN about the partition plan by confronting the world with the actual existence of the new state. Chaim Weizmann, the elder statesman of Zionism, telegraphed his advice: "Proclaim the state, no matter what else ensues."16

                Zionist leaders approached President Truman and worked out the details of U.S. recognition. At 6:00 p.m. on May 15, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the existence of Israel. Eleven minutes later, President Truman cabled American recognition of the Jewish state.

                A messenger rushed into the United Nations to inform the members of the turn of events; even the U.S. ambassador had not been informed. Arab delegates charged that the United Nations had again served as a backdrop for the maneuvers of the United States. The Soviet Union, still hoping that the creation of the new state might mean an end to imperialist control of Palestine, added its recognition a few days later.

                People in the Arab countries knew better. The news of Deir Yassin and other violent incidents had created an intense concern and anger over the fate of the Palestinians. As Committees for Palestine called meetings and demonstrations throughout the Arab countries, Arab leaders knew they had to respond. The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill-equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts. King Abdullah of Transjordan, the official commander-in-chief, was busy negotiating with British and Zionist leaders for a slice of Palestine.17 Abdullah wanted to attach to his own kingdom any Palestinian territory not occupied by the Israelis. He promised that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements.18 Under Abdullah's self-serving leadership the armies of the Arab League had little effect. A few individual units - most notably those of young Egyptians - fought fiercely, but often with no support from their generals. Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off the "overwhelming hordes" of five Arab countries!

                In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified. British Major Edgar O'Ballance described the new phase:

                [T]he Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory, as at Ramleh, Lydda and other places. Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country, the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them.19
                On July 11, 1948, Moshe Dayan led a jeep commando column into the town of Lydda. Rifles, Sten guns and submachine guns blasted at everything that moved. Within minutes, the streets were silent, strewn with corpses of men, women and children.20 The next day, the Israelis seized the adjoining town of Ramleh. Loudspeakers announced that all Arabs had forty-eight hours to leave. Israeli soldiers stripped each person of all belongings - even food - at the bridges leaving the town. As Israeli troops sacked the town, a hundred thousand Palestinians began a painful march into exile.21 For three days, without food and water, the refugees walked in the sweltering sun towards the Transjordan hills. Many old people and children died of thirst.

                "An Insuperable Problem"
                When the fighting persisted and it became clear that the partition plan had broken down, the United Nations sent a mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, to try to arrange a cease-fire and to secure the rights of the Palestinians. Numerous cease-fires which he arranged broke down as the Israelis continued their drives into Arab territory.22 Bernadotte urged Israel to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes. Israeli Foreign Minster Moshe Shertok replied: "On the economic side, the reintegration of the returning Arabs into normal life... would present an insuperable problem."23

                In reality, the "problem" was that the new state depended on the homes, land and shops left behind by the exiled Palestinians. New Jewish settlers were already arriving, moving into Arab houses and reopening Arab businesses. The wealth of the exiled Palestinians - 80 percent of the land, 50 percent of the citrus groves, 90 percent of the olive groves, and ten thousand shops - was needed to build the new state of Israel.24



                Bernadotte continued to press for Palestinians' right to return. His reports documented the forced flight of the Palestinians and their desire to return once peace was established. Finally on September 17, members of the Stern Gang assassinated Bernadotte. Waves of shock rippled through the United Nations and Western capitals at the news of his murder. New pressure mounted on Israel to accept a cease-fire. On January 7, 1949, a prolonged cease-fire went into effect. The new state of Israel encompassed 80 percent of Palestine! The key to victory had been the forcible eviction of the Palestinian Arab population. Chaim Weizmann observed that exodus of the Palestinians was a "miraculous simplification of our tasks."25

                The Western world celebrated the birth of the new state. In America, Senators, members of Congress and the President applauded the "miracle of Israel." A rush of books and articles, like the best-seller Exodus, told the story of Israel as the victory of a valiant and intelligent people, the Israelis, over hordes of dark-skinned, dishonest and backward Arabs. The story had the drama of the popular Hollywood Westerns that dominated the American screen. It also had the same point: the attack on native people and the conquest of their land, whether Palestinian or Indian, was not only legitimate, but courageous and inspiring. It was a useful lesson to teach as American leaders launched the Cold War. It helped mobilize the American people behind the U.S. drive to seize the resources of other countries. An atmosphere of fear and hatred of "backward and uncivilized" people, from the Koreans to the Arabs, gripped the country. Israel represented a victory that both recaptured America's pioneer days and gave Israel's American supporters an emotional stake in U.S. domination of the Middle East.

                The truth about the Palestinian Arabs lay buried in this avalanche of propaganda. In 1959 an American Jew, Nathan Chofshi, who had settled Palestine in 1908, wrote to the American Jewish Newsletter, protesting an article by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan. Kaplan had argued that Arab leaders told the Palestinians to leave. Chofshi wrote:

                If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old Jewish settlers in Palestine who witnessed the flight could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave cities and villages which they did not want to leave of their own free will. Some of them were driven out by force of arms; others were made to leave by deceit, lying and false promises.26
                Over seven hundred fifty thousand Palestinians had been driven out of Palestine to create the state of Israel.27 King Abdullah annexed the Palestinian West Bank to Transjordan, renaming his enlarged kingdom simply Jordan. King Farouk of Egypt took over the administration of the Gaza Strip. Palestine disappeared from Western maps.

                The people of Palestine did not forget. The memories of the terror of the spring of 1948 mingled with the memory of other springs in Palestine, when the land was theirs and grew under their care. Ghassan Kanafani, an exiled Palestinian writer, described the flight of his family from Jaffa in a story called The Land of Sad Oranges. He recalled

                ... the long queue of lorries, leaving the land of oranges far behind and spreading out over the winding roads of Lebanon. Then I began to weep, howling with tears. As for [my] mother, she eyed the oranges silently and all the orange trees [my] father had left behind to the Jews were reflected in his eyes; all the wholesome orange trees he had acquired one by one were visible in his face and glistened through the tears he could not check, even in front of the officer. When we arrived in Sidon that afternoon, we had become homeless.28

                1. Make  Money profile image82
                  Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Rhamson do you have a link to a web site that shows this act of genocide?  It's good to bookmark this information for future use.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    The link to the website is: http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/

                    And the particular chapter is: http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/reso … ter08.html

                    Of course you will be chided plenty about the source being bias but I cite this because it is the other side of the popular argument.  Careful because I don't know who is watching.  We are only so free up till now.

              2. Misha profile image76
                Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Umm, well, no, I had to look it up, and it did not really clarify much.

                To answer why US did not support Israel till 50s - may be Brits did not let them yet? Or while Britain and France were the major forces there, US help was not needed? Besides, it probably took some time since Israel creation. smile

                Does not really change anything about today's lobbying. smile

                1. livelonger profile image95
                  livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Too bad you didn't read deeper into the actors and the actions of the Suez Crisis. It would help answer that question. smile

                  So now you're saying that Britain had more control over US policy than Israel. Were we at the behest of British wealthy families before Jewish wealthy families took over? (Am I forgetting any wealthy families?) smile

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Read more about the Balfour Agreement to answer who was at whos behest.

                    Foreign Office,
                    November 2nd, 1917.

                    Dear Lord Rothschild,
                    I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
                    "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
                    I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

                    Yours sincerely
                    Arthur James Balfour

                  2. Misha profile image76
                    Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Nah, I should have made myself unclear. I was saying that wealthy Jewish families probably did not need USA help up to this point, cause Brits did the job. Then they decided that USA was a better fit for the job, and here you go. smile

  12. livelonger profile image95
    livelongerposted 8 years ago

    I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by dumping a lengthy "historical" (who wrote it?) piece here, rhamson.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It was a complilation by:Joy Bonds, Jimmy Emerman, Linda John, Penny Johnson, Paul Rupert

      Here are the footnotes if you wish to check on it.

      Footnotes

      Tabitha Petran, Zionism, A Political Critique, p. 10, using sources from Walid Khalidi, "Plan Dalat, The Zionist Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine," Middle East Forum (November 1961).
      Nathaniel Lorch, The Edge of the Sword (New York: 1961), p. 87, cited by Childers, "The Wordless Wish," in The Transformation of Palestine, p. 180.
      Compiled from various sources, including Fred J. Khouri, The Arab-Israeli Dilemma (New York: 1969), cited by Dana Adams Schmidt, Armageddon in the Middle East (New York: 1974), p. 123.
      Jon Kimche and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill (London: 1960), cited by Childers, p. 182.
      Ibid.
      David Ben-Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, translated and edited by Mordechai Nurock (New York: 1954), p. 39, cited by Childers, p. 183.
      BBC Monitoring Records, British Museum, cited by Childers, p. 183.
      Sykes, Crossroads to Israel, p. 416.
      Numerous sources cited by Childers, p. 185.
      Jacques de Reynier, "A Jerusalem un Drapeau Flottait sur la Ligne de Feu," in Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest, p. 764.
      George Eden Kirk, A Short History of the Middle East (London: 1948), cited by Sykes, p. 418.
      From numerous pro-Zionist sources cited by Childers, pp. 188-89.
      Jon Kimche, Seven Fallen Pillars (London: 1950), p. 233, cited by Childers, p. 191.
      Petran, p. 11, citing Khalidi, "Plan Dalet, the Zionist Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine."
      New York Times, 4 May 1948, 1:6,8, cited by Robert John and Sami Hadawi, The Palestine Diary, 2:342.
      Sykes, p. 432.
      Jon Kimche and David Kimche, A Clash of Destinies: The Arab-Jewish War and the Founding of the State of Israel (New York: 1970), p. 60, cited by John and Hadawi, 2:295.
      Aref el-Aref, The Tragedy 1947-1952 2 vols. (Sidon, Lebanon: 1956), 1:65-67, cited by John and Hadawi, 2:295-96.
      Edgar O'Ballance, The Arab-Israeli War, 1948 (London: 1956), pp. 171-72, cited by Childers, p. 194.
      Kenneth Bilby, New Star in the Near East (New York: 1950), p. 43, cited by Childers, p. 194.
      Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill, p. 228, cited by Childers, p. 194; London Economist, 21 August 1948, cited by Childers, p. 194.
      Sykes, pp. 435-36.
      United Nations Security Council, Official Records, Suppl. 108 (S/949), August 1948, pp. 106-9, cited by Childers, p. 195.
      Don Peretz, Israel and the Palestine Arabs (Washington D.C.: 1958), cited by Childers, p. 195.
      James G. McDonald, My Mission to Israel 1948-1951 (New York: 1951), cited by Childers, p. 196.
      "The Bitter Truth about the Refugees," Jewish Newsletter (New York), 9 February 1959, cited by Childers, p. 184.
      Janet Abu-Lughod, "The Demographic Transformation of Palestine," in The Transformation of Palestine, pp. 147-61.
      Anni Kanafani, Ghassan Kanafani (Beirut: 1973), p. 10.

      1. livelonger profile image95
        livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Our Roots Are Still Alive: The Story of the Palestinian People by  People's Press Palestine Book Project Staff

        Yes, from the publisher alone I can tell this has some great, unbiased information.
        /s

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          You are free to quote who you wish.  Obviously you maintain the status quo opinions and their distortions.  Perhaps a little information could help you understand more and not contribute to the problem.

          1. livelonger profile image95
            livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think reading a 30-year-old propaganda piece will change my position, which I've made clear. If you choose to see them as distortions, more power to you.
            I could easily give you a list of books that might "inform" you too, but I won't bother.

  13. aware profile image70
    awareposted 8 years ago

    can i a  American buy land in the west bank and build a condo and rent to who ever i chose ?

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes and no.  You can buy a condo on the west bank and no you can't rent it to anyone you want.

  14. aware profile image70
    awareposted 8 years ago

    any muslim can come live next to me  in my country . they can be my neighbor , be my friend and count on me to make sure they live safe and free . they can build a Islamic Disney land for all i care. never will they hear me utter the words  infidel or invader. the words they will hear most are hay neighbor want to come over later for a B B Q ?   I think that Islam needs to address  intolerance with in its faith . i think all religions need to in fact.it one main reason i dont subscribe to any religion.

  15. Make  Money profile image82
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    A lot of information on this topic has previously been posted in this thread as well as other threads in this forum.
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/22722?page=9

    One particularly damning piece of evidence against the zionists is this web site where Jeff Gates asks the question "Will Israel Fall in Five Years?"  Jeff Gates doesn't beat around the bush with his brutally honest writings.  He says a mouth full even before he says this.

  16. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image59
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 years ago

    Israel is not asking anyone's permission. It is their privilege to do whatever needed to their peoples' protection... Just as America came from thousands of miles just to "punish" Afganistan and Iraq, Israel has the right to go into the lands from where their enemies are stationed.
    In self defence, everyone has the right to retaliate. Even self-defence-killings are justified by law.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The only problem is that the US funds them to exercise their "privilege"  and we are and should be held accountable for that.

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image59
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        We should also consider what will happen if US stops funding Israel. Arab-Palestine-Islamists will wipe out Israel and take control of Jerusalem, the holy land. They are ready to close the Suez and stop oil supplies. Hesitating to spend one dollar, you should not lose ten dollars.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          We also might have some credibility in going towards negotiating a peace between the factions.  If you let fear drive your reasoning then you have to go along for the ride.

  17. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years ago

    Absolutely yes! We should also let them have lebanon, syria, saudi arabia, iraq and iran. Let's face it they are the only civilized country in the region so they should rule by default.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Can we afford it? I don't know if our budget can take all that on too.

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Absolutely not! That's why we need to pull back to our own borders and worry about whats good for America first.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I am sorry, my sarcasm got in the way.  Who do you think Israel has paying it's way in the current wars?  We do!  Do you think we can afford to give them that much more to carry on wars with all the other countries you mentioned?

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think with healthcare and the economy on the table we can afford to help anyone right now. I also think if we pulled back it might send the world a message that we're not as bad a deal as we've been advertized.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Thats my point precisely.  We need to stop funding Israel in its wars in the middle east before they will come to the peace process.

              1. profile image0
                sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I agree. But as it stands I wouldn't leave them to stand alone while pour billions in forgien aid to islamic countries.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  We don't pour billions of dollars of aid into any Islamic countries.  Our government contractors make billions of dollars off of us the US taxpayer.  Believe me we stand alone with the aid we provide in the middle east.

                  1. profile image0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Check out Egypt.

  18. Make  Money profile image82
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Israeli occupation takes terrible human toll, say Holy Land women
    Oct-27-2009
    "WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories has separated families and cost people their homes, jobs and dignity, said three women from the Holy Land who visited Washington.

    They "threw me out like rubbish," said Sharihan Hannoun, a Palestinian Muslim from East Jerusalem, referring to the day Israeli police kicked her family out of their home as part of a plan to create a new Jewish settlement in the area. The only thing she could take with her was the house key.

    The Israeli police "kicked us out on the second of August at 5 a.m.," Hannoun said, noting that her family was left on the streets.

    Hannoun told participants in a conference on the Holy Land that Israeli police told her family the authorities were allowed to take their home "because you are Palestinian and we can take any houses we want ... without any papers ... because we are Israeli."

    Hannoun was a student at the time, and police would not even let her into her house to get her books -- she was forced to do her take-home finals on the street, she said.

    Jala Basil Andoni, a Christian Palestinian from Bethlehem, West Bank, echoed Hannoun's story when she addressed participants in the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation conference in Washington Oct. 24. Andoni talked about being kicked out of her university dormitory in Amman, Jordan, in 1967 during the Six-Day War so the building could be used as a makeshift hospital.

    The Six-Day War was the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and Andoni was separated from her family for two years.

    She also spoke about the travel restrictions Palestinians currently are forced to deal with on a daily basis.

    "I cannot go into Jerusalem unless I pass through a checkpoint," she said. Palestinians must show IDs and permits to prove they are able to work or even to confirm a doctor's appointment.

    The security barrier Israel built to separate itself from the Palestinian territories is made of concrete and has towers and military checkpoints, Andoni said.

    Delays at the checkpoints have caused some Palestinians to lose their jobs, she said.

    "Some workers sleep near the checkpoints at 4 in the morning," she said, so they can be there when the checkpoints open around 5 a.m.

    Ruth El-Raz, a Jewish resident of Jerusalem, told conference participants the checkpoints are supposed to open at 5 a.m., but sometimes they do not open until 5:15 or 5:20, possibly because one of the policemen slept late, although no real explanation is given.

    At times, Palestinians find themselves on the "forbidden list" and are not allowed past the checkpoints -- the Palestinians do not know why they were placed on the list or who placed them there, El-Raz said. Palestinians crossing the border have to live each day with the uncertainty of when they will be able to cross the checkpoints -- or if they will be allowed to cross at all.

    "Any occupation is, by nature, evil," El-Raz said.

    "Every country has the right to determine who comes in" by use of passports and ID cards, El-Raz said. The difference in the Palestinian territories is that Israel alone determines who comes in and out and "what the Palestinians do in their own territories."

    El-Raz told conference participants, "I am not pro-Palestinian. I am pro-Israel," but she said she believed in an independent Israeli state next to an independent Palestinian state.

    Andoni, too, called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. She said her family owned olive trees and used "to make gallons of olive oil," but with the restrictions posed by the Israeli security barrier they were unable to care for all their trees.

    "Ending the occupation ... will not be possible unless we get the support of the American people and the American government," she said.

    The three women's trip to the Washington conference was sponsored by Partners for Peace, an organization working to educate Americans in an effort to secure Palestinian-Israeli peace and justice."

  19. mikelong profile image72
    mikelongposted 8 years ago

    "Islamic nation"

    When the U.S. gave weapons and money to France following World War II to reclaim Indochina as its colony was the U.S. aiding a "Christian nation"?

    To begin with, there is no one entity called "Islam", just as there is no one idea called "Christianity."

    When the United States pays Bahrain for the installations that the military and government use it is one group of ruling elite paying off another. Religion is irrelevant.

    Saudi Arabia is not an "Islamic" nation....rather it reflects the Wahhabian interpretation of how Islam can be used to control a population....of course compounded by a cruel prison system and acceptance of violence to counter disobedience to the established order....

    Hegemony comes in a variety of forms......but stereotyping and judging based off a misconception or lack of information regarding issues like Islam and religion as a whole can lead to harm towards those who are also being victimized by forces that they cannot at this point control.

  20. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years ago

    Yes they should, and if they're attacked they should have a legal claim to any land they take in the course of a war they didn't start.

  21. Make  Money profile image82
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    It's good that you point out this bigotry Mike.  We basically see it from Harvey on a regular basis.  I'm sure a lot of us recognize it as bigotry without saying anything about it.  You are right, we shouldn't let it slide past without pointing it out.

 
working