Does any of you gentlemen have a suggestion how to break the stalemate over there? I mean short of the odd genocide?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
:coffeenews:
Printable View
Does any of you gentlemen have a suggestion how to break the stalemate over there? I mean short of the odd genocide?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
:coffeenews:
Arab countries opening their borders for the palestines. There are too much of them.
edit, that sounded bad, but what I mean is that it's unsustainable anyway. Too many people. Israel isn't the only border trapping them. Palestine can't be because it just can't survive as it is.
This article, put shortly, is filth. It's full of misinformation, propaganda, and lies. But that's not very surprising coming from what appears to be an Israeli who has made yerida to the UK (not sure about that, however) and supports Ilan Pappe (another one who has made yerida). It's only too bad that most people in this thread follow the same line.
You're right, you know...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
... if the armed Palestinian factions hadn't been systematically targeting civilians for the better part of a century, instead of fighting the fair fight and limiting themselves to the Israeli military.
Palestinian militants are not freedom fighters. You slander the name of many, many resistance movements throughout history by calling them that. Had they been worthy of the name, there probably would already have been a Palestinian state by now.
It's Arab states that put them in that situation, Palestinian armed movements that keep them there, Arabs and Palestinians alike killing them, torturing them, keeping them locked up and held down. Yet apparently they are only the victims of the evil Zionist war machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
The Independent is quite decent, as rags go. No one in their right mind would identify that paper with a single readers' letter and people who are interested in an article's substance couldn't care less if the author is an Inuit who made Yerida to Ouagadougou.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Could you tell us what your own view of Israel's future is? That would be much more informative.
http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/...23_11237_11237
I can't remember if I posted this, and I can't look back right now.
You would ignore where the author is coming from? Most interesting. 'Cause, you know, in an editorial, knowing that is kinda, you know, important. If you didn't know yet, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
My view is that the much-vaunted "road map to peace" and the so-called "peace process" will fail -- even if an agreement is reached. The simple fact of the matter is that with the entire political landscape of Palestine dominated by heavily-armed, murderous and eternally in-fighting militant groups, there will be no peace. The moment you make peace with one group, the next one starts firing missiles and trying to blow people up. Whatever Israel is doing chasing down terrorists with fighter aircraft, at least when Jerusalem says "stop," stop it will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
What the Palestinians need is not a road map to peace, nor do they need a breather for the next round of violence after Hamas has stocked up on some much-needed ammo and heavier toys; what they need is a Martin Luther King Junior, a Gandhi. Only once Israeli guns point only at massive Palestinian protest marches will there be no course left but to establish a peaceful, democratic and free Palestinian state.
Thanks for that, Baba-Ga'on. And where do you think Israel is heading, amidst all this? What is its future?Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Oh, and what do you think of the article linked by our Mad Martian?
Israel belongs to whomever can take and then hold it.
Palestine is exactly what everyone wants it to be. I'm not saying the Palestinians aren't responsible for their own behaviour, every man and country is, but you have to admire how the world (Arab countries, Israel, US) has manipulated the situation to keep the Palestinians in a state that is convenient to their own goals and ambitions and not to the benefit of the Palestinians themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The Palestinians have no friends, no one they can truly trust, they are treated as disposable people. That's one reason I feel such empathy for them. No person or people should be discarded from the human race like that.
It was the long term goals of the Zionists, the creation of Israel itself, and the conduct of successive Israeli governments that are primarily responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. None of this would have happened if people from all over the world didn't get on planes and boats and cross oceans and continents to set up shop in someone else's front yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
The Palestinians are the victims of everyone. Including themselves.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
You would ignore where the author is coming from? Most interesting. 'Cause, you know, in an editorial, knowing that is kinda, you know, important. If you didn't know yet, that is.
Oh dear Baba if you want to know where the author is coming from then why not look at the Israeli media and resident Israeli commentators over this 60th anniversary period , the papers have been full of similar pieces making the same observations and asking the same questions and they come from all sides of the Israeli political spectrum (apart from the crazy settlers movements) .
Israel is at a sticking point and it cannot continue on the path it has taken , it simply cannot afford to . The outlay is just too big for too little return .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...
:book2:
Western world would love this to end, what good is it to us? We side with Israel, so? Democracy's back democracy's. The muslim world however needs it to remain like this it has become a reality of it's own, palestine is a powerful propaganda-tool. Palestine is the only place where muslim are oppressed instead of being the oppressors they can't afford to lose that. If they wanted this to end it would end, all Israel does is deal with it's excesses and I don't blame them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Nope. The UN Mandate was declined by the arabs and then they began a war, which they lost, horribly. There are consequences to losing wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation. Since 1917, it was a British mandate with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people. However, in a moment of clarity, the UN in 1947 decided to bestow on the palestinians a nation of their own. Upon hearing this, they immediately began a vicious war and promptly got their tails kicked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
The brutal truth, Beirut, is that simply living on a piece of land does not give one the right to organize and form a new nation. Here, the South tried it. Where you are, the French have been trying it. On the rare occasion a nation is able to break away by force, its usually through a successful war. Unfortunately, the arabs have proven themselves to be atrocious soldiers.
In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are (:egypt: ), they started a war instead. They screwed themselves to a whole new level.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Nope. The UN Mandate was declined by the arabs and then they began a war, which they lost, horribly. There are consequences to losing wars.
That has to be the funniest ever:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Panzer he war isn't over without a peace treaty between the people involved , this elusive deal that is still going through the talks process is that peace treaty , that is the legitimacy , a legitimacy you ludicrously say they don't have .
If possibly you get the chance to notice that those treaties that do end the war between Israel and other states by doing such things as confriming the limit of their own territory both contain clauses that stipulate that the limit of their own terroitory do not mean that the other territory is Israeli , they both say that must be settled by the other parties with a future treaty to end the war .
Since Isreal signed this they agree to the legitimacy don't they , so how on earth can you claim there is no legitimacy :dizzy2:
OMG you really havn't got a clue about the terms of the mandateQuote:
Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation.
And not only do you clearly demonstrate a completelack of knowledge on the mandate you throw in a lack of knowledge about the declaration too .:dizzy2:Quote:
Since 1917, it was a British mandate with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people.
Panzer might I suggest you stick to discussing the London congestion charge since your lack of knowledge on that subject is far far less than on this subject .
Now that would be funny , if it wasn't that you actually believe that crap .Quote:
In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are ( ), they started a war instead.
Now now Banguo stop that at once or it might have to be applied to Fragonys nonsense .....Quote:
I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...
:idea2:Quote:
Palestine is the only place where muslim are oppressed instead of being the oppressors they can't afford to lose that.
Ya uh-huhQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Damn straight there was. It was unacceptable then and it's unacceptable now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
They were born there, they lived there, the land was theirs. As Moshe Dayan said, "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist."Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
And being the people they are ( )... And what, pray tell, kind of people would that be, my dear sir?
The Palestinians did not start the war, the Zionists started the war. The Zionists packed up their bags and families, sold their houses, gave up their birth nationalities, and crossed oceans and continents and time zones to start the war. The Palestinians didn't have to move ten feet because they were already there. The only possible way you could say the Palestinians started the war would be to blame them for getting in the way of the people stealing their land.
Well thats obvious isn't it Beirut , they is muslims innit..well apart from the christians and druze but they is sorta muslim anyway together with those communist godless heathens and various other flavours of non-believers but they is still them people you know even if they follow the noodly appendage they is still them because ...well because its them people right :dizzy2:Quote:
And being the people they are ( )... And what, pray tell, kind of people would that be, my dear sir?
But look on the bright side , if it was in his grandaddys times then talking about them people would have been about the Jews so it is progress as todays "them people" are now a bigger group so it is less dicriminatory than it used to be , so thats better isn't it :2thumbsup: Then again"them people" could have also included slavs back in the day and they make quite a big group so perhaps it isn't really progress at all .:thumbsdown:
What difference does it make who started what who keeps it going?
Palestinian militants are not freedom fighters. You slander the name of many, many resistance movements throughout history by calling them that. Had they been worthy of the name, there probably would already have been a Palestinian state by now.
The mot accurate way to describe them probably would be freedom fighting terrorists, seen as they fight for freedom so they are freedom fighters, they use terrorist methods so they are terrorist freedom fighters.
... if the armed Palestinian factions hadn't been systematically targeting civilians for the better part of a century, instead of fighting the fair fight and limiting themselves to the Israeli military.
choice of target does not make someone a freedom fighter or not, a freedom fighter by my definition is someone who fights the people who occupy thier land, whether a foriegn power or a homegrown govermet power.
Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation
Whether Palestine the nation existed or not there where people there before the land got given away, whether thier palestinians or unknown occupants of land A, they still lived there and have every right to be annoyed when people come along and kick them off thier land.
Israel? What do you think? It will remain. Both the demographic worries of many Zionists today, namely the growth of the Israeli Arab population and the growth of the Haredi population will not lead to any major shifts in anything, just like the growth of the Catholic population of the Netherlands only lead to an increase of a couple percent points on the total Dutch population, even though it was predicted that Catholic babies would swamp the land. Neither removing the settlements nor bringing the settlers back to Israel will endanger its independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Besides that I don't really know how to answer your question. You'll have to be a little more specific if the above isn't what you meant.
That's interesting. I didn't know just living where you want to live automatically leads to conflict! I mean, of course, it was the Yishuv that began pogroming the locals in the 1920s, and the Zionists who came in guns blazing taking land like some kind of 20th century conquistadores. Arabs and Jews had also never lived in peace in the land before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Seriously: [removed irrelevant, unsupported observation] - K
Oh? I see plenty of friends in this thread, in The Independent, in academic life, across the Internets and throughout the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Oh? I didn't know that the majority of Israel hates its own country. Can you then explain why the majority of Israel hasn't made yerida yet? 'Cause, you know, not everybody is like Ilan Pappé or this fine gentleman. Most are like Benny Morris or Martin van Creveld, somewhat less like Ariel Sharon, desiring peace but not willing to have it if it's not lasting. There's a reason Shalom Achshav and other movements like it have been steadily losing support since the failure of the Camp David-Taba accords, and the reason isn't Adrian II's "religious fundamentalism". Their support of a peace process that won't bring peace, only ceasefire and a breather, has cost them dearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Do some research. The Arab population in what European imperialists named after a Roman province that had been dead for fifteen hundred years was extremely mobile, and it is not sure at all if many of the people living there in 1948 had been living there for generations, or even for ten years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Ahahaha, hahaha, haha, oh wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
You, sir, [...] Have you perchance heard of a Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, an Ayan (Ottoman provincial noble) of the al-Husayni clan? You probably haven't, seeing your previous posts. He was a close confidante of Hitler and recruited Muslims into the Waffen-SS (the infamous Handschar division). It was he and the rest of the al-Husayni clan who instigated and lead pogroms and murders of Yishuv members from the 1920s onwards, starting a long conflict that endures to the present day. It was he and other members of his clan who started the Mandatory Civil War after the UN, which was kinda like Iraq is now, only then in the 1940s.
The Yishuv started no conflict. The very fact that you assume that they did is beyond me, considering most of these people were fleeing persecution themselves and only wanted to live in peace on land to call their own.
But you're right. The Palestinians did not start "the war". Arabs in what they considered to be part of Syria did. The Palestinian identity was not widespread until the 1970s or even later.
No, not really. You see, if they used terrorist methods (bombs, sabotage, raids, the works) only against military targets, like, say, the French Resistance during WW2 did, you'd be right. But Palestinian militants only attack civilians (and each other). A freedom fighter and a murderer of innocents is incomparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Oh? I see plenty of friends in this thread, in The Independent, in academic life, across the Internets and throughout the press.
I really doubt a few left wingers and a few academics makes up for almost every other country being against you and your closest friends just use you as a stick to beat thier enemys with, hardly seems a fair trade off.
No, not really. You see, if they used terrorist methods (bombs, sabotage, raids, the works) only against military targets, like, say, the French Resistance during WW2 did, you'd be right.
you seem to be confusing method and goal, method is something you use to achieve the goal, whether the method is evil, stupid or actually takes you away from your goal, the goal remains the same.
so if thier goal is to stop the occupation, get israel off thier lands, they're fighting for freedom.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
You, sir, [...] Have you perchance heard of a Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, an Ayan (Ottoman provincial noble) of the al-Husayni clan? You probably haven't, seeing your previous posts. He was a close confidante of Hitler and recruited Muslims into the Waffen-SS (the infamous Handschar division).
Ah the same old crap again , the infamous Handschar division which famously was the only SS division to mutiny..but maybe that was the catholics who mutinied .
Honestly so much bollox is written on pro-zionist websites about that division that I really do have to laugh when someone tries to mention it as an example .
Oh dear you really havn't been following events in Jerulasalem have you ~:doh:Quote:
It will remain. Both the demographic worries of many Zionists today, namely the growth of the Israeli Arab population and the growth of the Haredi population will not lead to any major shifts in anything
I see you have a problem reading don't you , that explains how you can write such bollox .Quote:
Oh? I didn't know that the majority of Israel hates its own country.
Try reading what you think you were responding to eh , then try again .
Since all sides started it and all sides keep it going what was your point again ?Quote:
What difference does it make who started what who keeps it going?
What's unclear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You're Gordon Ramsay aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Worth the risk:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Edit: Hey. The BBC is cultured, it has these ladies. Culture aplenty there just of a smaller and infectious nature.
I'm going to take a different tact than I usually do in these discussions. I think everyone knows that I support a two-state solution, Israel's right to defend itself against aggressors, and Palestine's right to its own sovereign territory. No need to rehash all that.
I'd like to focus more on the OP, as well as Adrian's interesting take. Banquo's article, and therefore, by extension, Banquo himself, seemed to be suggesting that the tone of rhetoric and the approach Israel has taken over the past 6 decades has changed. Adrian said this was due to a shift from a heavily secularized national focus to the introduction of religous fundamentalism (Jewish fundamentalism in this case) into Israeli politics.
I find Adrian's view very interesting, and certainly worthy of further study and contemplation. I have heard anecdotal evidence that supports his assertion, that Israel is becoming increasingly religiously conservative.
But I would like to challenge the assertion that the tone has changed. I don't see Israel as being any more aggressive or harsh in its reactions than it has been in the past. I think Israel's reaction to the 6-day war in 1967 was the pinnacle of Israeli aggresive responses. Think about it... they didn't just annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They took the Sinai, the Golan Heights and other extra-territorial portions of neighboring countries that were never even mentioned in the UN mandate. If anything, over the 40 years since, I see Israel as having (granted slowly) inched back from a rather confrontational posture to one where they've made it clear they're willing to trade land for peace (and recognition of their right to exist).
As for Israel's future, Adrian's other question that shows promise of moving this particular thread outside all the other Israel/Palestine ones, I think it's rather bleak. I do not believe there will be a nation of Israel in 30 years time. I don't think it will end tomorrow or next year, but it's only a matter of time. I say that because each successive Israeli generation has shown more and more propensity to try to work with foreign nations. But time has only hardened the resolve of the Syrians, the Iranians and other strong neighbors. Egypt has become more and more riddled with extremism, and I believe that when Mubarak passes, they will be a much different nation than they are today. Lebanon will continue to suffer under the hands of Hizbollah, whom I believe will eventually control all of Lebanon, by a seizure of power.
In other words, Israel has gradually become more willing to deal, while other forces in the region have become less so. We've seen the Palestinians move from discussions of how to ressurect the two-state solution (under the PLO) to an avowed mission to end the existence of Israel (under Hamas). And while yes, Israel did develop nuclear armaments 40 years ago, they were clearly defensive in nature. Iran is developoing a nuclear program that they refuse to attribute to purely defensive intentions, and have a national leader who has publicly called for the destruction of Israel. It is the folly of the West that we never believe these madmen until there is no choice but to do so.
So sadly, I think the talk of Israel's self-defense is a moot point. I think the years to come, the governments of Western Europe will continue their policy of active disengagement with Israel, who will find itself with one lone friend in the world, the USA. And I think American policy now needs to shift from defending the right of Israel exist there, to the defense of the right of Jews to exist, here. This is not hyperbole. I believe the commentary coming from Iran, from Syria, from Lebanon, and from Hamas, that once they have the land, the people will be the next to be destroyed. If we don't want another holocaust, we need to find a place to put those 11 million people within our own borders and pray that we can keep the Islamic fundamentalists out (though a quick glance at Dearborn, MI, shows that we're losing on that front as well).
None of this even attempts to address the main points in that paragraph. It just trips over an anecdote mentioned in passing and falls flat on its face. Sorry Tribesman :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
As said, that has more to do with migration than with birth rates. One simple look at the history of these things reveals that the chance that it will lead to a major demographic shift without migration across the country is small at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Looks like you're the one suffering from this, buddy. Perhaps you should try to answer my point there before replying again. Perhaps this rephrasing'll make it a little bit easier and make you a little bit less confused: what exactly makes the majority of Israel of the same opinion as Ilan Pappé and the author of this editorial and their chums? You see, you might not know and all, but the tone, style, and argumentation of this fine piece of journalistic work isn't exactly the usual in the country (thank God). Just thought you should know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
"Living where you want to"? A lovely euphamism for "I'm stealing your land."Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
You certainly don't have to take my word for it, read the words of the Zionist and Isreali leaders. It was clear from the start that the Zionists had every intention of forming an army and taking all of Palestine for themselves. That's not me saying that, that's Ben-Gurion and his friends.
Thankfully, yes. But as far as countries go, nobody will stand by them. Even my ridiculous Canadian government won't talk to the Palestinians. Canadians are supposed to be honest and trusted peace brokers who will speak to all sides to help end conflicts, but our feds have their heads so far up the US/Israeli collective backside we've become puppets and are too afraid to speak for ourselves. Truly terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Golda Meir felt the same way. Amazing woman, but I feel she was wrong on this issue as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
I made you smile. It's a better day for both of us then. :sunny:Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
I might have heard of him, not really sure. I'll read up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
I have, however, heard of Yitzak Shamir and Menachim Begin. While my father, a Canadian soldier, was fighting the Nazis in WWII, those two gentlemen were killing Allied soldiers. So who was on whose side?
Lots of people flee persecution, that does not entitle them to take someone else land and call it their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Semantics do not justify inhumanity, brutality, and theft. People lost their land and their homes and their lives when others came to steal what was theirs. Palestine existed, in one form or another, perhaps in different shapes and under different regimes, but people lived there and worked there and had children there and called it home. Israel, on the other hand, was created out of the thin bureaucratic air and peopled by the citizens of dozens of foreign countries, some of them thousands of miles away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Thats funny since over 60% of Israelis favour such views , and you know what really funny every such editorial in the Israeli media gets lots of favourable comments from Israeli Jews and lots and lots of hostile comments from non-Israelis describing all those in favour as self hating jews . sad isn't it when you read page after page of slagging from some prick in Brooklyn or Ottowa claiming that the people in Israel havn't got a clue and are traitors to zionism .Quote:
Looks like you're the one suffering from this, buddy. Perhaps you should try to answer my point there before replying again. Perhaps this rephrasing'll make it a little bit easier and make you a little bit less confused: what exactly makes the majority of Israel of the same opinion as Ilan Pappé and the author of this editorial and their chums? You see, you might not know and all, but the tone, style, and argumentation of this fine piece of journalistic work isn't exactly the usual in the country (thank God). Just thought you should know.
The main points in the paragraph :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: they were bollox too since both sides were at it .Quote:
None of this even attempts to address the main points in that paragraph. It just trips over an anecdote mentioned in passing and falls flat on its face. Sorry Tribesman :(
Quote:
As said, that has more to do with migration than with birth rates. One simple look at the history of these things reveals that the chance that it will lead to a major demographic shift without migration across the country is small at best.
I can see you havn't a clue what that was about . Would a clue be in part of your post and the city mentioned in my post . Apparently its a big and growing worry and not just for the zionists .
Would you care elaborating on this point? Just what exactly "extremely mobile" means? Cause it's sound like a commercial slogan. Because they were mobile we have to assume that most of them didn't live there before <insert amount of time> and that gives someone the right to claim it? Well, I move every night from my living room to my bedroom, I somehow don't expect that someone can claim my livingroom as his because his grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand... father had a hut made of mud in that place more than a thousand years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
And just how many Isrealis have been living there for generations in todays Israel? Or better yet, after ww2, at the time Israel was formed?
It was suggested by someone perhaps wiser than myself, a most ginormous grouping indeed, that I should include quotes with my assertions.
Therefore, relating to my assertions that the Zionists did plan to take all of Palestine for themselves and that there was an indigenous population:
"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder important then the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land."
1919, Lord Balfour, the father of the Balfour Declaration, justified the usurpation of Palestinians right of self-determination.
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
-- David Ben Gurion. Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
"There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99