Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
The above is by way of clearing so much ground, and mere reiteration of common knowledge. It is certainly, however, to assert, the Jewish people, in the drive to the establish independence, expelled some of the Arab population and robbed them, in the process of their lawful rights as residents and woners of assets and such like.Nor can those Arabs be considered oppressed refugees. To the contrary, given they not only volitionally left but left out of murderous motivations. As child, in the sixties one never sympathasized with the `plight’ of those Arabs living in the otherwise ghastly camps and never considered them refugees nor the camps refugee camps when news programmes televised reports on the camps and used those terms, refugees and refugee camps, because the reasons why were, without further ado plain.

Nor does Israel’s refusal in the 60’s and still the case to let them return to Israel have anything with robbing those Arabs of lawful rights.That is clear enough, simply insane to let them resume when they are committed to the liquidation of Israel and massacre of the Jewish poeple , reinforced as many have pointed out last year what is inculcated in children in schools inthe `Palestinian Territory’ which schools recieve U.N. `humanitarian’ funding.

The refusal to allow those Arabs to resume residence in Israel and lawful rights is amplified by the little mentioned matter of the Israeli govts. offer to compensate those Arabs for the assets they had abandoned. The Israeli govt. made the promise in 1955 and kept the offer open , of compensation on the condition of their integration into the Arab world with the international assistance offered in 1955 to assist that transition and restitution. A promise which the Israeli govt. instructed its ambassador to the U.N., Mr.Comay, to re-affirm, to openly declare the offer was still open; 28/11/1960, to the Special Political Committe, General Assembly, U.N.

Obviously that does not amount to a full restitution of all that those Arabs left behind but to say they could be so restituted is nonsense.It was not the Israeli govt.’s policy to force them out and strip them of assets and other lawful rights of contract and association and so forth. In view of, they left Israel volitionally for the express aims of the liquidation of Israel but also the massacre of the Jewish people with the expectation that they would assume former Jewish assets as well as resume their own , the Israeli offer was not only reasonable it was generous to say the least.

In summary, the Israeli govt did not disposses Arabs of assets and lawful freedoms and expel them out of Israel. To the contrary, to the extent reasonable, the Israeli offered to to honour those rights which could be by compensation. The notion of, stripping those Arabs of rights and such like is outright nonsense, and today, can not be regarded as mistake over facts but a deliberate lie. A lie which has some currency in the west, one which, apparently as the Encounter programme demonstrates even some Jews in the west believe.

Balfour’s Declaration was not a stament of charter for the establsihment of an independent Israel. Yet, even `Homeland’ as the matter at hand was somewhat redundant, for no less a reason than Jerusalem and Palestine and never ceased to be Jewish `homeland’. The argument is more than, Jewish residents in an Arabic country, Palestine, Palestine never was an Arabic country , `Palestininan Arabs’ is nonsense, never was there a semitic tribe of `native’ palestinian Arabs. The notion which Toynbee put as forcefully as he could, Jerusalem and Palestine ceased being Jewish country on the conclusion to the second Roman-Jewish War of is false.

The gravaman of Toynbee’s is not his false account of 2nd century Palestine but his conlcusion, both `homeland’ and Israel are illegitamte, the Jewish people, on that basis are intruders who took Palestine by force of arms. The Jewish people booted out the native arabs of Palstine and set up Israel by conquest and related domestic measures. That view was expressed by some of the guests on the Encounter programme, as related below , with one asserting : the palestinians were reduced to a tiny fraction of their former territory.

Before proceeding, we will swiftly deal with two of Toynbees fictions as ancient history. Firstly, Jerusalem and Temple were destroyed with one aim: to put an end to nationalist insurgency. The siccari are infamous as a bloodthirsty lot who, like so many self styled `liberation’ groups served the people they claimed to represent only with murder, misery, and finally the second war.They certainly did not have the support of the Jewish people . Under the Romans, the Jewish people were free to conduct their affairs according to their traditions, the Romans were not interested interfering in their domestic affairs. Certainly there were restrictions, capital crime trials for example : the Sanhedrin had no competence whatsover on such matters, viz the trial of Jesus - the pithy `King of the Jews’ amplifies why Pilate tried Jesus on a capital crime, with the two next one more than excepts who were crucified with Jesus convicted on the same sort of count. Apart from the destruction of the Temple,the Romans otherwise left the Jewish people independent as before.

The crisis of the Judaeans was not a loss of independence and expulsion from Judaea , it was the destruction of the Temple. It was one of the first major themes of the second great body of classical literature the Talmuds Babylon and Jerusalem, commentaries and tractates which collection recieves its seminal departure point from the Mishne.

The second fiction to be dealt with, will, regrettably have to await until tomorrow morning. I’m called away on something which will require the rest of the day. The matter warrants delay because it would be reckless to pay hasty treatment right now. So, with aplogies dear readers, until to morrow morn, adieu.