Yes.

Jews migrated to Judaea and Israel before the Holocaust. They did not just show up in 1949. That wouldn't make sense anyway. How many European Jews were left at that point?

Sephardim mostly didn't have memories of the Holocaust.  A few lived in the Netherlands but most lived in Turkey, Morocco, and Israel even before the first (European) Aliya (immigration wave to Israel).

But the Sephardim are not the issue. Morocco and Turkey were not very antisemitic places. (Morocco still isn't.)

It's the Mizrachim, i.e. "eastern" Jews from Egypt, Syria and Iraq who were being persecuted long before the Holocaust and ever since. They fled to Israel between 1920 (end of Ottoman Empire) and 1967 (Six-Day War). It is those Jews who know few of the stories commonly told about how Jews and Arabs lived in peace together in the past. (The smaller community of Temanim, Yemenite Jews, had a similar fate.)

Imazighen (the natives of "Arab" Morocco and Algeria) can tell you how they are being discriminated against. But the main problem is the fate of ALL non-Arab peoples in the "Arab world", especially in Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

Tell a Kopt in Egypt that "Jews and Arabs lived in peace" and he might just wonder why the Muslims lived in peace with the Jews but not the Christians.

Tell an Aramaean in Syria the story and he will be surprised because he doesn't remember the Arab regime being very nice to anyone, let alone the most hated minority.

Ask a Kurd in Iraq about how much love the Arab regimes had for non-Arab peoples. Or ask an Assyrian about the situation even today.

More Jews fled from Arab countries to Israel than Arabs from "Palestine" to Arab countries.

And it was NOT because "Jews and Arabs lived in peace".

I'll never understand why the world apparently agrees that all the land the Ottomans lost is automatically "Arab" until proven otherwise.

Why is it not Kurdish, Jewish, Assyrian, Aramaean, Koptic, Amazighish or Nilo-Saharan until the Arabs bring up a reason for why they ought to control all the land?

I gather not.

Bahu, you are better than that.  You know that both those sources have an agenda that is in conflict with the existence of Israel.  You are saying that you are asking Castro to describe freedom in Cuba!

I accept his media reports as evidence IF he agrees also to believe the story about the blood of Christians told by those same media outlets.

The Irish Times, in a move that is certainly not antisemitic in nature, has decided that Jews can own land they bought if Europeans grant permissions but only if it remains clear that the land is still the property of the non-Jewish seller. Jewish neighbours are then an "expense".

Europe, as a whole, decided to assuage its guilt in the cheapest possible way – by meeting the Jewish need for a sanctuary at someone else’s expense.

It piously hoped that Israel would be nice to those whose land it had been granted, but it was tacitly grateful that the historic consequences of the Shoah would essentially be played out elsewhere.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0608/1224272053591.html?via=rel?via=rel

Also "never again" refers to stopping weapons from getting to people who want to murder Jews.

In Israel, no matter what the land was called has always been Jews living there.  Most of the West Bank 'arabs' if they look back in their history have Jewish heritage.  I had a bunch of Muslim friends that would light 2 candles on friday evening and have bread and wine.  This happening in West Bank (I saw it once with friends in Gaza).  When I asked why they did that I would get the same response.  My parents did this and there parents did this.  Its to remember that back in the day this is how they lived.  No, this is the Shabbat and what is done on Shabbat.

Jews actually started going to land formally known as Israel(Canaan) in the late 1850s.  Those that stayed after the fall of Jerusalem eventually just stopped practicing.

Genetically about half of "Palestinians" are actually Jews. Some know it, some don't. Those that know it often keep it a secret because being Jewish is not a good thing among Arabs. One Bedouin clan openly refer to themselves as "Jews" because of their Jewish heritage, although by religion they are Muslims.

The point with the Irish Times article is that it openly, in a major Irish newspaper, defends the thesis that land bought by Jews remains the property of the non-Jewish seller and that Jews can only live on their land because Europeans grant them permission. It hasn't been like that since the middle ages in Europe. In Ireland it's becoming normal opinion now.

For the longest time I was wondering why the world accepts that lands bought or owned by Jews in the middle-east outside Israel is apparently not Jewish property for some reason. But I thought that at least where Jews are owners and sovereign our property would be safe.

During the potato famine the Irish didn't have a problem with accepting help from the Rothschilds, the same family that bought so much land in what was then the Ottoman Empire. Apparently what Jews buy is the Jews' to give away, if the Irish can eat it. But if the Jews want to consume what they buy themselves, they can only do so with permission by the Europeans and have to accept the "fact" that what they bought remains the seller's property.

Just imagine, if we (Zionists) had not spent money to safe the Irish during the famine we could have bought more land for Jewish settlers in Israel. And the Irish could happily claim that the land we bought remains the seller's property and I wouldn't have to be upset at them for accepting our help but refusing to acknowledge our right to buy and own land.

It just goes to show that many (or perhaps most) people do not feel gratitude for those who help them in need but rather despise them, maybe for making them feel like they owe something.

There won't be another potato famine in Ireland, thank G-d. But if it happened again, I would still support sending aid again, just like in the 19th century. But I will know that there won't be gratitude, or even respect for our equal rights. We will still be the people only allowed to live on our land because the Europeans granted us permission. And we will have to accept that what we buy remains somebody else's property.

The Middle East had worked out the "grammar" for negotiating the relationship between different ethnicities over centuries of hisory, sometimes violent sometimes peaceful. On the whole a history that was more peaceful than Europe's. The creation of Israel upset that civilizational balance and a new settlemnt has to be worked out, by both. My point is that Israel is not helping the cause of settlement (I mean peace settlerment) by imposing the blockade.

Yes. But we have only so much information available. As for most of the world the existence of Israel is beyond question. Only issue is a valid binding resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Historical debts are best forgotten.

You think we would be closer to a peace settlement if Hamas could fire more rockets from Gaza?

Even Mahmoud Abbas thinks the blockade shouldn't be lifted.

And I don't think the creation of Israel upset the balance more than the creation of 20 Arab states in lands inhabited by dozens of non-Arab peoples. If by "balance" you mean that only Arabs should rule, then, yes, the creation of a non-Arab state upsets the balance.

But generally, I think, the word "balance" would imply that each nation should rule herself.

A "balanced" middle-east would contain an Assyrian state, an Aramaean state, a Christian Lebanon, a Kurdish state, independent African states in the Sudan and a Kingdom of Morocco that accepts the language of its native population as an official language.

That would be "balance".

There are valid binding resolutions. The Arabs just refuse to obey them.

The UN did decide that what was left of the British mandate was to be made into three entities: one Jewish state, one Arab state, and a free city of Jerusalem which was to join one of the states ten years later based on a vote. (Guess which state the Jewish-majority city of Jerusalem would have joined.)

But the Arabs refused and invaded. Then they occupied the land that was supposed to be the Palestinian Arab state.

The Palestinian Jewish state ("Israel") survived the attack.

If only they would forget.

But quite in contrast it seems that those who owe us never forgive us the debt.

Maybe, but apparently that is because "Europe granted" it the right to exist, not because Jews have a right to exist per se or the right to buy and live on property.

Most of the world belives that Jews have the right to exist and buy and live on property.  The issues the world has with the settlements are very different and rather more nuanced that the simple issue of peoples right to buy a house.

According to todays Times Israel has or is about to lifted at least part of the blockade.  I wonder what kind of weapons Hamas will be able to make out of the Chocolate that was previously blockaded.

I really doubt that the Irish article about 1948 was about "settlements" in the 21st century.

And no, it really isn't more nuanced than the simple issue of people's right to buy a house. Make it anything more than that and you are already applying special rules to Jews. Nobody worldwide cares if Arabs buy a house in Kurdish lands. (In fact that simply makes the land Arab land forever.)

I have never seen the media or the UN make a difference between settlements on land owned by Jews before 1948, settlements on land bought by Jews in modern times, and settlements created on "stolen" land.

It's nice that "most of the world" believe that Jews have rights. The problem I have is with the fact that is is apparently an acceptable opinion that Jews have no right to live on property they buy and the entire thing about Jews making things different.

Did the Times also say that the blockade had stopped chocolade?

Don't worry, you'll probably never hear about the kind of weapons Hamas are going to make. The media usually don't report about the rockets that hit Israel on a daily basis and they won't start now (and admit that Israel had a reason for the blockade besides Jewish malice).

How is it that when Israel blocks weapons the issue automatically changes to chocolate?

Is that a normal state of affairs? Because I don't remember reading anywhere that when the allies sank merchant ships on route to Germany and Japan in WW2 that they did so to stop chocolate deliveries. That seems to be an Israeli (or rather anti-Israeli) thing.

Turns out there are really not many good arguments against the blockade. If there were, the term "weapons" could be used rather than "chocolate", isn't that true?

Just be honest and admit that the world has an issue with Israel not allowing weapons into Gaza.

That's what this is about. It's not about food or medical supplies, because Gazans have both. It's not about "chocolate" because the middle-east never had chocolate before cocoa was imported from the Americas and still survived. And it's not about travel restrictions because Darfurians certainly can't travel anywhere and the world doesn't care.

No, this is solely about Israel blocking WEAPONS.

Or possibly about ISRAEL blocking weapons. The world doesn't have a problem with the Arab League blocking weapons deliveries to Darfur either.

But then those evil Africans might kill non-Jewish white people. Can't have that.

Just the fact that an Iranian ship is now enroute shows the true intent.  The rest of the Middle East has never given Gaza any aid before (except if you count munitions), all of a sudden Iran decides to send a ship.

Another thing was before Gaza was given over to the PA it was rather self-sufficient land.  The Israelies built irrigation systems that made Gaza into some excellent farm land. Gaza, also had olive and grape vineyards there which could be used to export.  

ITs not about the land or the people.  Its not like the blockade just started either. (What about Turkey's blockade of Cyprus? This is one of the main reason Turkey is not and will be allowed into the EU?)

Do you know why the blockade is going on?  Its not totally about weapons.  Shalit, is being held without access to the Internation Red Cross, which is illegal and as kidnapping another countries soldiers is an attack of war but I didn't see the U.N. say anything about when Shalit got kidnapped nor the sinking of another warship.

There is no humanitarian crisis, Israel sends over 15,000 tons of medicine and food through international organization.

Basmas, is Hamas a terrorist organization? Is Hamas' charter peaceful, you be the judge.   Here it is http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm  just scroll down and you'll find the Charter.

Israel should close the borders, stop sending aid, and hand over the sea blockade to the UN with the demand that the UN pay 100,000 dollars per rocket launched at Israel to Israel.

Should be a good deal for the UN since we all know that the rockets are a reaction to the blockade, right?

You know if that happened there wouldn't be any rockets coming over, right?  There would be probably an invasion force coming over or the everyday hit and run squad/sniper squad.