Tell that to the Jewish community in Hebron circa 1929. There was no state of Israel then. Is that a good example of Arabs "getting along"?

Think better, Philip.

The Neturei Karta represent those native Jews of Palestine who were living in peace with Arabs in Palestine for centuries.

"For the most part, the members of Neturei Karta are descended from Hungarian Jews who settled in Jerusalem's Old City in the early nineteenth century, and from Lithuanian Jews who were students of the Gaon of Vilna, who had settled earlier. In the late nineteenth century, their ancestors participated in the creation of new neighborhoods outside the city walls to alleviate overcrowding in the Old City, and most are now concentrated in the neighborhood of Batei Ungarin and the larger Meah Shearim neighborhood.

At the time, they were vocal opponents to the new political ideology of Zionism that was attempting to assert Jewish sovereignty in Ottoman-controlled Palestine. They resented the new arrivals, who were predominantly secular, and claimed that Jewish redemption could only be brought about by the Jewish messiah."

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

See also:

http://www.nkusa.org/

I would suggest you do some research before recycling the usual Zionist mythology and propaganda.

For example, the variably forced migration of Jews to Israel following WW2, is common whenever there is war or worse (genocide is worse). The reality of Jewish immigration to Israel was compounded by the FAILURE of the US and Western Europe to materially increase immigration allotments.

Jews that survived the camps were allowed in or not based on the creepy definition of quotas by country. (There were already the alotted 8,000 Polish immigrants this year. The number is arbitrary but in the same scale.)

Further to return to post-war Poland, Hungary, Germany, was no picnic (less of a picnic than even for non-Jewish refugee residents). Following the war, there still was genocide being committed by reactionary fascists that blamed the Jews for the rise of naziism.

Jews suffered the conflicts between third parties for centuries. Consider the thousand times that a Russian czar needed to distract attention from some conflict or scandal, and the Jews were "likely suspects".

Shit happens.

That the Palestinians experienced the consequences of the actions of third parties, is not abnormal. Its not new in Palestine (subject to millenia of conflicts and displacement at its crossroads), and its not new in the world at large.

The failure is in assimilating the refugees. Palestine and the US and Europe refused to assimilate the Jewish refugees. The Arab states failed to assimilate the Palestinian refugees.

Certainly the 1952 law permanently prohibiting return even of then identifiable lawful land claims, is a travesty.

Its not a humane solution parade victims, to intentionally keep them as victims. Its xenophobic, clothing as progressivism.

When shit happens, a humane person, a humans society helps.

Its a good thing to acknowledge grievances. The little I know about Pipes is very interesting. For one, he speaks and writes Arabic fluently. Ambiguity that feeds the gullibility of the left, is not possible with him.

That tells me to regard his observations as important, if not his political conclusions.

I have third cousins that used to live in Arad. The kids in the family all spoke Arabic, and sought to towards understanding what their neighbors concerns were.

They each got a surprise. While there were MANY Arabic speaking neighbors, and friends that treated Jews as peers, human beings, they also discovered a degree of hatred that they never imagined.

Sure, some of that is naivete. They should have imagined angers. The hate though was of a different scale, steam rather than water.

And, even starting from where they are, there probably are prospective paths to reconcile with a large minority if not a large minority by initiated kindness and recognitions.

And, then there is hatred that has its own momentum, that seeks every possible stimulus to feed on, and is not reconciliable.

No single state, no two-state. Just war.

What do we BUY into? What do we conclude from what we see?

Much of their theology was shared by many orthodox in Israel/Palestine, Europe, and the US.

They reasoned that the messianic period could not be forced by political means, or even by organized immigration.

They declared that the prerequisite to the messianic period was "keeping the commandments". And, that forcing a political solution onto what is primarily a spiritual one, detered the spiritual one.

Many of their reasonings have born out, that Israel is falling apart in ways.

The Satmar share their view that the state of Israel is an external imposition, an attempt to force God.

The Lubavitch initially shared the view that the forming of the State of Israel was not equivalent to the messianic age, but changed their attitude towards Israel because of the tangible security that the state offered, that was endangered without the healthy and confident Jewish state.

In using the positions and arguments of the Netarai Karta to justify a different argument regarding Israel, an opportunism occurs, not an insight.

The Netarai Karta are MORE separate in orientation, even more elitist to some (in the trivial explanation of the term), than the predominately secular Israeli.

I have explained already why you are completely incapable of rational discussion, but like Arie, I will repost some info for the benefit of others who are not lacking in reading comprehension.

1) Bizarro Zionist Witty: "The reality of Jewish immigration to Israel was compounded by the FAILURE of the US and Western Europe to materially increase immigration allotments."

What he fails to mention is that Zionist Organizations and Zionist leaders like Rabbi Stephen Wise were the principal obstacles to Jewish immigration to the USA and England before and during WWII. With this very embarrassing fact, it is rather incredible chutzpah to keep repeating the old canard that the US and British governments contributed to the holocaust, when it was the Zionist leaders who blocked the efforts of these governments to do something!

Too many sources for this generally unknown fact, but here is a good summary:

**********

"Why then did the Israeli state not remind any one the role of the US government during Bush's visit but rather presented it as a real homage to the victims of the Nazis? The answer is very simple: The Zionist movement was a partner to this crime. Its policy was to settle Palestine with Jews and those Jews they could not use were as good as dead.

If anyone has any doubts about this it is sufficient to quote Ben Gurion when he informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative."[1]

This obsession with colonizing Palestine and overwhelming the Arabs led the Zionist movement to oppose any idea of rescuing the Jews who were facing extermination, because this would have impeded the ability to select and divert manpower to Palestine. From 1933 to 1935, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) turned down two thirds of all the German Jews who applied for immigration certificates.

The WZO did not only fail to seek any alternative for the Jews facing the Holocaust, but it also opposed all efforts aimed at finding refuge for the fleeing Jews.

As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the US Congress proposed to set up a commission to merely "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principle American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.

This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in US immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge in the USA. He stated: "It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference. (…) It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."[2]

The entire Zionist establishment made its position absolutely clear in its response to a motion by 227 British Members of Parliament calling on the government to provide asylum in British territories for persecuted Jews. The meager undertaking which was prepared was as follows: "His Majesty's Government issued some hundreds of Mauritius and other immigration permits in favor of threatened Jewish families."[3]

But even this token measure was opposed by the Zionist leaders. At a Parliamentary meeting on January 27, 1943, when the next steps were being pursued by over one hundred Members of Parliament, a spokesperson for the Zionists announced that they opposed this motion because it did not contain preparations for the colonization of Palestine. This was a consistent stance.

Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who had arranged the Balfour Declaration and was to become the first president of Israel, made this Zionist policy very explicit: "The hopes of Europe's six million Jews are centered on emigration. I was asked: 'Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?' I replied, 'No.'… From the depths of the tragedy I want to save… young people [for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world… Only the branch of the young shall survive. They have to accept it."[4]

Yitzhak Gruenbaum, the chairperson of the committee set up by the Zionists, nominally to investigate the condition of European Jews, said: "When they come to us with two plans – the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land – I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our people, the greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraisation of the land. If there would be a possibility today of buying packages of food with the money of the Karen Hayesod [United Jewish Appeal] to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing? No. And once again no!"[5]"

Yossi Schwarz

http://www.marxist.com/israel-zionists-holocaust130603-7.htm

**********

On Rabbi Stephen Wise, see also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wise#Criticism_of_Wise

On the role of Zionist Organizations in the holocaust, see also:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

- Lenni Brenner's '51 Documents' or 'Zionism in the Age of Dictators':

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/

“>link to jewsagainstzionism.com

- Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum on "why the Zionists resemble an arsonist who sets a fire and then scrambles to assist the victims, who imagine the arsonist to be the savior." (From Vaoyel Moshe):

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/vayoelmoshe1.cfm

- The case of Rudolf Kastner and his trial:

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

- Holocaust hero Rabbi Chaim Weissmandl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Michael_Dov_Weissmandl
link to weissmandl.org
/>
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/26/give-the-devil.html#comment-69526 <p>Daniel Pipes is not just an "extremist", he is wild eyed fascist, and to think that Rudy Giuliani who, if he runs against Hillary, will probably be the next president of the USA, is taking "advice" from someone as sinister as Pipes confirms my belief that things can get much worse in the future than they are with Bush today, much, much worse... much, much, much.</p> <p>It can be said in Pipes' favor, however that rarely do evil people ever look as evil as they are, but if Pipes were cast as the villain in old silent, melodrama as Simon Legree, tying the farmers daughter to the railroad track, Victorians would probably have thought the casting over the top or the makeup rather too crude.</p> Daniel Pipes is not just an "extremist", he is wild eyed fascist, and to think that Rudy Giuliani who, if he runs against Hillary, will probably be the next president of the USA, is taking "advice" from someone as sinister as Pipes confirms my belief that things can get much worse in the future than they are with Bush today, much, much worse… much, much, much.