Israelis have killed Saruman?

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Parth Sagdeo:

Excuse me, did you realize that post WWII Israel was SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than it is today. It has just been taking, taking, and taking some more land from Palestine, the original state of the region(pre-ww2). For example, I know someone who was born in Jeruselem, not Israel, but Jeruselem, Palestine(after world war 2). Thats right, the capital of Israel is a city stolen from the Palestinians by bloodshed. No wonder the Palestinians are angry. I would be too if Mexico captured Texas and named Austin their capital.

You are completely wrong there!
The ONLY territory gained by Israel after WW2 is a small part of the Golan Heights.
They did hold the Sinai for a while as a buffer against Egyptian incursions but this has since been returned as part of the Camp David treaty ending hostilities between Israel and Egypt (making Egypt the only Arab and one of only 2 (the other being Turkey) Islamic nations to recognise the state of Israel).
The PLO and many western media (who will lap up anything the Arabs tell them) of course keep that Israel is a violent rogue state that's always out to steal their land and murder their citizens, but history has shown clearly the reverse to be true.
The west bank of the river Jordan was appointed to Israel by the UN in 1947 (treaty went into effect in 1948).
Days after their independence, Jordan invaded Israel and captured the area.
When Israel later (1967 I believe) recovered it during one of the next Arab-Israeli wars, the world was under blackmail from the Arabs and didn't change their maps and history books to read the truth.
Same with the Gaza strip (only there it was Egypt not Jordan being the agressor).
The "Palestinian" people were given Jordan (together with the people living there) and the Lebanon under the 1948 treaty.
They were later thrown out of Jordan after trying to stage a violent coup planning to kill the king and take over the government. They tried doing the same in Syria and were thrown out there as well (in part sparking the Syrian involvement in Lebanon, like the Israeli the Syrians were going after PLO strongholds there, one of the few times those two countries had the same goal). The Palestinians tried again in Kuwait in 1990/1991 (there were a lot of Palestinian people working there in the oil industry), when they actively helpd the Iraqi forces and murdered many Kuwaiti people in the hope Iraq would give them Kuwait as a reward.
They are now trying the same in Israel and have for a long time.
Their entire society is designed around the goal of overthrowing their host country by voilence and killing its people. They've tried 4 times, almost succeeded once (in Lebanon, stopped only by the combined (though not coordinated) efforts of Syria and Israel) and are betting on the world letting them do their thing in Israel by perpetuating and sparking anti-semitism in countries supportive of Israel.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
The "Palestinian" people were given Jordan (together with the people living there) and the Lebanon under the 1948 treaty.
They were later thrown out of Jordan after trying to stage a violent coup planning to kill the king and take over the government. They tried doing the same in Syria and were thrown out there as well (in part sparking the Syrian involvement in Lebanon, like the Israeli the Syrians were going after PLO strongholds there, one of the few times those two countries had the same goal). The Palestinians tried again in Kuwait in 1990/1991 (there were a lot of Palestinian people working there in the oil industry), when they actively helpd the Iraqi forces and murdered many Kuwaiti people in the hope Iraq would give them Kuwait as a reward.
They are now trying the same in Israel and have for a long time.
Their entire society is designed around the goal of overthrowing their host country by voilence and killing its people. They've tried 4 times, almost succeeded once (in Lebanon, stopped only by the combined (though not coordinated) efforts of Syria and Israel) and are betting on the world letting them do their thing in Israel by perpetuating and sparking anti-semitism in countries supportive of Israel.

If I am not wrong then the same thing was said once for jews also that they cant live in peace with anyone.
Can you tell me the name of that racist person who said that ??

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

If I am not wrong then the same thing was said once for jews also that they cant live in peace with anyone.
Can you tell me the name of that racist person who said that ??

Hitler, Stalin, Arafat.
Khomeini too probably.

[Joe King]

This page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/israel_founded.stm
has a good map on the initial UN partitioning

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Hitler, Stalin, Arafat.
Khomeini too probably.

Intelligent people think alike

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

If I am not wrong then the same thing was said once for jews also that they cant live in peace with anyone.
Can you tell me the name of that racist person who said that ??

Sounds like King Herod or any one of the Roman proconsols who tried to rule the area. Pontius Pilate, Gnaeus Pompey, Vespasian, and Titus. Probably all of the above. The Jews were a contentius bunch in Alexandria, too.
So?

[Jason Menard]

Most Americans Say Israel Was Justified in Killing Hamas Leader, Poll Says

Those who knew were very supportive of Israel's actions, with 61 percent of respondents saying Israel was justified in killing Yassin, the leader of the terrorist organization Hamas.
Most of those surveyed (74 percent) also rejected the statement: "Even though Sheik Yassin headed the Hamas terror organization, as a Moslem spiritual leader who was partially blind and wheelchair bound, Sheik Yassin should have had immunity from attack by the Israelis."

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Fine it was someone else, whatever, the post is still racist.

Then you must obviously accept that anti-Americanism is actually racism. I'll be sure to point that out next time someone flies off on another anti-American rant. Of course, according to your definition somebody who is anti-Catholic, or even anti-Christitan in general, would also be a racist (it's that whole shared history thing). I'll also be sure to point that out next time someone looks down sneeringly at the religious beliefs of others.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
So I didn't read the posters name, who cares, I don't.

So you don't care who you insult, even if it's not the correct person? Just as long as somebody is insulted to fuel your righteous rage it's okay?
You don't apologise when you make a mistake
Actually, I do.
or insult someone, in your sly underhanded way.
My sly underhanded way? Oh that's just too good.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Joe King:
This page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/israel_founded.stm
has a good map on the initial UN partitioning

Strange is it how they make a distinction between "Jordanian controlled" and "occupied by Israel"...
I'd say the Israeli living there under Jordanian occupation were none too happy with it and were certainly not considered to be Jordanians (like the "Palestinians" are always screaming they're Israeli whenever that suits them)...
The BBC also very ominously left out any Arab agression against Israel, downplaying the invasion in 1948 as a "troops moved in" as if they were merely coming in as a peacekeeping force when it was a foreign invasion intended to destroy Israel and exterminate its people.
The entire article smells of PLO propaganda and anti-semitic undertones.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

The BBC also very ominously left out any Arab agression against Israel, downplaying the invasion in 1948 as a "troops moved in" as if they were merely coming in as a peacekeeping force when it was a foreign invasion intended to destroy Israel and exterminate its people.

Not really. There's nothing about it that suggested that they were peacekeepers.

The entire article smells of PLO propaganda and anti-semitic undertones.

Which bit exactly has anti-semetic undertones?

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Then you must obviously accept that anti-Americanism is actually racism.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Yes, in the form of 'those stupid fat americans', unless you're referring to people who happen to disagree with american foreign policy, commonly referred to as 'hippies' or 'liberals'

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

So you don't care who you insult, even if it's not the correct person? Just as long as somebody is insulted to fuel your righteous rage it's okay?

I didn't insult anyone, I miss-attributed a post. If you think attributing a Phil Chuang post to Don Stadler is insulting, then you are insulting Phil Chuang yourself.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Yes, in the form of 'those stupid fat americans', unless you're referring to people who happen to disagree with american foreign policy

I don't accept this. The anti-Semites often try to use the same argument to claim that they're not actually anti-Semitic, rather that they are merely disagreeing with some particular Israeli policy, when in fact that is quite often not the case.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The anti-Semites .........Israeli policy.

Dictionary.com
Sem�ite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smt)
n.
A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
A Jew.
Bible. A descendant of Shem.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: an�ti-Sem�i�tism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

where does Israel come into the picture ??

[Phil Chuang]

Uhm, Israel is made of Hebrews (Semites).

[Phil Chuang]

I love it when people say they're anti-war and then support "the Iraqi Resistance" ...
They're not anti-war, they're merely on the other side.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I don't accept this. The anti-Semites often try to use the same argument to claim that they're not actually anti-Semitic, rather that they are merely disagreeing with some particular Israeli policy, when in fact that is quite often not the case.

Back to the old 'if some disagreable people use an argument then it must never be true' policy are we. Just because some racists say they are just opposed to a particular governments policies means that anyone opposed to any governments policy is a racist against the people that are the primary constituents of that country does it? That logic doesn't work on even the most basic level.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Phil Chuang:
Uhm, Israel is made of Hebrews (Semites).

How much I know Arabs are also there.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Back to the old 'if some disagreable people use an argument then it must never be true' policy are we. Just because some racists say they are just opposed to a particular governments policies means that anyone opposed to any governments policy is a racist against the people that are the primary constituents of that country does it? That logic doesn't work on even the most basic level.

You're the one who wanted to expand the definition of racism. I'm merely seeing that it's applied evenly. Since the persons being attacked have no idea what the motive of the attacker is, that is whether they have problems with a policy or the people themselves, then it is at least as fair as not that they assume the motivation is racism, particularly in light of prevailing attitudes in a region. For example, anti-Americanism is prevalent in Europe (as is anti-Semitism for that matter). The anti-Americanism in Europe has been there for decades and can not simply be layed at the feet of any particular American policy. Therefore, using the expanded definition you've given us for racism, it is fair for Americans to conclude that much of this hostility is in fact racism, just as much of the hostility towards Israel is anti-Semitism. It then follows that when someone makes the claim that it is only our foreign policy they are currently attacking us on, that we look at such assertions with a suspicious eye.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
The only different I can see between Israel and Palestine that one side has got uniform and other side does not have uniform.

And one side purposefully targets children and women, and one does not. One side only targets legitimate military targets, and one does not. One side is an internationally recognized nation, and one is not. One side has actively sought peaceful solutions on multiple occasions and shown a willingness to carry them out, and one has not. One side has stated that the only acceptable solution is the destruction of the other, and one has not. One side recruits children to carry out its operations, and one does not. Oh, and the Palestinians do wear uniforms. Other than that though, there are probably few differences.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Oh, and the Palestinians do wear uniforms. Other than that though, there are probably few difference.

Oh they have uniform too.. then the only diffrence is of money and good ammunition.
because I am really confuse who is who in the following quote:

And one side purposefully targets children and women, and one does not. One side only targets legitimate military targets, and one does not. One side is an internationally recognized nation, and one is not. One side has actively sought peaceful solutions on multiple occasions and shown a willingness to carry them out, and one has not. One side has stated that the only acceptable solution is the destruction of the other, and one has not. One side recruits children to carry out its operations, and one does not.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

You're the one who wanted to expand the definition of racism. I'm merely seeing that it's applied evenly. Since the persons being attacked have no idea what the motive of the attacker is, that is whether they have problems with a policy or the people themselves, then it is at least as fair as not that they assume the motivation is racism, particularly in light of prevailing attitudes in a region. For example, anti-Americanism is prevalent in Europe (as is anti-Semitism for that matter). The anti-Americanism in Europe has been there for decades and can not simply be layed at the feet of any particular American policy. Therefore, using the expanded definition you've given us for racism, it is fair for Americans to conclude that much of this hostility is in fact racism, just as much of the hostility towards Israel is anti-Semitism. It then follows that when someone makes the claim that it is only our foreign policy they are currently attacking us on, that we look at such assertions with a suspicious eye.

As paranoid a statement as I have ever heard. You're anti-anti-americanism and anti-anti-semitism is as rediculous as them.

[Phil Chuang]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

As paranoid a statement as I have ever heard. You're anti-anti-americanism and anti-anti-semitism is as rediculous as them.

So instead of debunking his argument you resort to grammatically impaired ad hominem attacks? Now who's being ridiculous?
Me. Neener, neener

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
because I am really confuse who is who in the following quote:

quote alluded to by RKS above is by Jason Menard:
And one side purposefully targets children and women, and one does not. One side only targets legitimate military targets, and one does not. One side is an internationally recognized nation, and one is not. One side has actively sought peaceful solutions on multiple occasions and shown a willingness to carry them out, and one has not. One side has stated that the only acceptable solution is the destruction of the other, and one has not. One side recruits children to carry out its operations, and one does not.

Ravish, if you are really confused about who is who in the above quote by Jason, then there is nothing for anyone to discuss with you regarding this issue. Either you don't see the difference, or you don't want to see the difference. Either way, it is IMHO pointless to discuss on this matter. Having said that, I'll still give it a try:
Jason had already mentioned in one of his earlier posts that he does recognize the fact the the Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer & therefore there is, even in his mind, some legitimacy to their grievaces. The problem that he & many others have is with the approach that the Palestinians are now taking after having come very close to a very peaceful solution. The problem that he & many others have is with the avowed PLO charter which even to this day calls for the complete destruction of Israel.
If I remember right you want them (Palestinians & Israelis) to live peacefully together. Well, that is what the solution that Yasser Arafat rejected would have given them. The 1st intifada was generally targeted against non-civilian Israelis and could have been considered as a freedom struggle. After Israelis suffered under this intifada & the Palestinians suffered from the resulting violent response, both sides realized that they had to have peace between the 2 peoples & share the land.
Such peace negotiation calls for compromise from both sides. Israel, especially under Barak, had agreed to compromise on some issues; Arafat, initially also had agreed to compromise on some issues.
Unfortunately, this compromise that Barak had agreed to was most likely viewed as a position of weakness by the terrorist groups that backed Arafat & he then decided to take a much harder line on his demands. Well, as was expected, this harder line stance resulted in the breakdown of whatever peace they could have had. This led to the 2nd intifada that has currently roiled the mideast.
I do believe that Israel, once it is convinced that Palestinians have given up their violent agitation for freedom, will negotiate and negotiate fairly. Keep in mind that a fair negotiation is generally not an ideal negotiation from any one group's point of view. In any such negotiation, the Palestinians must recognize that Israel has the right to exist. You may not agree with how that land was carved up and how Israel was born. But that happened. Everyone must come to grips with that because it cannot be undone. Including Palestinians. And unless this happens, there is no hope for peace in that part of the world.
Violence only begets violence. Neither side seems to be able to understand this. Fine, you may say. Let Israel stop their killing of the Palestinians & the Palestinians will then stop their terrorism & this will lead the peaceful co-existence of the 2 peoples. But the folly in this logic is that PLO's charter still hasn't eschewed the destruction of Israel and because of this, any appearance of Israel giving in to terrorism will only embolden the terrorists even more and they will continue to demand more & more and they will not be satisfied till all jews are driven away from that area. Well, if this is what you want to see, then,
The only other option is for PLO to agree to the existence of Israel & stop terrorism. This will result in Israel pulling back their hammer. And then the 2 sides can come to fair terms. As far as I can see, the biggest and perhaps the only bone of contention is how the 2 sides define fair terms.
Historically if you see, every time that Israel annexed some area that was not part of Israel, it was in the interest of their national security; and when that particular threat to their national security was gone, they returned the annexed land back. This is why I believe that once terrorism stops, Israel will be as fair as possible without compromising their right to existence, survival and security.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

Ravish,

Thanks Sadanand for taking out time for me and try to explain the situation better.
If you have followed me then one of my previous posts I have accepted that approach of Palestine for their own legitimate right is currently wrong but at the same time I see that they have no other way to fight for their right.
As I see, its their helplessness which makes them to do all henious crimes.
And as for as as my comments goes that I cant figure out who is who then let me clear it.
And one side purposefully targets children and women, and one does not.
I dont know how when a building is blasted, one can be sure that no civilian will die.
One side only targets legitimate military targets, and one does not.
A home could not be a militry target.
One side is an internationally recognized nation, and one is not.
As for as I know, there are many nations which do not recognise either one of them as nation.
One side has actively sought peaceful solutions on multiple occasions and shown a willingness to carry them out, and one has not.
Which side does not want peace, I was wondering.
One side has stated that the only acceptable solution is the destruction of the other, and one has not.
but both sides are working on it. One with planes and all kind of latest ammunition and other has his body and some explosive item.
One side recruits children to carry out its operations, and one does not.
Other side wait till the official age to join army.

Having said all this. If you ask me, I have no solution for their dispute because, as per me, the birth of nation called Israel is illegal, it should have never born.
But now as it has born and born with some disabilities so it has to live with it and in practical terms, as I see, it will take 5-6 generations of both side to accept that jews really have taken their land from them and now whatever is given to them as charity is their land.
And Khuda-Na-Khasta (May God doesnt approve it) if Arabs unites before that day then only God knows what will happen.
This is why I believe that once terrorism stops, Israel will be as fair as possible without compromising their right to existence, survival and security.
Obviously once you have snatched what you were looking for, you might leave other things of actual owner to him only.
Its like robber robs your all money at highway and before going gives you Rs. 100/- for dinner.
Robber has got what he wanted, if he has given you Rs.100 it does not mean that he was a gentleman. (obviously he was nobler than the man who even does not give you hundred for dinner).
And as I have always said. Its me only. Its my views only. I represent no one except me and only myself. These are my personal views.
If anyone is hurt or found it offensive then my apologies to them as its never my intention to hurt anyone.

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

How much I know Arabs are also there.

True. There are no more Jews in Baghdad, Alexandria (Egypt), Syria, Lebanon, RK. Do you see that disparity as indicative of anything?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
True. There are no more Jews in Baghdad, Alexandria (Egypt), Syria, Lebanon, RK. Do you see that disparity as indicative of anything?

I dont get your point??
Do you want to say that there were jews in Baghdad, Egypt, Syria and they were thrown out ?? [I am not talking about biblical age. I am talking about last 100 yrs.]
As far as I know that was not the case, but still if you are sure that they were thrown out then it was Palstine nation which gave them shelter.
And what price it got for giving them shelter ?? Division of his own nation. :-|
Any destructive work done in the name of "religion", even if I want to approve, I cant approve.

[Tim Baker]

give it up Singh, you'll never have an effect on the pro-semite population on this board, just as they'll never have an effect on us moderate people with their extremist views.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
give it up Singh, you'll never have an effect on the pro-semite population on this board, just as they'll never have an effect on us moderate people with their extremist views.

You are right he will never convince me that the only thing the Palestinians can do is kill civilians. All they have to do is quit killing period. If they put half as much energy into improving their lives as they do hatred and killing, they would be much better off.
Your replies when someone doesn't agee with you do get tedious.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

If they put half as much energy into improving their lives as they do hatred and killing, they would be much better off.

What will you be doing if someone from outside comes and takes away 50% of your land ??
I will first fight for land. I am not as great as you who can give away 50% land just like that in the name of religion.
[ March 27, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[Thomas Paul]

There will not be peace in the Middle East until Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate Jews.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

What will you be doing if someone from outside comes and takes away 50% of your land ??
I will first fight for land. I am not as great as you who can give away 50% land just like that in the name of religion.
[ March 27, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

Like Kashmir. It was forcefully given to India. They have a right to blow up anyone and everyone to get that land back.
Does it still sound reasonable to you?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Like Kashmir. It was forcefully given to India. They have a right to blow up anyone and everyone to get that land back.
Does it still sound reasonable to you?

It simply shows lack of knowledge about the dispute.
May I know what do you know about Kashmir issues so that I can enlight you.

[R K Singh]

I will recommend you to read this. before you give your opnion about Kashmir.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
There will not be peace in the Middle East until Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate Jews.

There will be ever lasting peace if jews leave the non-sense demand of Israel and live peacefully with Arabs.

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
True. There are no more Jews in Baghdad, Alexandria (Egypt), Syria, Lebanon, RK. Do you see that disparity as indicative of anything

Do you want to say that there were jews in Baghdad, Egypt, Syria and they were thrown out ?? [I am not talking about biblical age. I am talking about last 100 yrs.]

Yes, RK. That is the point, that you don't get it. These facts aren't widely publicized the way the settlements are. All of the places I mentioned had large communities of Jews 100 years ago. Those communities no longer exist today. They have been 'settled' by (mostly) Arab 'settlers'.
This has also happened to other groups such as Chinese and Indians in Africa, for example. A group is unwelcome and it is expelled. This even happened on the West Bank during the Jordanian occupation. Another dirty little secret.
Israel is the only offender, or so we are led to believe.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Yes, RK. That is the point, that you don't get it. These facts aren't widely publicized the way the settlements are. All of the places I mentioned had large communities of Jews 100 years ago. Those communities no longer exist today. They have been 'settled' by (mostly) Arab 'settlers'.

Let me believe in what you are saying.
But isnt it Arab's(Turk) who allowed jews in their territory when all other nations were throwing them out??
Isnt it jew's plan that to first buy land and them take the nation ??
Whatever be the reason of jews expulsion from all these countries, it does not give them right to take a land from the country who once gave them shelter. They could have lived as they were living (as much I know till they demanded seperate nation their was no hate between them in former Palstine) in Palestine.
After british rule it was about to be a democratic nation. But they choose to have religion base seperate nation(let it be democratic).
I just did little research and came to know that its not only Arab nation(Baghdad etc.) who expelled jews but there were lot of other european nation also who expelled them. So its not only about Arabs.
But none of the resource tell the reason, why they were expelled or treated differently ??

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:


Like Kashmir. It was forcefully given to India. They have a right to blow up anyone and everyone to get that land back.
Does it still sound reasonable to you?

Hold the phone, Paul. Kashmir was not given to India, either forcefully or otherwise.
Please read some of my posts on the historical events just prior to and after Indian/Pakistani independence from the Brits.
Even after the partition & all the killings on both side during the exodus from & influx into both India & Pakistan, for a few decardes there was a lot of peace in the Kashmir valley. The hindus & muslims in Kashmir, for the most part, lived peacefully, side by side. It was after the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan that the jihadis from there, who were now without a war, looked around and decided that Kashmir would be their next cause. It was about 1989/1990 that the terrorism in Kashmir exploded (both literally & otherwise).
Kashmir was not created by taking land from one group and handing it over to another, as was done during the creation of Israel. So, it is not quite an appropriate analogy. The land of Kashmir has not been taken away from either the muslims or the hindus and given to the other group. Actually what has happened is that in the last 15 years or so, the muslim terrorists terrorised the hindu population so much that there has been an exodus of hindus from Kashmir. So, the property & land that the hindus owned before the mass fleeing now is most likely in muslim hands. Even the moderate muslims who didn't want anything to do with the terrorism or the terrorists agenda have been targeted by these so called jihadis.

[Tonny Tssagovic]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

But isnt it Arab's(Turk) who allowed jews in their territory when all other nations were throwing them out??

True.

Originally posted by R K Singh:

I just did little research and came to know that its not only Arab nation(Baghdad etc.) who expelled jews but there were lot of other european nation also who expelled them. So its not only about Arabs.

Most of people in isreal come from ex USSR... and are more atheists then jews.. many people from Poland (a (poor) european country) go to Isreal because they r promissed $$$, and people still go there, even with all the terorism going there.

Originally posted by R K Singh:

But none of the resource tell the reason, why they were expelled or treated differently ??

Ask jewish people, not athesists that made up Isreal and filled it up.
BTW, people in this thread montioning the bible.. It is crazy how people that don't beleive suddenly site the bible.. Could you please let me know where in the bible I can read about making Isreal.. Please use the international English version...