That's been clearly tharshed and debunked. in post #74 . May I simply if you heard of " the wandering Jew" - LOL I also suggest you note the title Gilad Atzmon chose for his book "The Wandering Who" http://www.gilad.co.uk/the-wandering-who/ B) Thanks for admitting that "the Jews CAME in " i.e. they came into Palestine with a predetermined plan to displace + dispossess the non-Jews and transform/change population from 20 % Jew+80%Non-Jew , to 80% Jew + 20% non-Jew , by foul methods . ......
Shiva wrote the followig: I read once an article about that... I am reproducing it here and perhaps use it as testimony to back what I stated previously... I will also try to debunk most of your unsubstantiate report to PrometheusBound... In the meantime please read. What is a Palestinian? ~By Joseph Farah WorldNetDaily.com Ever since I wrote a column last October called "Myths of the Middle East," readers from around the world have asked me what is meant by the term "Palestinian." The simple answer is that it means whatever Yasser Arafat wants it to mean. Arafat himself was born in Egypt. He later moved to Jerusalem. Indeed, most of the Arabs living within the borders of Israel today have come from some other Arab country at some time in their life. For instance, just since the beginning of the Oslo Accords, more than 400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank or Gaza. They have come from Jordan, Egypt and, indirectly, from every other Arab country you can name. The Arabs have built 261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967. We don't hear much about those settlements. We hear instead about the number of Jewish settlements that have been created. We hear how destabilizing they are -- how provocative they are. Yet, by comparison, only 144 Jewish settlements have been built since 1967 -- including those surrounding Jerusalem, in the West Bank and in Gaza. The number of Arab settlers is based on statistics collected on the Allenby Bridge and other collection points between Israel and Jordan. It is based on the number of Arab day workers entering but not leaving Israel. The numbers were published by the Israel Central Bureau for Statistics during the administration of Binyamin Netanyahu and subsequently denied as "recording errors" by the Ehud Barak administration. Of course, the Barak administration had incentives for denying the high illegal immigration numbers, given its heavy political reliance on Arab voters. Is this a new phenomenon? Absolutely not. This has always been the case. Arabs have been flocking to Israel ever since it was created and even before, coinciding with the wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine prior to 1948. Winston Churchill said in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." And that raises a question I never hear anyone ask: If Israel's policies make life so intolerable for Arabs, why do they continue to flock to the Jewish state? This is an important question as we see the Palestinian debate now shift to the issue of "the right of return." According to the most liberal claims by Arab sources, some 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs left Israel in and around 1948 when the Jewish state was created. Most were not forced out by Jews, but rather left at the urging of Arab leaders who had declared war on Israel. Yet, there are far more Arabs living in these territories now than ever before. And many of those who left in 1948 and thereafter actually had roots in other Arab nations. This is why it is so difficult to define the term "Palestinian." It always has been. What does it mean? Who is a "Palestinian"? Is it someone who came to work in Palestine because of a bustling economy and job opportunities? Is it someone who lived in the region for two years? Five years? Ten years? Is it someone who once visited the area? Is it any Arab who wants to live in the area? Arabs outnumber Jews in the Middle East by a factor of about 100 to one. But how many of those hundreds of millions of Arabs are actually Palestinians? Not very many. The Arab population of Palestine was historically extremely low -- prior to the Jews' renewed interest in the area beginning in the early 1900s. For instance, a travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in JERUSALEM was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews. "The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property," the book states. Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to JERUSALEM and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. Why was the Muslim population so low? After all, we're told that JERUSALEM is the third holiest city in Islam. Surely, if this were a widely held belief in 1906, more of the devout would have settled there. The truth is that the Jewish presence in Jerusalem and throughout the Holy Land persisted throughout its bloody history, as is documented in Joan Peters' milestone history on the origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict in the region, "From Time Immemorial." It is also true that the Arab population increased following Jewish immigration into the region. The Arabs came because of economic activity. And, believe it or not, they came because there was more freedom and more opportunity in Israel than in their own homelands. What is a Palestinian? If any Arabs have legitimate claims on property in Israel, it must be those who were illegally deprived of their land and homes after 1948. Arafat has no such claim. And few if any of those shooting, bombing and terrorizing Israelis today do either. *Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.
Here is something from the 'Palestine Royal Commission Report' a paper that will put the above to rest... THE BRITISH MANDATE It is submitted that the Mandate for Palestine has a primary and overriding purpose and object - namely, the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. All other duties of the Mandatory must be deemed to be subordinated to this primary object and no provision of the Mandate can properly be interpreted so as to entail any departure or derogation from this primary purpose. This is clear from the wording of the Mandate itself. The Preamble explains why the Mandate was created and sets out its purpose. The first clause of the Preamble declares it to be the intention of the Principal Allied Powers that Palestine should be administered under a Mandatory regime. The second clause proceeds to explain that the purpose of the Mandate is to put into effect the Balfour Declaration; accordingly the clause declares that the Mandatory shall be responsible for doing so. None of the remaining clauses of the Preamble make any mention of other purposes or objects. Manifestly, no other was intended. This is evident also from the contents of the third clause of the Preamble. The British authorities themselves recognized that their first obligation was to help achieve the establishment of the Jewish National Home. Thus, the Colonial Office wrote to the Palestine Arab delegation in April 1922 that "the declaration, as you are aware, provided, first, for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine; and, secondly, for the preservation of the rights and interests of the non Jewish population of the country." This is also evident from the fact that immediately after the first Article conferring upon the Mandatory the necessary powers of legislation and administration to carry out the Mandate, Article 2 begins with a proviso that the Mandatory shall "be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble..." The effect of the remaining part of Article 2 will be considered later. That the primary purpose of the Mandate is the establishment of the Jewish National Home is made further apparent by Articles 4, 6, 7, and 11 of the Mandate. The Peel Commission accepted this conclusion after careful study. It stated that unquestionably ... the primary purpose of the Mandate as expressed in the Preamble and in its Article is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home." (Peel Report, page 39). This view has been held by many leading British statesmen, including those who were responsible for the Balfour Declaration and the drafting of the terms of the Mandate or who, as British officials, were in the best position to know how their Government understood the Declaration and the Mandatory obligations. Reference has already been made to the fact that former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, former Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare and others signed a Memorial urging the British Government to accept a Mandate under the League of Nations for the administration of Palestine "with a view to its being reconstituted the National Home for the Jewish People." That it is proper to consider what transpired before the mandate was conferred, what was said regarding its purpose at British Cabinet meetings and in negotiations between Britain's government and other Allied and Associated Powers, is clear from the following statement of the international law on the subject: "It is a well-established rule in the practice of international tribunals that so-called preparatory work (travaux preparatoires) - i.e. the record of negotiations preceding the conclusion of a treaty, the minutes of the plenary meetings and of committees of the Conference which adopted a convention, the successive drafts of a treaty, and so on - may be resorted to for the purpose of interpreting controversial provisions of a treaty. The Permanent Court of International Justice has frequently affirmed the usefulness of preparatory work ... the Court itself has in fact had resort to preparatory work even when in its view the treaty was clear. The deliberation and publicity accompanying the successive stages of the negotiations and conclusion of treaties are such as to render this kind of evidence of particular value."' In appearing on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the Seventh Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, the Accredited British Representative, Mr. Ormsby-Gore (now Lord Harlech) said "it was, after all, the Balfour Declaration which was the reason why the British Government was now administering Palestine."' As was previously pointed out, the Duke of Devonshire stated in 1923, when he was Colonial Secretary, that "the Balfour Declaration was the basis on which we accepted from the Principal Allied Powers the position of Mandatory Power in Palestine." In Command Paper 1989, published October 4, 1923, the British Government made the following statement: "the keynote of British policy in Palestine ... is to be found in the Balfour Declaration ... The policy of the Declaration ... formed an essential part of the conditions on which Great Britain accepted the Mandate for Palestine..." On another occasion, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, said in the House of Commons on April 30, 1929: "I am certain that every Government will do what they can to facilitate the realization of the Zionist aim, policy and ideals, as governed by the terms of the Mandate in the terms of the Balfour Declaration." Similarly Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, now Lord Swinton, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, said on January 7, 1932: "Successive British Governments have sought zealously and fairly to discharge their responsibility of giving effect to Lord Balfour's famous Declaration ... In this matter, policy is constant, though Governments change."' This view of British statesmen was also shared by members of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League. In a report submitted to the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Commission 1935, its rapporteur, Mr. Palacios, stated: "As Rapporteur, I consider that it is not for the Mandates Commission to reconsider the Balfour Declaration which is the very soul of the Mandate." Again, at the thirty-sixth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939, one of its members, M. Van Asbeck stated in criticizing the MacDonald White Paper of 1939: "both the Mandate and the Balfour Declaration contained one paramount obligation, namely the foundation of a Jewish National Home, that was the primary purpose of the Mandate as outlined in its Preamble." M. van Asbeck went on to say that he disapproved of the way in which the second paragraph of the White Paper presented the "three main obligations" and "demurred" to the rather subordinate place allotted to the real paramount obligation. The novel feature of the Balfour Declaration, he pointed out, was that for the first time it gave an official promise of British assistance toward the realization of Zionist aspirations which could be summed up in the phrase that "the Jews would cease to be a minority in one part of the world." He added: "it was therefore, quite natural that Britain and the Allies should in the first years after the Declaration have talked about the future Jewish Commonwealth foreshadowed in the Balfour Declaration. There is ample evidence in official statements of His Majesty's Government that ab initio they regarded the policy of establishing the Jewish National Home as the central purpose of the Mandate. This was their original intention and hence it is far more important to determine what was their understanding of the matter at that time than years later when exterior political considerations may have prompted them to modify their views." Thus, for example, the British Foreign Office wrote to the United States Ambassador in London on December 29,1921: "So far as Palestine is concerned, Article 11 of the Mandate expressly provides that the Administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency mentioned in Article 4 to develop any of the natural resources of the country in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. The reason for this is that in order that the policy of establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people should be successfully carried out, it is impracticable to guarantee that equal facilities for developing the natural resources of the country should be granted to persons or bodies who may be actuated by other motives."' Similarly, the British Government stated in a note of July 1, 1928, to the Cardinal Secretary of State as follows: "Cardinal Gasperri also alludes to Article 11 of the draft Mandate in support of his contention that the Jews are to be given a privileged and preponderating position as against other nationalities and creeds. His Majesty's Government regard the provision by which the Administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate upon fair and equitable terms any public works, services or utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration, as legitimate recognition of the special situation which arises in Palestine from the charge (of establishing in Palestine a National Home for the Jewish People) which has been laid upon them by the Principal Allied Powers, and also of the fact that the Jewish people, in virtue of that policy, are ready and willing to contribute by their resources and efforts to develop the country for the good of all its inhabitants." Bibliography: Palestine Royal Commission Report; Richard Meinerzhagen, Middle-East Diary.
This post starts off seeming a little trollish to me. It is rather ignorant of both historical Arab political structures and of modern ones as well. Obviously there are Arab governments and countries since we can see them in existence today, and there absolutely were Arab polities back before the creation of Israel. In fact the first Palestinian Congress (I use them as an example because of their connection to the territories we are talking about) assembled in 1919. Arabs in the region rebelled against Turkish rule several times in history, one of which was aided and in conjunction with the British under the Hussein-McMahon correspondence agreement which took place prior to the Balfour Declaration and which promised the establishment of an Arab state on land that included modern day Israel / Palestine. The British simply lied (see the Sykes-Picot agreement). That's fine. But their wants don't erase the rights of the people who were already living there (those we currently call Palestinians). They didn't own it, they controlled a mandate over it through the League of Nations. Also false. Once again the Arabs in the region had organized political parties and political identities. If Europe was able to help form an Arab state in Syria then they could have in Palestine as well just as easily since the two regions identified strongly with one another. (see the concept of Greater Syria under Arab nationalism). This seems like a particularly silly assertion, especially given how Israel was formed and the history of western colonization within the region. Israel isn't simply a non-Muslim state. It represents a major remnant of former and often times very oppressive colonial rule over Islamic and in this case, Arab populations.
The Zionist Congress rejected the Palestine Royal Commission (more commonly known as the Peel Commission) So I'm not sure why you would attempt to use it to support Israel's right to force Arab populations off of regional land. It isn't legally binding at all, especially under modern international law.
http://jordantimes.com/protests-over-parliamentary-polls-continue "Hundreds of activists on Friday protested against the January 23 parliamentary elections, urging authorities to annul the poll results. In separate demonstrations in Amman and the southern city of Karak, leftist and independent activists accused authorities of turning a blind eye to “widespread violations”. In a demonstration in the east Amman neighbourhood of Hay Al Tafaileh, some 150 activists erected a “condolences” tent to mark the passing of the polls’ “cleanliness”, declaring the current Lower House “illegitimate”. In a peaceful one-hour rally, participants accused the Independent Elections Commission of “mismanagement”, chanting, “May God rest the legitimacy of the elections” and “Results after one week — you call this a clean election?” Protesters pointed to the narrow margins of victory in several races as proof of widespread “fraud”, chanting. “One day Abla, one day Qashou, and you call these elections clean?” referencing a recount over a hotly disputed race between the Democratic Renaissance List headed by former MP Abla Abu Olbeh and the Citizenship ticket headed by Hazem Qashou. Meanwhile, dozens of leftists in Karak protested against the elections, demanding that decision makers annul the results. During the two-hour rally, participants called for the dissolution of parliament, chanting “The people want the downfall of parliament,” according to eyewitnesses. Karak protesters also called into question the “legitimacy” of the current parliament to form the next government, chanting, “The people demand to choose the next government.” Friday’s protests were held a few days before the official launch of deliberations between lawmakers and the Royal Court over the next prime minister, who is expected to head the country’s first-ever parliamentary government." We see that the snow ball is slowly but safely growing toward the inevitable result - the creation of a sovereign palestinian state in Jordan The real boom will happen the day after Assad's fall.
That's quite a bit of spin and selective omission: The Arabs completely rejected the recommendations of the Peel Commission whereas the Zionist Congress at least sought further talks regarding the plan.
There is a very valid point to be made here though. The Arab immigration has been a legal immigration to the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem but the Israeli immigration is in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056 The West Bank, E Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and Gaza were all territories under the military occupation of Israel at the end of the 6-Day War in 1967 and it was a violation of international law as established by the Geneva Conventions for Israel to allow it's civilian population to relocate into these territories then and now. The Israeli settlements and immigration are illegal under international law but the immigration of Arabs to these territories is not illegal under international law. The Israelis have withdrawn their military from Gaza, although it continues to repeatedly invade this territory so it hasn't completely removed it's military control, but it still has to remove it's military from the other occupied territories as required by UNSC 242.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not even your infantile statement above is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You would not know of "modern international law" even if it fell like a ton of bricks on your big toe.
Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions IS MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem are in direct violation of it. Article 49 expressly prohibits the immigration of a nation's civilian population to a territory under military occupation. All of the territories that were occupied by Israel in 1967 are territories of military occupation and the Israeli settlements violate international law as established by the Geneva Conventions in Article 49. It's long past time for Israel to begin to comply with International Law. I would suggest that Israel start providing incentives to Israelis that have illegally moved into the West Bank and E Jerusalem immediately. If they don't move then they have to accept that they will be falling under Palestinian control in the future because Israel has no claim to any territories it occupied in 1967.
Haha, I graduated from a law school with a masters in international affairs (dual concentration in economic development and conflict). I'm pretty comfortable with international law.
Back to the topic of this thread. As has been established as of 1921, basically when Britian became the adminstrative authority over Palestine, That Palestine was defined as the lands West of the Jordan River and Transjordan was the lands East of the Jordan River. The claim that Jordan is a part of Palestine is a blatant lie established by Historic Fact already established in this thread. The British were also mandated by the League of Nations to work with the Palestinian People to create a national state of Palestine which would have been based upon this identical territory West of the Jordan River. This has also been established as a Historical Fact in this thread. It was the Zionist Jews immigrating from Europe that violated this mandate for a Palestinian nation. Once again this is an established historical fact.
While they've apparantly withdrawn from Gaza - they still CONTROL Gaza's borders/airspace - restricting free movements of Gaza's residents ,,,,
The British government ALSO rejected the recommendations of the Peel Commission - which was convened by them. They found the recommendations to be impractical. Not the least, it was in direct violation of the Hussein-McMahon correspondence as approved by Lord Grey. Why do the Apologists leave out that sort of critical fact? Talk about spin and selective omission!! That just has to be the pits of omission. Not so, Rayznack?
Nice try but I didn't bring up the Peel Commission to make an empty point. Someone else did and only portrayed the Jews as rejecting a commission's recommendations rather than mentioning other parties did so too. You're simply saying the original poster left even more details out of his comment - one you claim is critical - than I had mentioned. Good grief.
You're the one who keeps misquoting it. First you quoted: "NON MEMBER OBSERVER TO STATE' STATUS IN THE UN." That "to" is nonexistent in the resolution.. So you thought you'd just add it to change the meaning.. It should read "...observer state". Why'd you stick an extra word in? Palestine has "observer state" status as clearly defined.. Now you've invented another disingenuous misquote: "STATE OBSERVER STATUS" That should read observer state status. The word observer comes before state not after it. Now read very carefully: And please don't blame me for your own reading mistakes. Thank you.
To post partial explanations is also patently dishonest. A number of letters were exchanged between Sharif Hussein and the high commissioner of Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, the most important of which was the letter of 24 October 1915 in which Mc Mahon informed the Sharif: 'The two districts of Messina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the West of the district of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limit demanded. With above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab Chiefs, we accept those limits. As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interest of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain, to give the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: (1) Subject to the above modification, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the Independence of the Arab sin all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca...' (For full text se Laqueur, the Israel - Arab reader. pp. 33-35) Palestine was not mentioned by name in that letter, and in later years, when arguments arose over its interpretation, the Arabs maintained that it was not geographically possible for Palestine to be included in the 'portions oif Syria lying to the West of the District of Damascus Homs, Hama and Aleppo'. The British Government maintained that it had always intended to exclude Palestine from the Area of independence. These opposing points of view became the cause of bitter controversy. It has been suggested that the imprecision of the McMahon letter was intentional (Monroe, Britain's Moments in the Middle East, pp. 31-32) because , whilst the British Government was encouraging Arab hopes for independence, it was also having to consider its French ally. France had long had cultural links with Syria and Lebanon and considered she had claims to these countries after the Turks were defeated.
And I wonder why???????????????????? Gaza is part of Israel... Sharon withdrew from there not to spill Jewish blood... It is now a Terrorist ENCLAVE and does not have any international Status... The fact that Israel withdrew from there does not deserve any consideration from your part or the others following your line of thought? hmmm
Unbelievable things are invented as we go along it seems. Trans-Jordan and Cisjordan formed then the Palestine Mandate to state differently is also not correct. Unsubstantiated please show proof of that and please reread Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen explanation as he was a member of the Churchill Headquarters. (Read Middle East Diary 1917-1956) Seems to me that once again this is you interpretation... (Of course according to your one sided thought they were all Zionist because they returned back home) I wonder what you would call a Jew who made Alyah because he wanted to join his old family... I am beginning to lose hope... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k9IlR3-_-A&feature=player_embedded
Bull $-hit , I've been over the same old crap , more times than was nessessary. Its crap , Most jews within Israel and elsewhere do not subscribe to /agree with your blinkered /narrow minded opinions. I've been to Israel , while most I've met might have been arrogant SOB's , I do know that their views are directly opposite to yours. Yours being more inline with that crazy mob of settler Jews .- regularly despised , even by their fellow Israeli Jews. ..
More BS over + on top of more BS Bender , there's no way you + your fellow - ZioNastie Meshugennehs , are going to transform/change Crap into Croissants. tata.....
As noted correctly Israel shouldn't even exist based upon the British authority over territories at the end of WW I as Britian, with the political division of Transjordan and Palestine, had a mandated responsibility to establish independent nations for the resident populations of those territories. It was the Zionist immigrants from Europe that violated the original mandates for Britain from the League of Nations. The European Jews had absolutely no Rights or Authority in Palestine and they were responsible for the civil unrest that resulted after 1921 that literally destroyed the creation of a Palestinian State in the territories West of the Jordan River. The Jewish Zionists from Europe were literally foreign terrorists in Palestine. This is all well documented and there is absolutely no disputing these historical facts.
