Which State am I Talking About?

Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Raggamuffin on Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:38 am

That's an easy one - you're talking about Israel.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:42 am

Edit:

He is talking about neither as there is errors he makes which discount both.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Raggamuffin on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:21 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:That's an easy one - you're talking about Israel.

Or maybe both. That's that point. There is no substantial difference.

I was going on number 5 really.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:21 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:That's an easy one - you're talking about Israel.

Or maybe both. That's that point. There is no substantial difference.



Well it cannot be the ISIS as its not a recognised state and it cannot be Israel as it was created legally and is a secular run democracy, it complies with the rules of engagement and uses apllies legal means to defend its actions.

Hence the absurdity of the thread.

Its basically Zack confirming his antisemitism, as he is basically comparing ISIS to Israel.


Quelle surprise


Last edited by Didge on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:27 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:29 am

You just exposed your antisemitism because Israel was created legally and recognised legally.
You have tried to compare ISIS to Israel, which is about as idiotic as a Muslim can get lol and again confirms that fact you attempt to deligitimize the right of Israel to exist.

Sooner or later your mouth is going to get you in trouible and arrested for racism lol.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:44 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:You just exposed your antisemitism because Israel was created legally and recognised legally.
You have tried to compare ISIS to Israel, which is about as idiotic as a Muslim can get lol and again confirms that fact you attempt to deligitimize the right of Israel to exist.

Sooner or later your mouth is going to get you in trouible and arrested for racism lol.

Dude, you can't say that I'm anti Semitic and in the same post say "idiotic as a Muslim can get". HA HA! That's how stupid you get when you lose your temper.  

But Israel was created by terror. #Irgun.  If you think that's antisemitism, then have the guts to report it.

Now go look in the mirror. That's my shit on your face. Lol!



You are Asian ethnicity and thus not one of the semitic groups of peope lol and antisemitism is directed at Jews, of which you deny the existance of a recognised state and you are an idiot Muslim who has been indoctrinated with a daft Muslim narative which is hateful towards Jews..
So no temper lost as how can I lose my temper with such an immture boy who threatens pensioners. Terrorism led to the UK deciding to withdraw, it did not lead to independence, the UN partition plan led to Israel declaring indepence.
Seriously did you obtain any qualifications at school?
It was not created by terror but declaring independence.

As to your last point lol it really sums up how immature you are lol

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:00 am

lol I do not have your picture
You said your mother was Indian and that you came from India, so you must be asian ethnicity or you lied
Either way saying you are an idiot Muslim is not antisemitism either lol when no refernece is made to a semitic group
You are still always wound up Zack and its hilarious you cannot move on

At the end of the day you deny the existance of Israel which is about as anti-semitic as you can get

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by *THE Ben Reilly* on Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:36 am

It sort of fits the U.S. as well ...

_________________
“You can pay for school but you can't buy class.”

Jay-Z
avatar
*THE Ben Reilly*
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24636
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 43
Location : Jamás Bese el Culo Del Jefe, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:28 am

Palestinians - Entity Defined by its Opposition to Zionism
By: Eli E. Hertz

The Palestinians claim that they are an ancient and indigenous people fails to stand up to historic scrutiny. Most Palestinian Arabs were newcomers to British Mandate Palestine. Until the 1967 Six-Day War made it expedient for Arabs to create a Palestinian peoplehood, local Arabs simply considered themselves part of the ‘great Arab nation’ or ‘southern Syrians.’

“Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.”
Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels


“All [that Palestinians] can agree on as a community is what they want to destroy, not what they want to build.”
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman 1




There is No Age-Old Palestinian People. Most So-Called Palestinians are Relative Newcomers to The Land of Israel.Palestinian Arabs cast themselves as a native people in “Palestine” – like the Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans in America. They portray the Jews as European imperialists and colonizers. This is simply untrue.
Until the Jews began returning to the Land of Israel in increasing numbers from the late 19th century to the turn of the 20th, the area called Palestine was a God-forsaken backwash that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey.

The land’s fragile ecology had been laid waste in the wake of the Arabs’ 7th-century conquest. In 1799, the population was at it lowest and estimated to be no more than 250,000 to 300,000 inhabitants in all the land.2

At the turn of the 20th century, the Arab population west of the Jordan River (today, Israel and the West Bank) was about half a million inhabitants and east of the Jordan River perhaps 200,000.3
The collapse of the agricultural system with the influx of nomadic tribes after the Arab conquest that created malarial swamps and denuded the ancient terrace system eroding the soil, was coupled by a tyrannous regime, a crippling tax system and absentee landowners that further decimated the population. Much of the indigenous population had long since migrated or disappeared. Very few Jews or Arabs lived in the region before the arrival of the first Zionists in the 1880s and most of those that did lived in abject poverty.

Most Arabs living west of the Jordan River in Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza are newcomers who came from surrounding Arab lands after the turn of the 20th century because they were attracted to the relative economic prosperity brought about by the Zionist Movement and the British in the 1920s and 1930s.


This is substantiated by eyewitness reports of a deserted country – including 18th-century reports from the British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, French author and historian Count Constantine Volney (Travels through Syria and Egypt, 1798); the mid-19th-century writings of Alphonse de Lamartine (Recollections of the East, 1835); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); and reports from the British Consul in Jerusalem (1857) that were sent back to London.


The Ottoman Turks’ census (1882) recorded only 141,000 Muslims in the Land of Israel. The real number is probably closer to 350,000 to 425,000, since many hid to avoid taxes. The British census in 1922 reported 650,000 Muslims.

Aerial photographs taken by German aviators during World War I show an underdeveloped country composed mainly of primitive hamlets.6 Ashdod, for instance, was a cluster of mud dwellings, Haifa a fishing village. In 1934 alone, 30,000 Syrian Arabs from the Hauran moved across the northern frontier into Mandate Palestine, attracted by work in and around the newly built British port7 and the construction of other infrastructure projects. They even dubbed Haifa Um el-Amal (‘the city of work’).

The fallacy of Arab claims that most Palestinians were indigenous to Palestine – not newcomers - is also bolstered by a 1909 vintage photograph of Nablus, today an Arab city on the West Bank with over 121,000 residents. Based on the number of buildings in the photo taken from the base of Mount Gerizim, the population in 1909 – Muslim Arabs and Jewish Samaritans – could not have been greater than 2,000 residents.


Family names of many Palestinians attest to their non-Palestinian origins. Just as Jews bear names like Berliner, Warsaw and Toledano, modern phone books in the Territories are filled with families named Elmisri (Egyptian), Chalabi (Syrian), Mugrabi (North Africa). Even George Habash – the arch-terrorist and head of Black September – bears a name with origins in Abyssinia or Ethiopia, Habash in both Arabic and Hebrew.



Palestinian Nationality is an Entity Defined by its Opposition to Zionism, and not its National Aspirations.


What unites Palestinians has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non-Islamic entity takes charge – such as Israel did after the 1967 Six-Day War. It dissipates under Arab rule, no matter how distant or despotic.

A Palestinian identity did not exist until an opposing force created it – primarily anti-Zionism. Opposition to a non-Muslim nationalism on what local Arabs, and the entire Arab world, view as their own turf, was the only expression of ‘Palestinian peoplehood.’

The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a charismatic religious leader and radical anti-Zionist was the moving force behind opposition to Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s. The two-pronged approach of the “Diplomacy of Rejection” (of Zionism) and the violence the Mufti incited occurred at the same time Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq became countries in the post-Ottoman reshuffling of territories established by the British and the French under the League of Nation’s mandate system.

The tiny educated class among the Arabs of Palestine was more politically aware than the rest of Arab society, with the inklings of a separate national identity. However, for decades, the primary frame of reference for most local Arabs was the clan or tribe, religion and sect, and village of origin. If Arabs in Palestine defined themselves politically, it was as “southern Syrians.” Under Ottoman rule, Syria referred to a region much larger than the Syrian Arab Republic of today, with borders established by France and England in 1920.
In his book Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition, Daniel Pipes explains:

“Syria was a region that stretched from the borders of Anatolia to those of Egypt, from the edge of Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of today’s states, the Syria of old comprised Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, plus the Gaza Strip and Alexandria.”9
Syrian maps in the 21st century still co-opt most of Greater Syria, including Israel.

The Grand Mufti Al-Husseini’s aspirations slowly shifted from pan-Arabism – the dream of uniting all Arabs into one polity, whereby Arabs in Palestine would unite with their brethren in Syria - to winning a separate Palestinian entity, with himself at the helm. Al-Husseini was the moving force behind the 1929 riots against the Jews and the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt against two non-Muslim entities in Palestine – the British and the Jews. He gathered a large following by playing on fears that the Jews had come to dispossess, or at least dominate the Arabs.

Jerusalem, 22nd April, 1925.
Report from the Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine for the years 1920-1925 to the [British] Secretary of State for the Colonies.

ATTITUDE OF THE ARABS.
I have described what was the attitude of the Arab population at the outset towards this movement, and have mentioned that several causes contributed to make the situation in time less acute. Those causes were as follows: -In the first place, the [Arab] people discovered that the disasters, which they had been told were about to fall upon them, did not in fact occur. The attacks upon their villages by well-armed Jewish colonists, which some of the agitators had announced, did not take place.

The day when a hundred thousand Jews were to disembark in Palestine in order to occupy their lands, came and went, and there was no such invasion. Month followed month and year followed year, and no man had his land taken from him.

So far from the mosques being closed and turned into synagogues, a new, purely Moslem, elected body was created to which the control of all Moslem religious buildings, and of their endowments, was transferred; it rebuilt those that were in ruins and began to restore those that needed restoration.

It is difficult, under such conditions, to maintain indefinitely an atti¬tude of alarm; people cannot be induced to remain constantly mobilized against a danger which never eventuates.Much like Yasser Arafat, the Grand Mufti’s ingrained all-or-nothing extremism, fanaticism and even an inability to cooperate with his own compatriots made him totally ineffective. He led the Palestinian Arabs nowhere.

The ‘Palestinian’ cause became a key rallying point for Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, according to Oxford historian Avi Shlaim. The countries the British and French created in 1918-1922 were based largely on meridians on the map, as is evident in the borders that delineate the Arab states today. Because these states lack ethnic logic or a sense of community, their opposition to the national aspirations of the Jews has come to fuel that fires Arab nationalism as the ‘glue’ of national identity.
From the 1920s, rejection of Jewish nationalism, attempts to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland by violence, and rejection of any form of Jewish political power, including any plans to share stewardship with Arabs, crystallized into the expression of Palestinianism. No other positive definition of an Arab-Palestinian people has surfaced. This point is admirably illustrated in the following historic incident:

“In 1926, Lord Plumer was appointed as the second High Commissioner of Palestine. The Arabs within the Mandate were infuriated when Plumer stood up for the Zionists’ national anthem Hatikva during ceremonies held in his honor when Plumer first visited Tel Aviv. When a delegation of Palestinian Arabs protested Plumer’s ‘Zionist bias,’ the High Commissioner asked the Arabs if he remained seated when their national anthem was played, ‘wouldn’t you regard my behavior as most unmannerly?’ Met by silence, Plumer asked: ‘By the way, have you got a national anthem?’ When the delegation replied with chagrin that they did not, he snapped back, “I think you had better get one as soon as possible.”
But it took the Palestinians more than 60 years to heed Plumer’s advice, adopting Anthem of the Intifada two decades after Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 – at the beginning of the 1987 Intifada.

Under the Mandate, local Arabs also refused to establish an ‘Arab Agency’ to develop the Arab sector, parallel to the Jewish Agency that directed development of the Jewish sector. In fact, the so-called patriotism of indigenous Muslims has flourished only when non-Muslim entities (the Crusaders, the British, the Jews) have taken charge of the Holy Land. When political control returns to Muslim hands, the ardent patriotism of the Arabs of Palestine magically wanes, no matter how distant or how despotic the government. One Turkish pasha who ruled Acco (Acre) between 1775 and 1804 was labeled Al Jazzar, The Butcher, by locals.
Why hasn’t Arab representative government ever been established in Palestine, either in 1948 or during the next 19 years of Arab rule? Because other Arabs co-opted the Palestinian cause as a rallying point that would advance the concept that the territory was up for grabs. “The Arab invasion of Palestine was not a means for achieving an independent Palestine, but rather the result of a lack of consensus on the part of the Arab states regarding such independence,” summed up one historian.12 Adherents to a separate Palestinian identity were a mute minority on the West Bank and Gaza during the 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian rule - until Israel took control from the Jordanians and the Egyptians in 1967. Suddenly a separate Palestinian peoplehood appeared and claimed it deserved nationhood - and 21 other Arab states went along with it.


TBC
Palestinianism in and of itself lacks any substance of its own. Arab society on the West Bank and Gaza suffers from deep social cleavages created by a host of rivalries based on divergent geographic, historical, geographical, sociological and familial allegiances. What glues Palestinians together is a carefully nurtured hatred of Israel and the rejection of Jewish nationhood.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:36 am

Palestine is a Geographical Area, Not a Nationality


The Arabs invented a special national entity in the 1960s (rather than a geographic delineation) called the Palestinians, specifically for political gain. They brand Israelis as invaders and claim the geographic area called Palestine belongs exclusively to the Arabs.
The word Palestine is not even Arabic. It is a word coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity – the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish Revolts against Rome.

In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further bastardized into Palistina or Palestine. During the next 2,000 years, Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule.

Palestine was and is solely a geographic name. Therefore, it is not surprising that in modern times the name ‘Palestine’ or ‘Palestinian’ was applied as an adjective to all inhabitants of the geographical area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River – Palestine Jews and Palestine Arabs alike. In fact, until the 1960s, most Arabs in Palestine preferred to identify themselves merely as part of the great Arab nation or citizens of “southern Syria.


The term ‘Palestinian’ as a noun was usurped and co-opted by the Arabs in the 1960s as a tactic initiated by Yasser Arafat to brand Jews as intruders on someone else’s turf. He presents Arab residents of Israel and the Territories as indigenous inhabitants since time immemorial. This fabrication of peoplehood allowed Palestinian Arabs to gain parity with the Jewish people as a nation deserving of an independent state.

In a March 1977 interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO executive committee, admitted:
“Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.”





Historically, Before the Arabs Fabricated the Palestinian People as an Exclusively Arab Phenomenon, No Such Group Existed


Countless official British Mandate-vintage documents speak of ‘the Jews’ and ‘the Arabs’ of Palestine – not ‘Jews and Palestinians.’
Ironically, before local Jews began calling themselves Israelis in 1948 (the name ‘Israel’ was chosen for the newly-established Jewish state), the term ‘Palestine’ applied almost exclusively to Jews and the institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before independence. Some examples include:


  • The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called the Palestine Post until 1948.
  • Bank Leumi L’Israel was called the “Anglo-Palestine Bank, a Jewish Company.”
  • The Jewish Agency – an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 – was called the Jewish Agency for Palestine.
  • The house organ of American Zionism in the 1930s was called New Palestine.
  • Today’s Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was called the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra, composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews.”17
  • The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the United Palestine Appeal and the fundraising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.


If you watch the blockbuster 1960 hit movie “Exodus,” based on the novel by Leon Uris, you will see how recent this appellation is. The hero, a native-born Jewish pioneer called Ari ben Canaan, talks of his love for Palestine.

Encouraged by their success at historical revisionism and brainwashing the world with the ‘Big Lie’ of a Palestinian people, Palestinian Arabs have more recently begun to claim they are the descendants of the Philistines and even the Stone Age Canaanites. Based on that myth, they can claim to have been ‘victimized’ twice by the Jews: in the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites and by the Israelis in modern times – a total fabrication. Archeologists explain that the Philistines were a Mediterranean people who settled along the coast of Canaan in 1100 BCE. They have no connection to the Arab nation, a desert people who emerged from the Arabian Peninsula.

As if that myth were not enough, Arafat has also claimed “Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the Jebusites” displaced when King David conquered Jerusalem. Arafat has also argued that “Abraham was an Iraqi.” One Christmas Eve, Arafat declared that “Jesus was a Palestinian,” a preposterous claim that echoes the words of Hanan Ashrawi, a Christian Arab, who in an interview during the 1991 Madrid Conference said: “Jesus Christ was born in my country, in my land,” claiming she was “the descendant of the first Christians” – disciples who spread the gospel around Bethlehem some 600 years before the Arab conquest. If her claim were true, it would be tantamount to confessing that she is a Jew!


Contradictions abound, Palestinian leaders claim to be descended from the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Jebusites and the first Christians. They also co-opt Jesus and ignore his Jewishness, at the same time claiming the Jews never were a people and never built the Holy Temples in Jerusalem.




There has Never Been a Sovereign Arab State in Palestine


The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arabs nations who never established a Palestinian state. It also is expressed in the utterances and loyalties of so-called Palestinians.
Only twice in Jerusalem’s history has it served as a national capital. The first time was as the capital of the two Jewish Commonwealths during the First and Second Temple periods, as described in the Bible, reinforced by archaeological evidence and numerous ancient documents. The second time is in modern times as the capital of the State of Israel. It has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.
The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow, for the Arabs in neighboring lands, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great ‘Arab nation,’ historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria – Suriyya al-Kubra – a designation that covered both sides of the Jordan River.21 In the 1950s, Jordan simply annexed the West Bank, since its population was viewed as brethren of the Jordanians. Jordan’s official narrative of “Jordanian state-building” attests to this fact:
“Jordanian identity underlies the significant and fundamental common denominator that makes it inclusive of Palestinian identity, particularly in view of the shared historic social and political development of the people on both sides of the Jordan.... The Jordan government, in view of the historical and political relationship with the West Bank … granted all Palestinian refugees on its territory full citizenship rights while protecting and upholding their political rights as Palestinians (Right of Return or compensation).”
The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN offered a partition plan in 1947 to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinians clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

Well before the 1967 decision to create a new Arab people called ‘Palestinians,’ when the word ‘Palestinian’ was associated with Jewish endeavors, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, testified in 1937 before a British investigative body – the Peel Commission - saying: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.”


In a 1946 appearance before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, also acting as an investigative body, the Arab historian Philip Hitti stated: “There is no such thing as Palestine in [Arab] history, absolutely not.” According to investigative journalist Joan Peters, who spent seven years researching the origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine (From Time Immemorial, 2001) the one identity that was never considered by local inhabitants prior to the 1967 war was ‘Arab Palestinian.’




Palestinian Cultural Contribution


Culturally, Palestinians cannot distinguish their endeavors from other Arabs. The only innovations Palestinians can take credit for are using skyjackings – which they initiated in 1968 as a political instrument, and suicide bombers – refined since the advent of the Oslo Accords in 1993 as a political weapon that now cynically is turning Arab’s own youth into suicide bombers that target other civilians. There is absolutely no precedent elsewhere in the world for the Palestinian 6th grade language primer that contains a poem exalting: “I will take my soul into my hands and hurl it into the abyss of death.”In the wake of the Palestinians’ newest guerrilla warfare against Israel, the al Aqsa Intifada launched by Arafat in September 2000, people are closely examining Palestinian claims to nationhood. Barry Chamish, Dov B. Fischer, and countless others seek to ascertain the truth. If there is an ancient Palestinian history, why can’t they find any world-renowned Palestinian artists or scientists, or at least one Palestinian literary masterpiece or breakthrough invention – anything that distinguishes Palestinians as a people?





Jordan – a State with a Palestinian Arab Majority


There is already a Palestinian state and a Palestinian people in everything but name: 70 percent of all Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs. The British were assigned a Mandate over Palestine in 1920 in order to realize the 1917 Balfour Declaration that called for “establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine” – a geographical area that included western Palestine (today’s Israel and the West Bank) and Eastern Palestine (today’s Jordan). In 1923 Eastern Palestine, representing 76 percent of the Mandate territory, was excised to placate the Arabs, who opposed the idea of Jews returning to their ancient Jewish homeland. That 76 percent became a separate mandate, and in 1946 Eastern Palestine became the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (later renamed “Jordan” after the Jordanians occupied the West Bank) – a country which today is in everything but name, a Palestinian state carved out of Mandate Palestine.  A full 70 percent of all Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs, and Palestinians occupy key positions in Jordan’s government and its economy. Even the Queen — King Abdullah II’s wife, Rania, is Palestinian. The remaining 30 percent of Jordan’s population is Bedouin, originating from the Arabian Peninsula, and including the Jordanian royal family, who hail from Mecca.

Arabs are not satisfied with one Palestinian political entity where they are the uncontested majority and have the political machinery and the territory for self-determination – Jordan. Instead, they want an additional state because twenty-one Arab states are not enough (and one Jewish state is one too many.)




Arab Consistent Behavior – Terrorism - Then and Now. The Bias Case of The ICJ Against Israel’s Need for Security – Then and Now

The world ignores the remarkably consistent Arab behavior in Palestine that is documented in the Mandator’s reports to the League of Nations – a role that parallels a UN Special Rapporteur today. Such primary documents contain precedents for security fences and testify to their non-political nature.

The International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, shows an avid interest in the “Mandate of Palestine” and uses the case to openly champion a Palestinian state, but the ICJ also chooses to ignore evidence of the ‘un-readiness’ of Palestinian Arabs for independence – a political maturity that it quotes in the Ruling is a prerequisite for political independence under Article 22 of the League of Nations. Far more crucial to the case:

Such documents note the necessity of security barriers in the past and demonstrate that in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, indeed, security barriers are temporary in nature. This statement undermines the Bench’s Ruling that Israel’s security fence is political and illegal.

The ICJ finds it convenient to ignore that the mandate system speaks readiness for independence in terms of signs of local responsible governance. Article 22 of the League of Nation’s Charter speaks of reaching a stage of development that is provisional until such time as they are able to stand alone. This yardstick was applied to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Israel. By contrast, this ICJ considers Palestinian statehood to be a ‘given’ – literally, figuratively, and irrespective of Palestinian political behavior.

Ironically, the same political behavior (the use of terrorism as a political instrument) that the ICJ chooses to ignore as irrelevant, is chronicled in official reports to the Council of the League of Nations  filed by the British Government during its three-decade ruled over Palestine’s Arab and Jewish inhabitants. These reports are highly relevant to the case at hand on several counts, but are they admissible? Such reports from the British Government to the Council of the League of Nations were required of the Mandator in the terms of the “Mandate for Palestine” in Article 24 it requires that:

“The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.”

Logically, such documents and other special reports to the League by the Mandator should be of equal weight, in terms of standing and credibility, with the reports by the UN special Rapporteur today, such as the one upon which the ICJ Ruling says it relies. These reports, as well as the findings of international commissions such as the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, could have provided a valuable perspective for the ICJ and placed the current terrorism dilemma in its appropriate historical context.
 


Is a Fence a Security Measure?


All the more important, they are highly relevant in determining whether the fence is a security measure or a political ploy. For a start, the ICJ could have learned something about the need for a security fence from the Mandate Report of 1930 (p. 169) which noted, after Arabs razed the Jewish farming village of Beer-Tuvia to the ground and attacked ancient Jewish communities in Hebron, Safed and elsewhere in 1929:

“For the greater security of exposed Jewish settlements, the [Jewish] Agency, in co-operation with the [British] Administration, has allotted £P.36,500 to roads, telephones, central buildings and fencing.” [italics by author]

Seventeen years later, in 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry described, again, the need for security fences in the face of renewed Arab violence against Jews in 1936-39:

“The sudden rise of [Jewish] immigration after the Nazi seizure of power had as its direct result the three and a half years of Arab revolt, during which the Jew had to train himself for self-defence, and to accustom himself to the life of a pioneer in an armed stockade. … The high barbed wire and the watchtowers, manned by the settlement police day and night, strike the eye of the visitor as he approaches every collective [Jewish] colony. … The Jews in Palestine are convinced that Arab violence paid. Throughout the Arab rising, the Jews in the National Home, despite every provocation, obeyed the orders of their leaders and exercised a remarkable self-discipline. They shot, but only in self-defence; they rarely took reprisals on the Arab population.” [italics by author]
Thus, two historical precedents in 1929 and 1936-39 support the Israeli claim that its fencing is not necessarily political or permanent but is a temporary measure prompted by legitimate security needs that ebb and flow like the tide. Indeed, the stockade walls and watchtowers that surrounded isolated civilian Jewish settlements in the later part of the 1930s and protected them from attacks were dismantled when the 1936-39 Arab Revolt subsided. This challenges the Court’s conclusion that the fence is “political”, “de facto annexation” and unilaterally changes the status of parts of the West Bank, all without any reference to law.

The 1930s-vintage Mandator’s report – Report by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and the Palestine Royal Commission 1936-1937 – testifies to the fact that there is no linkage between terrorism and “occupation” and the use of violence that required building security fences is not new. Unfortunately, these are salient features on the landscape that repeat themselves due to the violence deeply embedded in Palestinian political culture. The only difference is that the ‘shoe is on the other foot’ in terms of ‘who is fenced in,’ the potential victims or the perpetrators.

The Mandator’s report definitively cites its corroborative evidence:
“There were similar assaults [by the Arabs] on the persons and property of the Jews, conducted with the same reckless ferocity. Women and children were not spared... In 1936 this was still clearer. Jewish lives were taken and Jewish property destroyed... The word ‘disturbances’ gives a misleading impression of what happened. It was an open rebellion of the Palestinian Arabs, assisted by fellow Arabs from other countries, against British Mandatory rule. Throughout the strike the Arab press indulged in unrestrained invective against the [British] Government. The Government imprisons and demolishes [houses] and imposes extortionate fines in the interests of imperialism.”

The British report to the League of Nations had no problem using the ‘T’ word or acknowledging the sustaining character of political violence in Palestinian Arab culture – internal and external, noting:
“The ugliest element in the picture remains to be noted. Arab nationalism in Palestine has not escaped infection with the foul disease which has so often defiled the cause of nationalism in other lands. Acts of ‘terrorism’ in various parts of the country have long been only too familiar reading in the news¬papers. As in Ireland in the worst days after the War or in Bengal, intimidation at the point of a revolver has become a not infrequent feature of Arab politics. Attacks by Arabs on Jews, unhappily, are no new thing. The novelty in the present situation is attacks by Arabs on Arabs. For an Arab to be suspected of a lukewarm adherence to the nationalist cause is to invite a visit from a body of ‘gunmen.’”

The British report to the League of Nations noted Palestinian Arabs “refusal to negotiate” “The Arab leaders had refused to co-operate with us [British] in our search for a means of settling the [Arab Jewish] dispute.” The British report to the League of Nations noted the destructive role of Palestinian Arab leadership at the time:
“If anything is said in public or done in daylight against the known desires of the Arab Higher Committee, it is the work not of a more moderate, but a more full-blooded nationalism than theirs [AHC].”
The British report to the League of Nations noted the hate that fueled Palestinian Arab political culture:

“…in Palestine Arab nationalism is inextricably interwoven with antagonism to the Jews... That is why it is difficult to be an Arab patriot and not to hate the Jews.”

“…we find ourselves reluctantly convinced that no prospect of a lasting settlement can be founded on moderate Arab nationalism. At every successive crisis in the past that hope has been entertained. In each case it has proved illusory.”


IN A NUTSHELL



  • So-called ‘Palestinians’ are newcomers to Palestine. Most are generic Arabs who migrated to British Mandate Palestine from surrounding Arab countries to take advantage of the relative prosperity brought about by the Zionist Movement and the British Mandate.

  • Palestine is a geographical area, not a nation. Before the establishment of Israel, members of two national entities – Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs - inhabited Mandate Palestine.

  • A Palestinian people was artificially created in the 1960s by the PLO after the Six-Day War to rob Jews of their homeland and historical identity, and to paint them as victimizers and trespassers. The objective is to lay the groundwork for creating another Arab state at the expense of the Jews – whom Arabs consider an alien and illegitimate political entity in the Middle East.

  • Seventy percent of all Jordanians define themselves as Palestinians. That there exists a separate Palestinian people from the Jordanian population is a fabrication designed to force the creation of a second Palestinian state.



http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians1.htm

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:49 am

Which goes back to my original points.
Both the Palestinian territories and Israel is made up vastly of people who only migrated within the last 150-200 years. only a small number of both Jews and Palestinians have descendents resident to the area longer than 200 years

Only Jews classified themselves as Palestinians before during and before the Mandate and such a concept of a people for the Arabs was invented for the sole purpose to attempt to deligitimie the state of Israel.

Now if these Arabs wish to define themselves as a new nationality , I really have no objection, but I do object to the constant denial that in fact the conflict has always been about denying and accepting a Non Muslim nation in the area. It has always been about having a Muslim majoirty in control of lands, of which this lands themselves in history were conquered by the Arab Muslims. This is why this newly created nationality provides the means to claim victim status. Even worse to where they refused from the beginning to accept Israel statehood and naked aggression led to the conflict we see continue to this very day.

Now if you really want to make a comparrison to ISIS, then you stand a far better compabrability off Hamas run Gaza. At the end of the day it has always been about religious control to lands, Muslims themselves religiously believe is divinely ordained as theirs.
So whilst I think Zionism is complete nonsnse when religiously based, the same must be applied to any Islamic claim to the lands.

The fundemental fact is an ethnic and religious group defined as Jews has been around for near 3,000 years, where the first Israel was created and where a direct link through historicity points to the area being the historical home of the Jews.

Now again I firmly believe in a two state solution, but the fabrications of claiming that all the Palestinians have been living where they live for thousands of generations is blatnatly exagerated and an utter lie. As only a small surviving amount of Jews and minority a number of Palestinians actaully descend further back in time to the area but are certainly not many of the original indegeneous groups, being as many of them are Arabs and thus migrated later to the area soon after the islamic conquests.

To put this into context:

I will post further evidence in the next post


Last edited by Didge on Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:07 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:53 am

A simple new way to prove Peters’ key conclusion

In the midst of various arguments, what has been overlooked is a simple and incontrovertible way to prove that the vast majority of “Palestinians” are the descendants of the relatively recent Arab immigrants.

Peters calculated that in 1882, just the non-nomadic, settled Muslims in Palestine numbered 141,000. Among them, those that resided in Palestine before the 1831 Egyptian invasion numbered 75 percent, or 105,700 (FTI page 197). By 2015, descendants of these 105,700 persons can trace their linage in Palestine for almost 200 years. Therefore, one might consider them to be the indigenous residents. The date 1831 is important, because this was the beginning of the war with Arab Egypt, during which many thousands of Arabs settled in Palestine and changed its demographics.

The number of 105,700 thousand settled Muslims is in general agreement with other important data. Walter Lowdermilk gives the total number of 200,000 people residing in Palestine in 1850 (page 76 – Palestine Land of Promise 1944). Lowdermilk's number includes Jews, Christians, travelling nomadic Bedouins and settled Muslims. It also includes Arabs that immigrated after the war of 1831. Arthur Ruppin estimates the total population in year 1882 as 300,000 Palestinian inhabitants, including nomadic and settled Muslims, Christians and Jews (The Jews in the Modern World, MacMillan - 1934 page 368).

If these 105,700 indigenous Muslims were to increase in numbers only through natural population growth, how many would they number today in 2015? This would represent the size of this population as if there were no Muslim immigration at all.

We can calculate the estimated 2015 native population, based on natural rates of population growth. I assume that the post-1882 Muslim population in Palestine -- apart from immigration — grew at approximately the same rate as the populations of neighboring Syria, Egypt and Lebanon for which rates we have reliable data. That rate of growth was 1.1% per annum. (FTI page 529 table in note 78) **

I used the compounded interest formula to do the math. Applying the 1.1% growth rate to the Muslim population resident in Palestine in 1882 yields a total number of 453,000 Muslim descendants in 2015 of these original 105,700 native people.

According to the 2015 World Almanac, the current “Palestinian” population, including Israeli Arabs, and Arab residents of Gaza, Golan, Judea and Samaria totals 10,523,715 people. 453,000 descendants of indigenous Muslim residents constitute only 4.3% of the current “Palestinian” population. Therefore the other 95.7% of present-day “Palestinians” are clearly those Arabs and their descendants who migrated to Israel between 1831 and 2015.



Despite the substantial documentation assembled by Peters, demonstrating massive Arab immigration into Palestine, anti-Israel propagandists continue to deny it. Based on what we know today, and the simple truths of basic math, the issue has become clear and unambiguous. All historic records indicate that only insignificant number of long-term settled Muslims were present in Palestine before 1882, when the large Jewish immigration began. Muslim Arab numbers increased dramatically as Jewish settlements developed infrastructure and provided work opportunities to Arabs from the neighboring countries.

Also worth noting is that the “indigenous” 4.3% comprised many non-Arab nationalities. All of them were swamped by the Arab immigrants and within a few generations largely lost their identity.

Given the complete absence of any historical record to the contrary, we can authoritatively say that the “Palestinian people” never existed until they were invented in the 1960s as a tool for continuing the Arab war against Israel.

The claim that “Palestinians” are the indigenous people of Israel and that most of the present Palestinian Arabs have lived in these lands since time immemorial is a total fraud. Albeit posthumously, Joan Peters has had the last word on the subject.


http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Why-World-Opinion-Matters/Are-Arabs-the-indigenous-people-of-Palestine-402785

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Which State am I Talking About?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum