Why is Condi Rice breaking international law?

Charles

Whilst it is certainly fascinating to travel back to those 1920 'back on Churchill's fag packet' maps of the region and who would get what, it is rapidly apparent that even the most deserving got little or nothing that they were promised. The Armenians got nothing because there were very few left to get something (and remember, they fought on our side). The Greeks, at Smyrna, were physically pushed into the sea. Nothing worked out as it had been wished.

The Zionists should be grateful that they got what they did. There weren't many there and there was no great influx of immigrants for many years, or so I understand. There were some incredibly heroic and vehemently pro-British people amongst the WW1 Palestinian Jewish community but, in the main, the settlers seem to have kept their heads down (quite understandably, I concede) whilst the British Empire troops and Arab irregulars fought the Ottoman army.

There's the history lesson, now tell me why the Zionists got such a bad deal in 1920? Over to you guys.

ps. I know that I said I was off on the last post, but I couldn't resist this particulat item. And just so you know, my (vested) interest is in the Armenian side of things. But that's from way back.

Stanislav Koblinski

Charles,

I can't find Armenia on any of those maps.

The Zionists should be grateful that they got what they did.

I can't believe anyone could actually have the unashamed balls to say something like that.

You then imply that a nation only deserves that for which has it has fought. That being the case you will no doubt accept that Israel, haveing fought and won the wars of 1967 and 1973 deserves all of the land it conquered in those wars.

ps. I know that I said I was off on the last post, but I couldn't resist this particulat item.

Do try harder - off you go!

Nicholas

Your vested interest is shown by your use of the term Zionist. It means one thing but conveys quite another.

The re-writing of history is a particular Leftist (ergo anti-Israeli) affliction but has grown to prominence in the age of soundbite and spin. It's good to see the historical fact laid before us, even though metaphorically it is high time it was rammed down certain parties collective throat(s).

Every single shred of any sympathy I had for the "Palestinian cause" has been absolutely erased by the 40 years of blood-letting and terror they and their extremist Islamist friends have inflicted on the world's innocents.

Israeli fortitude, patience and restraint is amazing. I would not have been surprised if by now they had obliterated those neighbours who have long proposed to obliterate them.

Ann

Well, there were 5 battalions of Jewish volunteers, admittedly from several countries (or so it would appear):

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_jewish_role.php

Or look under Trumpeldor.

I don't think the Zionists should be 'grateful' for being given some autonomy in their own country. This idea that the Jews should be 'grateful' to other nations for allowing them to live is, of course, quite an old one; and utterly reprehensible.

Why did they get a bad deal? Because they carried little weight in the power politics of the time, not having a country of their own and other such reasons.

vza

I agree with you Charles. And don't forget the Assyrians who also got nothing and continue to have land stolen from them to this very day.

Charles

Stanislav,

Not worth bothering to respond to those comments. I'll wait until some more considered response come through, if that is alright with you?

Stanislav Koblinski

By the way, instead of the link to the PDF version of the resume provided by Melanie this one may be more easily read for some. Then Charles won't have the excuse that he hasn't actually read about what he's criticizing:

“Mandate for Palestine” The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights

In particular:

The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day

Harvey

Oh! Yeah! Right! I take it all back...
*rme*

Huldah

Charles wrote

"The Zionists should be grateful that they got what they did. There weren't many there and there was no great influx of immigrants for many years, or so I understand."

In fact over 800,000 Middle Eastern Jews were forced to flee to Israel from Arab pogroms in the years following 1948. This in addition to Jews who, having lost family, homes and possessions to the Nazi holocaust (and European gentile thieving) realised that there was no longer a home for them in Europe and saw Israel as their only home.

These are the forgotten refugees of 1948.

Straydingo

Charles, the point is that your comments are not even worth the effort that is required to type this response. It is clear to all you have made your mind up...so on your way mate.

Adam B.

I see the Israel bashers always use the same tactic on these comments: they get the first comment in, the more outrageous the better, then all of us who actually know something about the Middle East spend lots of time trying to set them straight with some facts.

Dave M

Let's also throw in the weight of ancient history while we're on the subject: By 1000 B.C. Israel was an Empire under the reign of King David and then later Solomon. This Empire lasted about the same time as the Soviet Union in more modern times. Archeological excavations reveal a cultural, historical presence of the Jewish people in Israel and Judea and beyond well before Europeans settled within their modern national boundaries. The languages that were spoken were colloquial Hebrew and Aramaic. Even much later in Roman times (say 40 A.D.), Jews occupied much of the same land and were tolerated by the conquering Romans, the same way as the ancient Greek States were allowed autonomy. The simple facts are these: Jews have been living in these territories for some 3000 years, practising the same customs and religious beliefs centuries before Islam came on the scene in mediaeval times. This gives them similar rights to Basques or Aboriginees as an indigenous people. They are asking to live as a free democracy in a tiny strip of land while surrounding Arabs enjoy vast stretches of territory. Of course, what happens is much of the Islamic World has an interest in Jerusalem and control over Jerusalem in the name of Islam as a world religion. Yet the irony is Islam back in 1000 B.C. never existed and, indeed, in the Roman era there was no Latin term in vogue to designate Islam. Yes, there was "Christianus" and, more to the point, "Religio Iudaica" (Judaism)but Islam didn't have long established roots or origin in either of these eras. This matters because (as Melanie points out) global opinion tends to view Israel as the "occupier" and Palestinians as the indigenous people from ancient times and onwards. Still, this is not to say there should be no Palestinian State drawn up through negotiation with Israel but there can be no question of an Islamic Jerusalem or Islamic dominance in an area where Judaism has far deeper historical roots. I think that, as we have seen with Serbia, Condi is merely throwing a peace offering to Arab public opinion after the Iraq War so, in a sense, she's guilty of not sticking by her ally Israel during heated, political times for the Republicans.

Yisrael Medad

Charles et al.: At the beginning of WWI, there were some 80,000 Jews in the area that was to become the Palestine Mandate but almost half were expelled by the Turks. Out of that number, maybe 60 were involved in the NILI spy ring and two were hanged by the Turks in Damascus. Was there a similar phenomenom amongst the how many Arabs? The Great Arab Revolt has been derided and discredited now for years but on the strength of TE Lawrence's books, they got their independence with really little effort and the Jewish Legion of Jabotinsky and previously, the Jewish Mule Corps at Gallipoli of Trumpeldor easily matches the Arab war effort. And by the way, Aaron Aaronshon of the NILI did much to inform of the Armenian tragedy.

Andy Gill

Charles: It is the Palestinians who should be grateful for whatever they get. They were offered a state in 1948 alongside Israel, and refused it. They have been in defiance of the UN ever since.

Charles

Yisrael,

Thank you for that. I wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned the Aaronsons. They saved many British lives (Allenby said as much) and were truly heroic people. Let us not forget, though, that what they did was controversial amongst the settlers (quite understandably, given the dangers to all).

Now, to the main issue. According to Adolf Boehm in his seminal book 'The Zionist Movement' there were 55,000 settlers left in Palestine after WW1 (Ann, he confirmed that the Turks planned to kill them too). These settlers were, I understand, mainly German passport holders and this is probably why the Ottomans let them stay.

The centre of world Zionism at this time was Germany. Colonies had been acquired in Palestine from other settler groups (eg. Templars). There was no great rush of Zionist immigration immediately post WW1 or, as I recall reading, during the 1920s.

At the same time there were at least 600,000 "Arabs" living in Palestine. What Melanie and others appear to be suggesting is that the British should have forced these people from their homes at gunpoint to make way for a small number of Germans. Now, after the carnage of the Western Front, that does not seem very realistic, does it?

Yisrael, you mentioned TE Lawrence, if you have an interest then Google "Baron Von Oppenheim Time Magazine 1941". He was Lawrence's adversary amongst the Arabs. In his later years, he took to doing Nazi salutes whilst on the phone and, as the name implies, yes he was.

Anyway, all, sorry if this is boring. But don't get me started is all I can say ....

Cheerio for now.

Ann

"What Melanie and others appear to be suggesting is that the British should have forced these people from their homes at gunpoint to make way for a small number of Germans" -

This is the oft-repeated lie that Jews returning to their own country were 'European colonisers'. They were not 'Germans'. They were JEWS. And Israel is the homeland of the Jews. All your twisting and turning will not change that.

What NILI did may or may not have been 'controversial': and your point is, other than yet another attempt to have a go at the Jews?

The idea that anyone was going to 'force these people from their homes at gunpoint' (in order to make way for a bunch of 'Germans') is more demagogical nonsense. Nobody with any sense is going to be fooled by this straw man. Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s did not depend on forcing anybody out.

JJS

Charles,
Not worth bothering to respond to those comments. I'll wait until some more considered response come through, if that is alright with you?

phil

Charles,perhaps you are just a mischief maker -I dont know but giving you the benefit of the doubt -digest this

In Palestine as of Right and Not on Sufferance ...”
“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.”

Winston Churchill
British Secretary of State for the Colonies
June 1922

Catesby

Melanie

In terms of international law, the Mandate did not come into effect until September 1923, so any actions taken by the British before that time are irrelevant.

In the end, the real problem became squaring the circle drawn by the actual terms of the Mandate.

The Mandate placed a responsibility upon Britain to establish the Jewish Homeland promised in the Balfour Declaration.

However, it went on to add this significant qualification: ..it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

With hindsight we can see that this was an impossibly tall order.

Shy Guy

"In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

In the beginning: Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper. When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us."

- Fist commentary of RASHI on the Torah

Charles

History lesson, 11:30 class:

Letter from TE Lawrence to Sir Mark Sykes

'You know of course the root differences between the Palestine Jew and the colonist Jew: to Feisal the important point is that the former speak Arabic, and the latter German Yiddish. He is in touch with the Arab Jews (their H.Q. at Safed and Tiberias is in his sphere) and they are ready to help him, on conditions. They show a strong antipathy to the colonist Jews, and have even suggested repressive measures against them. Feisal has ignored this point hitherto, and will continue to do so. His attempts to get into touch with the colonial Jews have not been very fortunate. They say they have made their arrangements with the Great Powers, and wish no contact with the Arab Party. They will not help the Turks or the Arabs.

'Now Feisal wants to know (information had better come to me for him since I usually like to make up my mind before he does) what is the arrangement standing between the colonist Jews (called Zionists sometimes) and the Allies . . . What have you promised the Zionists, and what is their programme?

'I saw Aaronson in Cairo, and he said at once the Jews intended to acquire the land-rights of all Palestine from Gaza to Haifa, and have practical autonomy therein. Is this acquisition to be by fair purchase or by forced sale and expropriation? The present half-crop peasantry were the old freeholders and under Moslem landlords may be ground down but have fixity of tenure. Arabs are usually not employed by Jewish colonies. Do the Jews propose the complete expulsion of the Arab peasantry, or their reduction to a day-labourer class?

'You know how the Arabs cling even to bad land and will realise that while Arab feelings didn't matter under Turkish rule . . . the condition will be vastly different if there is a new, independent, and rather cock-a-hoop Arab state north and east and south of the Jewish state.

I can see a situation arising in which the Jewish influence in European finance might not be sufficient to deter the Arab peasants from refusing to quit - or worse!"

Whoa!

Catesby,
"In terms of international law, the Mandate did not come into effect until September 1923, so any actions taken by the British before that time are irrelevant."

Your legal basis for this? This is typical mis-information, half (or less)truths masquerading as fact. Reminds me of Bill Clinton's arguing that he never had sex with "that woman" because his uniquely personal definition of "sex" made it OK to mislead.

Ann

"History lesson, 11:30 class:
Letter from TE Lawrence to Sir Mark Sykes"

ROFL. So now the Jews have to rely on some ignorant nonsense from TE Lawrence? What pompous nonsense, Mr Self-important 'Teacher'. It's their country.

Charles

Ann,

OK, the "History lesson" bit was tongue-in-cheek. No offence intended. Remember, though, that TE Lawrence was No. 2 to Churchill at those conferences. Maybe he even drew the maps?

Anyway, for a real eye-opener you should check our Baron Max Von Oppenheim (here is a link: http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2007/issue3/jv11no3a4.html). He was trying to unite the Arabs and the Turks in a global jihad with a caliphate in Istanbul. He had his own think-tank, propaganda filmmakers, etc.

Here we are, a hundred years later. North West Frontier, Jihad, etc. Crazy world, eh? I am starting to incline towards Shy Guy's take on things (thanks for the link SG).

paul quite-tall

the so-called ‘occupied territories’ ...always love to read that.
Here's a suggestion Melanie: annex the territories and their populations into a greater Israeli State and give every man a vote.
Yes ?

Shy Guy

paul quite-tall
May 6th, 2008 3:41pm

Here's a suggestion Melanie: annex the territories and their populations into a greater Israeli State

and give every man a vote.
Yes ?

No.

At the most, Arab residents should be granted the status of permanent resident. They will be granted all human rights. If they wish to express their political aspirations, they will be able to do so in Jordan or any other Arab country. Other proposals are just illusory.

Sorry to disappoint you.

GaryL

"However, it went on to add this significant qualification: ..it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

And nothing was done to restrict their civil and religious rights. They had a right to sell land to Jews, which they did, except for the districts which Britain declared out-of-bounds for Jews. They had a pre-existent right under Turkish rule to attack Jews, which continued with British protection under British rule. They had a religious right to suppress Jews, and that's possibly the only right they lost, and which they have called a "loss of dignity" ever since. But they shouldn't worry too much - the UN has resurrected that right.

Stanislav Koblinski

Here's a suggestion for you "paul quite-tall":

Ask the Jordanians and the Egyptians, not to mention the Saudis, the Lebanese, the Kuwaitis, the Emiratis, the Iraqis and just about any other Arab country why they won't give citizenship and a vote to any "Palestinian" that wants it.

(Hint: google "Black September" for starters)

paul quite-tall

Apartheid in other words.

Thanks at least for being honest.

Adam B.

Paul, apartheid exists in most of the Islamic world. This doesn't bother you. Israel is a free and open society, with one vote for each citizen, an independent judiciary, and a free press, features not found in a single Arab nation.

Ravi

Melanie, brilliant article and great links by Stanislav. I see this argument about the original Mandate not being rescinded is truly trashing arguments by BBC 5Live World Messageboard resident Jihadists and Antisemites. They have no answers and in some cases just give the argument. Its great to defend Israel with such legal force behind it. The point now is that Palestinians occupy land in the Jewish State to which they have no legal entitlement to. In order to be allowed their own state is within the gift of Israel to whom it makes political and geographic sense. The sacrifice is land to which they are entitled. It is the Palestinians who are occupiers - not the other way around.

SA

Paul, why is apartheid a bigger crime than your anti-Semitism? You people are such hypocrites!

Ann

But Adam, Israel is the country of the Jews. Of COURSE ... erm ... people like Paul hate it with such pathological hatred.

John

"[Feisal's] attempts to get into touch with the colonial Jews have not been very fortunate. They say they have made their arrangements with the Great Powers, and wish no contact with the Arab Party."

Well, but what was Feisal's legitimacy as 'the Arab Party'? He was, in fact, the Sharif of Mecca, the Hashemi family's seat for centuries until the Saud family threw them out. The Hashemis were interlopers north of the Hijaz, installed by the British for their services with Lawrence. The Jews' claim to Israel is vastly stronger than the Hashemite claim to Jordan. "[Feisal's] attempts to get into touch with the colonial Jews have not been very fortunate. They say they have made their arrangements with the Great Powers, and wish no contact with the Arab Party."

Well, but what was Feisal's legitimacy as 'the Arab Party'? He was, in fact, the Sharif of Mecca, the Hashemi family's seat for centuries until the Saud family threw them out. The Hashemis were interlopers north of the Hijaz, installed by the British for their services with Lawrence. The Jewish claim to Israel is vastly stronger than the Hashemite claim to Jordan.

Shy Guy

paul quite-tall
May 6th, 2008 5:24pm

Apartheid in other words.

Well, yes, in all the Islamic countries which Stanislav mentioned and then some.

But not in Israel. You obviously have no idea what apartheid was, just as much as you have not an inkling of an idea what Israel is.

Thanks at least for being honest.

In order to remain consistant, we cannot reciprocate the compliment at this time.

Davod

The summary at the Modern History Sourcebook.

"The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

The bottom section of the mandate itself.
The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all Members of the League.

Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two."

davod

Charles:

"Churchill's fag packet"

He smoked cigars. I hope this is not an indicator of your level of research.

Mike (the original)

Hi Phil: If another 'Mike' should turn up on this thread, or any other, it 'aint me! There must be thousands of 'Mike's' on this planet, but only one original, and that's me......of the original Phil/Mike Show.

Thought I would just drop-by.

Charles

Davod,

Actually I believe he smoked cigars in public and cigarettes in private. Incidentally, that kink on the map line to the right was known for many years as "Churchill's Hiccup", guess why?

In truth, these maps had more to do with access to water, ancient trading routes over tribal lands and French interests than Churchill's whims, but who wants to spoil a good story, eh?

Charles

John,

The British Empire needed to unite the Arabs and Arab nationalism became the cause. If you follow the link I gave above with regard to Baron Max Von Oppenheim, you will find that the German plan was for a global jihad from India through Afghanistan and on via the Ottoman Empire into Egypt and North Africa. Oppenheim and his agents circulated throughout these countries showing films of British atrocities against the Muslims, sounds familiar right?

The Arabs chose nationalism. Which was a good thing for us all at the time. Indeed you may be interested to know that an Arab delegation attended celebrations of the Balfour Declaration at our Royal Opera House. The Jewish national home and Arab nationalism were all part of a piece (or should I say peace?).

Anyway, whatever went wrong between the Jewish settlers and the Arabs came later. I don't know when or why. All I can say is that in 1920 it looked like the settlers got a good deal and things should have progressed well with the Arabs. My understanding is that the Arab's main issue was with the French in Syria and amongst themselves (ie. who ruled what?) and not, in particular, with the settlers. Or am I wrong? If so, in what respect?

Shy Guy

Charles
May 7th, 2008 8:25am
John,

All I can say is that in 1920 it looked like the settlers got a good deal and things should have progressed well with the Arabs.

That would be exactly when 27 year old Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, would instigate and lead the first of many savage riots and attacks against the Palestinian Jews, all under Britain's watch and apathetic indifference for decades to come.

Charles

Shy Guy,

" ... all under Britain's watch and apathetic indifference for decades to come"

The problem with this thinking is that it omits consideration of the fact that the same powerful members of the British Jewish establishment who had lobbied and negotiated for a Jewish homeland were still in their posts for many years after 1917. They were in government, the nobility, finance, etc. Why do you suppose that they would stand by whilst the project failed? The British Army and (colonial) Administration was a well run operation. Whatever was happening in Palestine would have been known about in Palestine and vice versa.

As for the Grand Mufti chappie, he sounds like a wrong'un. But I return to my previous point, if he was that bad then why would the (pro-Zionist) senior members of the Jewish and Christian establishment in London not have intervened? It defies logic - but then, as you suggested earlier, things occasionally do.

paul quite-tall

"At the most, Arab residents should be granted the status of permanent resident. They will be granted all human rights. If they wish to express their political aspirations, they will be able to do so in Jordan or any other Arab country."

They will do this, they will do that. Well it's quite clear what you think of the Arabs ShyGuy.
Can't they have that one human right of self-determination ?

catesby

Whoa!

Your legal basis for this? This is typical mis-information…

My basis for this, which is historical fact and not ‘misinformation’, is the minutes of the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, which took place in Geneva on September 29th 1923. That meeting noted that the Mandate for Palestine would now come into force.

You can find the relevant text here:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/554d2d5ebe5313d6052565f50053999b!OpenDocument

Adam B.

Paul, the Arabs have self-determination in 20 odd countries, not one of which is a free and open society.

field

As legal bases for statehood go, Israel's is at least as good as most others and better than many.
There had been a near continuous Jewish presence for thousands of years. The community was substantial. They had the legal backing of the League of Nations and then the UN. The country is recognised by most countries around the world including nearly all democracies.

The forces that oppose Israel's right to exist are representative of all that is dark in the world: dictators, Islamic supremacists, Nazis and anti-semites.

Itzhak

Charles,
Try reading Col. R. Meinertzhagen's 'Middle east Diary'

Shy Guy

(Sorry if double-posted)

paul quite-tall
May 7th, 2008 12:07pm

Can't they have that one human right of self-determination ?

Two answers:

1) Not at the expense of annihilating the Jews, which their charters all call for. Funny how only they are entitled to human rights, at least according to human lefts, though many are inhuman.

2) They already have that right. The name of the country they have that right in is Jordan. But frankly, Tall, I don't give a damn.

Stanislav Koblinski

"paul quite-tall" says:

Well it's quite clear what you think of the Arabs ShyGuy.
Can't they have that one human right of self-determination ?

Do "they", including women and gays, have that human right in Arab countries such as saudi Arabia?

If the answer is "no" then please explain why "Palestinians" (not Israeli Arabs) should have that right in the Jewish state of Israel.

Before you answer do remember that that Arab citizens of Israel not only have the right to vote, they also have Arab Israeli members of the Israeli parliament voted in by them to represent their interests.

Please also name one Arab country where Jews have these rights.

Charles

Shy Guy,

Idle curiosity got the better of me - it would seem that the Baron Max Von Oppenheim that I mentioned was pretty thick with the Grand Mufti in 1941 (see the reference given earlier).

Was he the true architect of the global jihad concept? If so, that would be a major mindf**k for Osama & Co.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Charles, you vastly overestimate the influence of the Brithish Jewish community in pre-WWII Britain.

In addition, elements within the British foreign service deliberately instigated anti-Jewish sentiment among the Arab population after WWI in order to pursue a divide and conquer strategy.

Charles

Itzhak,

Not sure what point you are making? I know of Col. Meinertzhagen and a little of his adventures. However, are you aware that many of his diary entries (particularly regarding Lawrence and the 1919 Conference) were written in the 1950s? They call it his "dark week"!

Charles

Ahad,

It was Lord Rothschild (the 2nd) who negotiated the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and it was Lord Rothschild (the 4th) who was on the covers of our national papers this weekend when the Queen named a small locomotive that he has in his garden.

I think maybe any further queries about the implementation of that agreement should be addressed to him not me!

Shy Guy

Charles
May 7th, 2008 2:26pm
Shy Guy,

Idle curiosity got the better of me - it would seem that the Baron Max Von Oppenheim that I mentioned was pretty thick with the Grand Mufti in 1941 (see the reference given earlier).

Was he the true architect of the global jihad concept?

No. Mohamed was.

Sounds like you need to read up on 1400 years of Islamic global Jihadic history. Welcome to our world - Dar al Harb, that is!

paul quite-tall

Adam, is this the question ?: "so Jenin is Auschwitz is it?
Of course it is not and I never claimed it was. Neither do I really doubt that this is, indeed, a picture of a Palestinian boy jumping gleefully into a swimming-pool.
What I DO claim however is that the fact of one boy's delight in jumping into a pool on a hot day does not excuse 60 years of Israeli oppression, denial of rights, and continuous land theft (of which ShyGuy obviously approves).

Shy Guy

paul quite-tall
May 7th, 2008 3:39pm

What I DO claim however is that the fact of one boy's delight in jumping into a pool on a hot day does not excuse 60 years of Israeli oppression,
denial of rights, and continuous land theft (of which ShyGuy obviously approves).

There will be a denial of rights anytime you commit acts of agression again a country, which is what Arab terrorists from Jenin and everywhere else have been doing since way earlier that 1967 for that matter.

Communities in Judea and Samaria are not built on stolen land. They are built on either government land (as was defined under Jordanian law, going back to Ottoman rule) or on purchased property.

paul quite-tall

apologies, that last post is on the wrong thread.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Charles, that's just silly. I would submit that Lord Rothschild was very much the exception and not the rule as to political influence of British Jews in the early 20th Century and for that matter today.

Charles

Ahad,

Well, namestyles and ethnicity are not my area of expertise, so I won't comment on the politicians at Westminster.

But the first British High Commissioner to Palestine was Herbert Samuel and he was definitely Jewish. He went on to become Home Secretary and a Viscount.

He was followed by General Plumer, not Jewish but an outstanding military man. He ran the Mandate until the late '20s and it was seemingly at its most peaceful when he was in charge.

I won't go any further on this. But I can't see a problem with either of those gentlemen.

ps. I think you are probably wrong about the current position of the Rothschilds in British 'high society' but I don't think its for me to elaborate on that either.

Shy Guy

Charles
May 7th, 2008 6:39pm

But the first British High Commissioner to Palestine was Herbert Samuel and he was definitely Jewish. He went on to become Home Secretary and a Viscount.

In fact, it was Herbert Samuel who, in 1921 in his capacity as High Commisioner of Palestine, empowered Haj Amin al-Husseini to be the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council.

"We have met the enemy and it is us." - Pogo

Charles

Shy Guy,

Now all we need is a photograph of Herbert Samuel, Haj Amin al-Husseini and Baron Max Von Oppenheim together at a spa in Bavaria and I think we've cracked it! All the best and cheerio from me.

Larry Arab

This is nonsense. The claim to a land vacated thousands of years ago is spurious claptrap, even if we assume that Azkenazi Jews are the direct descendents of the peoples who stole Palestine from the inigenous Caananites ( which is a very big if). The Welsh have a far bigger claim on England. Greeks on the Levant, Armenians on parts of Turkey etc. Most of the Colonialists who migrate to the racist-sectarian State from Brooklyn ( etc.) have no ancestors who ever went near the place. They are colonialists, pure and simple. And like all colonialists they claim the aboriginals are savage, bloodthirsty ( for protecting their land), or the place was empty etc. Same old.

Seraph

Catesby stated that the Mandate, "went on to add this significant qualification: ..it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. With hindsight we can see that this was an impossibly tall order."

Yes, it was a tall order - one which the Jewish State has amazingly maintained over the past 60 years. Israeli Arabs have the same civil rights as Jews in Israel - they can (and do) vote and are represented in the Knesset. They also have religious rights and can live their lives as Muslims. This is something that very few Muslim states offer their non-Muslim citizens.

This is often mistakenly quoted to mean that the Mandate granted the Palestinians territorial rights. It did no such thing. The authors were careful to mention "civil and religious rights" but did NOT mention national rights.

Under the Mandate, only the Jewish people have national rights to the area that made up the British Mandate for Palestine.

Seraph

To Larry Arab who says:
"This is nonsense. The claim to a land vacated thousands of years ago is spurious claptrap"

What is spurious claptrap is that the Jews "vacated" the land.

For starters the Jewish people did not choose to leave, but were ethnically cleansed first by the Babylonians and then by the Romans. On both ocassions they yearned to and eventually returned to their ancestral homeland.

Secondly, even during the exile, there was always a sizable Jewish community in Israel. As the Arab writer Muqaddasi stated in 985, "The mosque is empty. The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population". This continued throughout the 19th and 20th century and Jews have long been the largest community in Jerusalem - with sizable communities in Tiberias and Safed. This predates Zionist or Ashkenazi "colonization" by centuries. These communities would have been much larger were it not for the patently racist policies of the Muslim rulers.

For example, see the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem

Stanislav Koblinski

"... Azkenazi Jews are the direct descendents of the peoples who stole Palestine from the inigenous Caananites..."

Sure, the Jews only steal other peoples' land!

Next you'll be telling us that today's "Palestinians" are descended from the Canaanites.

The sad thing is you actually believe the tripe you write.

Canaan

Ashkenazi Jews

Kind regards,

Stanislav, an Ashkenazi Jew

phil

hi mike you have been missed ,charles is taking all the space now and I havnt a clue what he is talking about -maybe you can help:)

Charles

Phil,

It's called "carpet blogging" (boom, boom)!!

Mike (the original)

Phil: As Frank Sinatra once said 'There's nothing quite like singing in front of LIVE people'! Visit:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/1948-remembered-by-the-people-who-were-there-822742.html

Here you will find LIVE people who remember 1948.....were there...saw it, felt it, and know the truth. Not unlike some journalists I know who sit on their big, fat a...s and pontificate from the safety of their offices!

There are other journalists, of course, who write and broadcast from the 'front-line' as it were, and also 'feel it' and 'see it'.......and then have to suffer unabated criticism and invective from those who seek 'to intimidate and silence'

'There is nobody these self-appointed spokesmen for Israel will not attack as anti-Jewish: liberal Jews, rabbis, even Holocaust survivors'

Doesn't it want to make you vomit!

Ann

So according to Larry Arab, even if we accept his hilariously ignorant thesis, it's OK for the Arabs to invade and conquer Israel, as they did as part of their murderous world-conquest campaign in the 6th to 8th centuries, but it's not OK for the Jews to reclaim part of it.
Thanks - now we know which part of the Jew-hatred spectrum you occupy.

phil

2 condi
mike original -we cannot shut him up(the journalist,I mean) only ensure the world knows he lies -I SUPPOSE YOU KNOW THE JOKE ABOUT THE FARM INSPECTOR AND HIM TALKING TO THE HORSE ,THEN THE HEN WHILST THE INCREDULOUS FARMER LOOKS ON BUT WHEN IT CAME TO THE SHEEP THE FARMER SAID .YOU ARE NOT TALKING TO HIM ,HE IS A LIAR !!ah well

phil

Charles I gave you the benefit of the doubt may 6 at 10.27 if you recall.but I think I was right in the first place -you just jump from one place to another like a leprechaun talking gobbledygook -I have no clue as to what you want to tell us and you certainly did not reply to my post -how about clarifying what it is you want to say -we have lots of patience here and I know you don't want to waste our time :)

Ann

Quoting from the lying, antisemitic 'Independent': yes, it does make me want to vomit.