Jump to content

Israel


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

Enough radical Islamist groups have threatened the west and our way of life to cause concern. While the majority of approx. 1.2 billion muslims may be peaceful, even if only 10% are of the radical variety, that is enough to do the job and don't forget the radicals have declared their intentions of a world wide Caliphate. At least one of these groups has been banned in Britain. Take a look at what is happening in Europe and even Australia. Much of what is happening in Europe is not reported here by the MSM.

Islam is the fastest growing religion, if it becomes the majority religion in the west, then we would see parliament change, and laws changed, we would see Sharia law implemented. We do have cause for concern, especially women.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is not about radical Islamism. It is about territory. A significant proportion of Palestinian Arabs are Christian. Get your facts straight.

The Arab / Israeli conflict is about ethnic hatred and genocide.

When the United Nations proposed separate states for Israel and Palestine, the Arab states surrounding Israel answered that they did not need a state as they were going to push the Jews (that survived) into the Red Sea.

The people camped on the West Bank and in Gaza are there because ARABS told them to flee Israel to avoid harm in the coming Armageddon back in 1948. They were NOT displaced by Israel; the nation was at war with several Arab states within 24 hours of becoming a state and had no time to do more than try to prepare to defend itself.

Israel (barely) won the 1948 war at a terrible price. She has been on a constant war footing since and has won several other attempts at genocide through war by neighbour nations.

If you refuse to read history and are unaware, please do not burden us with trivia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 552
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Higgly: The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is not about radical Islamism. It is about territory. A significant proportion of Palestinian Arabs are Christian. Get your facts straight.

Westviking: The Arab / Israeli conflict is about ethnic hatred and genocide.

When the United Nations proposed separate states for Israel and Palestine, the Arab states surrounding Israel answered that they did not need a state as they were going to push the Jews (that survived) into the Red Sea.

The people camped on the West Bank and in Gaza are there because ARABS told them to flee Israel to avoid harm in the coming Armageddon back in 1948. They were NOT displaced by Israel; the nation was at war with several Arab states within 24 hours of becoming a state and had no time to do more than try to prepare to defend itself.

Israel (barely) won the 1948 war at a terrible price. She has been on a constant war footing since and has won several other attempts at genocide through war by neighbour nations.

If you refuse to read history and are unaware, please do not burden us with trivia.

actually the arab /palestinian conflict is about land, resources, borders etc., Israel is an occupier. It is occupying Palestinian terroritory , it is OUTSIDE of it's alloted border, just the facts.

It is actually persons who are totally unaware of history, that should not burden us with trivia and loathsome rhetoric, as espoused by hateful religious indoctrination, and extensive propoganda.

"When the United Nations proposed separate states for Israel and Palestine, the Arab states surrounding Israel answered that they did not need a state as they were going to push the Jews (that survived) into the Red Sea. "

that is not what the United nations did, why would you say that?

The people camped on the West Bank and in Gaza are there because ARABS told them to flee Israel to avoid harm in the coming Armageddon back in 1948. They were NOT displaced by Israel; the nation was at war with several Arab states within 24 hours of becoming a state and had no time to do more than try to prepare to defend itself.

TOTALLY FALSE and a number of Israeli historians have made that quite clear!

as for the rest of rhetorical nonsense, spat out in this post, take your own admonishment to heart, read some history, not BS and rhetoric!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arab / Israeli conflict is about ethnic hatred and genocide.

When the United Nations proposed separate states for Israel and Palestine, the Arab states surrounding Israel answered that they did not need a state as they were going to push the Jews (that survived) into the Red Sea.

The people camped on the West Bank and in Gaza are there because ARABS told them to flee Israel to avoid harm in the coming Armageddon back in 1948. They were NOT displaced by Israel; the nation was at war with several Arab states within 24 hours of becoming a state and had no time to do more than try to prepare to defend itself.

Israel (barely) won the 1948 war at a terrible price. She has been on a constant war footing since and has won several other attempts at genocide through war by neighbour nations.

If you refuse to read history and are unaware, please do not burden us with trivia.

Exactly, they refuse to acknowledge the facts and their silence regarding Hamas et al terrorism and barbaric acts has one wondering if they actually condone them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

by Ilan Pappe

Pappe, an Israeli historian and a senior lecturer at Haifa University, has written a superb account of the Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians from their land in 1948.

He quotes

David Ben Gurion, leader of the Zionist movement from the mid-1920 until the 1960s, who wrote in his diary in 1938, "I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it." This contradicts the Zionists' public claim that they were seizing a land without a people.

Pappe writes of the Israelis' March 1948 plan for evicting the Palestinians, :

"The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."

Between 30 March and 15 May 1948, i.e. before any Arab government intervened, Israeli forces seized 200 villages and expelled 250,000 Palestinians.

The Israeli leadership stated,

"The principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages ... the eviction of the villagers." On 9 April, Israeli forces massacred 93 people, including 30 babies, at Deir Yassin. In Haifa, the Israeli commander ordered, "Kill any Arab you encounter."

.

Pappe summarises,

"When it created its nation-state, the Zionist movement did not wage a war that `tragically but inevitably' led to the expulsion of `parts of' the indigenous population, but the other way round: the main goal was the ethnic cleansing of all of Palestine, which the movement coveted for its new state. A few weeks after the ethnic cleansing operations began, the neighbouring Arab states sent a small army - small in comparison to their overall military might - to try, in vain, to prevent the ethnic cleansing. The war with the regular Arab armies did not bring the ethnic cleansing operations to a halt until their successful completion in the autumn of 1948."
Overall, the Zionist forces uprooted more than half Palestine's population, 800,000 people, destroyed 531 villages and emptied eleven urban neighbourhoods of their inhabitants. Pappe concludes that this was "a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity."

this is but one Historian, who speaks of Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestian people.

There are more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the Historian Benny Morris, who speaks of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, the raping of women, killing of babies, slaughter of villages, but, no worry, he thinks it's 'all good'.

crimes against humanity, but , all good!

Like the rest of the apologists, who are short on hsitory, but long on rhetoric and justifications for slaughter.

any excuse will do, when, a country, new or old, just wants to have some land or resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel is not an apartheid State, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. Under apartheid black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population.

The Palestinian erritories—won by Israel in a defensive war —is different. The security requirements of the force restrictions, no country in their right mind would allow free access to Israel itself. Gee, Palestinians in that area undeniably dispute Israel’s right to exist. and work at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel is not an apartheid State, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. Under apartheid black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population.

The Palestinian erritories—won by Israel in a defensive war —is different. The security requirements of the force restrictions, no country in their right mind would allow free access to Israel itself. Gee, Palestinians in that area undeniably dispute Israel’s right to exist. and work at it.

a word of advice check international law wrt to territories "won" by israel.

Nothing was won, by Israel.

Nothing can be kept, Israel ILLEGALY occupies Palestinian territory. Just the facts.

Or let me use a slogan you can likely relate to " no spin"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a word of advice check international law wrt to territories "won" by israel.

Nothing was won, by Israel.

Nothing can be kept, Israel ILLEGALY occupies Palestinian territory. Just the facts.

Or let me use a slogan you can likely relate to " no spin"

Was China's retention of Tibet "illegal"? What about the USSR's (recently reversed) annexations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Illegal also? Were the result of the Plains of Abraham illegal somehow? (oh, nevermind, everything settled there keeps being unsettled by the likes of Bosclair, a cokehead, and Duceppes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel is not an apartheid State, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. Under apartheid black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population.

The Palestinian erritories—won by Israel in a defensive war —is different. The security requirements of the force restrictions, no country in their right mind would allow free access to Israel itself. Gee, Palestinians in that area undeniably dispute Israel’s right to exist. and work at it.

a word of advice check international law wrt to territories "won" by israel.

Nothing was won, by Israel.

Nothing can be kept, Israel ILLEGALY occupies Palestinian territory. Just the facts.

Or let me use a slogan you can likely relate to " no spin"

Then attacks by the Palestinians is fine with you.

Snicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The international Red Cross has privately accused Israel of reshaping Jerusalem to further its own interests, in violation of international law.

...ICRC report says Israeli policy has far-reaching humanitarian consequences for Palestinians living under occupation in East Jerusalem.

Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967, and the territory is regarded as occupied land under international law.

-snip-

The report says Israel shows "general disregard" for its obligations under international humanitarian law and the law of military occupation in particular.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6658799.stm

And the video Israeli TV leaked that Israel does not want you to see.

CBC News spoke with Ismail Hawarjeh at Bethlehem's hospital earlier this month, there was no way to verify the story he told about how his wife had died, until Israel's Channel 2 broacast the tape last weekend

http://www.ichblog.eu/index.php?option=com...ctlink&id=55882

It is absolutely sickening actually, and some would portray Israel as passive western democracy that is being maligned falsely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pappe, an Israeli historian and a senior lecturer at Haifa University, has written a superb account of the Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians from their land in 1948.

Avi Shlaim relates the same in his book "The Iron Wall." There is considerable historical evidence that Ben Gurion and the Zionists expelled large numbers of Palestinian Arabs from the lands of their forefathers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arab / Israeli conflict is about ethnic hatred and genocide....If you refuse to read history and are unaware, please do not burden us with trivia.

OK. How's this for trivia? Jordan and Egypt have had peace treaties with Israel for decades now. Are they not Arabs? Have they attacked Israel since signing those treaties? Why do you keep demonizing and scapegoating all Arabs? Here are a few other Arab countries that have not attacked Israel for decades: Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Dubai, Algeria...

Jordan has had treaties with Israel since before the 1948 war when Abudllah met with Golda Meir and agreed not to attack Israeli territory. Jordan kept its word. If only Israel had returned the favour! Instead it attacked Jordanian troops and tried to take Jerusalem. Treachery! This is what Arab rulers have come to expect from Israel. Nasser was holding back-room peace talks with Israel after the 1948 war when Ben Gurion sent terrorists into Cairo to blow up cinemas and mail boxes and Ariel Sharon massacred an entire police outpost in Gaza. That outpost was there to keep Palestinian Arabs in their refugee camps so they would not go back into Israel. Treachery! And poor Lebanon! It moved its Palestinian refugee camps back from the Israeli border into Beirut so the Palestinians could not sneak back across the border and attack Israelis. How did Sharon reward them in the 1980s? Treachery!

This is history. Read it yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arab / Israeli conflict is about ethnic hatred and genocide....If you refuse to read history and are unaware, please do not burden us with trivia.

OK. How's this for trivia? Jordan and Egypt have had peace treaties with Israel for decades now. Are they not Arabs? Have they attacked Israel since signing those treaties? Why do you keep demonizing and scapegoating all Arabs? Here are a few other Arab countries that have not attacked Israel for decades: Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Dubai, Algeria...

Jordan has had treaties with Israel since before the 1948 war when Abudllah met with Golda Meir and agreed not to attack Israeli territory. Jordan kept its word. If only Israel had returned the favour! Instead it attacked Jordanian troops and tried to take Jerusalem. Treachery! This is what Arab rulers have come to expect from Israel. Nasser was holding back-room peace talks with Israel after the 1948 war when Ben Gurion sent terrorists into Cairo to blow up cinemas and mail boxes and Ariel Sharon massacred an entire police outpost in Gaza. That outpost was there to keep Palestinian Arabs in their refugee camps so they would not go back into Israel. Treachery! And poor Lebanon! It moved its Palestinian refugee camps back from the Israeli border into Beirut so the Palestinians could not sneak back across the border and attack Israelis. How did Sharon reward them in the 1980s? Treachery!

This is history. Read it yourself!

Great response and thanks for pointing out the facts, as opposed to domionist/zionist myth.

I tell you those dominionists need to stop reading Hick's and Combee's accounts of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. How's this for trivia? Jordan and Egypt have had peace treaties with Israel for decades now. Are they not Arabs? Have they attacked Israel since signing those treaties? Why do you keep demonizing and scapegoating all Arabs?

Egypt has responded with a "cold peace", i.e. frequently no ambassadorial staffing of the embassy, little trade or tourism exchanges, etc. Notwithstanding,Israel has honored those treaties, with countries that recognize it. Despite the reasonable suspicions that the Arabs in those countries regard the treaties as "houdnas", or that either country might select or have foisted on it a radical government, Israel has absolutely honored those treaties.

Here are a few other Arab countries that have not attacked Israel for decades: Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Dubai, Algeria...

So generous. Saudi Arabia funds radical efforts. Does that count the other way? I think it does.

While we're at it, why doesn't Saudi Arabia fund a decent resettlement of the "refugees" with all of its billions? The refugees created by WW II were resettled wtihin four years. The Saudis are leading conspirators in creation of human bombs, not solving human problems.

Jordan has had treaties with Israel since before the 1948 war when Abudllah met with Golda Meir and agreed not to attack Israeli territory. Jordan kept its word. If only Israel had returned the favour! Instead it attacked Jordanian troops and tried to take Jerusalem. Treachery!

There were no post-1948 treaties with Jordan. King Abdullah was murdered for trying to negotiate with Israel. What happened was that Israel begged Jordan not to join the 1967 War. It did, and suffered the loss of the West Bank, and the Old City of Jerusalem.

After the 1967 War, Jordan expelled the Palestininan in a savage series of attacks giving the name "Black September" to the infamous terrorists who conducted the Lod Airport Massacre and the Olympic Massacre, both, I believe, in 1972. Jordan recognized that Israel would hunt stateless terrorists where it could find them, and kill them.

This is what Arab rulers have come to expect from Israel. Nasser was holding back-room peace talks with Israel after the 1948 war when Ben Gurion sent terrorists into Cairo to blow up cinemas and mail boxes and Ariel Sharon massacred an entire police outpost in Gaza. That outpost was there to keep Palestinian Arabs in their refugee camps so they would not go back into Israel. Treachery!

I do not know Israel's side of the story on that one, but that story, which I've heard before, does raise concerns. I'd like to know more, obviously.

And poor Lebanon! It moved its Palestinian refugee camps back from the Israeli border into Beirut so the Palestinians could not sneak back across the border and attack Israelis. How did Sharon reward them in the 1980s? Treachery!
Why the need for Lebanon to allow the entry of the "Palestinians" in any form. Lebanon stayed out of the 1967 War and thus did not suffer any territorial loss. Why couldn't it "keep up the good work" and stay out of a conflict that it could not and cannot win.
This is history. Read it yourself!
That suggestion is mutual.
Great response and thanks for pointing out the facts, as opposed to domionist/zionist myth.

I tell you those dominionists need to stop reading Hick's and Combee's accounts of history.

Read above. Assuming you are Canadian, do you consider Canada more culturally similar to Israel, or to the "Palestinians"? Why the obvious self-hatred?

As todays New York Times (link) makes clear, Palestiians don't even respect Palestinians. Excerpts below:

JERUSALEM, May 15 — A third day of deadly clashes between Hamas and Fatah fighters suggests that the Palestinian unity government, put together under Saudi auspices at the end of March, is something of a fiction.

It never got off to a serious start, and as this week’s resignation of the independent interior minister, Hani al-Qawasmeh, made clear, the leaders of the fighting men were never prepared to listen to one authority anyway.

The continuing battle between Fatah and Hamas for power in Gaza also makes the likelihood of substantive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians ever more distant.

******

The fighting raises the possibility that the Palestinian Authority itself may collapse, leaving no titular administration in the Palestinian territories responsible for security, law and justice, and no one able to deal with Washington and the West.

Some Palestinians, like Ali Jarbawi at Birzeit University in the West Bank, say it would be better to dissolve the Palestinian Authority, intended as an interim administration for transition to statehood, to end the illusion of a real government. Even Mr. Abbas has been known to raise the subject.

This would be a troubling outcome for Israel, which still retains legal responsibility over the Palestinian territories, including Gaza, as the occupying power, and would find itself again having to police them.

******

Who is Israel to make peace with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the Historian Benny Morris, who speaks of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, the raping of women, killing of babies, slaughter of villages, but, no worry, he thinks it's 'all good'.

crimes against humanity, but , all good!

Like the rest of the apologists, who are short on hsitory, but long on rhetoric and justifications for slaughter.

any excuse will do, when, a country, new or old, just wants to have some land or resources.

Get it straight Benny Morris is not an historian. No faculty of any university recognizes him as an historian. He is simply someone born Jewish who hates himself for being Jewish and has a political agenda to be anti-Israel which is his right. But he is not an historian. He is someone with a clear political opinion and agenda.

He has no academic credentials or credibility as an historian and his writings clearly demonstrate such an anti-Israel bias that they are simply political opinion pieces.

Historians when they report the past do not revise what happens to suit their political philosophies. They simply report what happened. The more neutral the information, the more likely it is from an historian as opposed to someone with political opinions making in fact political commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. How's this for trivia? Jordan and Egypt have had peace treaties with Israel for decades now. Are they not Arabs? Have they attacked Israel since signing those treaties? Why do you keep demonizing and scapegoating all Arabs? Here are a few other Arab countries that have not attacked Israel for decades: Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Dubai, Algeria..."

Why don't you read what actually goes on in these countries and what their governments say about Israel before you once again shoot off at the mouth with simplistic concepts. The fact that these countries do not attack Israel in a conventional war completely ignores the terrorist activities that go on from within these countries. Two distinct issues you of course skip over in your usual attempt to present things as black and white. In your world none of the people in these countries engage in anti-semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric simply because these countries have not sent any troops to war. Oh how simple. There now. Let's skip what is presented on t.v., in their newspapers, on their radio and by their goevrnment representatives at conferences.

I will respond again and take my time specifically showing how Higgly once again misrepresented the history between Jordan and Israel to suit his own political agenda of Israel bad bad bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get it straight Benny Morris is not an historian. No faculty of any university recognizes him as an historian.

Benny Morris is either an arab hater or an agent provocateur....he says he he would like to see arabs expelled and has mined history to find precedent.

That being said, he is a historian at a university

Morris is currently professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva. In 2005, he taught at the University of Maryland, College Park.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time and time again Higgly has misstated the historical facts as to the origins of Jordan and its role in creating the present day problems in the Middle East. I will once again state the historic facts Higgly ignores and challenge anyone to state they are incorrect and why. Transjordan was created illegally by the British out of 80% of Palestine to prevent a Jewish homeland. In fact the League of Nations had a mandate to create a Jewish country in Palestine (now Jordan and Israel) and Britain lied and said they would carry out this mandate for the League in return for being allowed to administer Palestine. That is a fact documented and evidenced in thousands of British documents. What is also a fact is that Feisal Hussein, King of Iraq and Syria in fact agreed to a Jewish state in Palestine in 1918. He in fact met with Dr. Weizmann in Amann, Jordan in 1918 and Paris in 1919) and reached an agreement on mutual aid which was to be conditional on the implementation of British promises to the Arabs. As a result of this planned alliance between Arabs and Jews planning to create to kingdoms that would help one another, the French and British panicked thinking they would no longer be able to control the Middle East and create their own colonies. So the French expelled Hussein from Syria in 1920 and then the British incited other Arab leaders to turn on Hussein’s agreement with the Jews of Palestine. The mandate referred to creating a homeland in what is now Israel and Jordan. In the early 1900’s Palestine (Jordan and Israel today) had about 600,000 people. The League mandate envisioned 12 million Jews joining 50,000 Jews already there and living peacefully with 550,000 non Jews.

The British published the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and were specifically given a mandate from the League to facilitate Jewish migration to Palestine. The British then lied and did the exact opposite. In fact in 1920, the British created Jewish Immigration quotas to restrict Jewish immigration. They also arranged with the French to facilitate illegal Arab immigration along the border of Lebanon and Syria with West Palestine ( now Israel) allowing free immigration of Arabs into these areas. In fact the British deliberately began encouraging Arab migration into Palestine to prevent the creation of a Jewish homeland and this is precisely why in 1921, Britain’s High Commissioner Herbert Samuel openly challenged the right of Jews to a homeland. In 1921, T. E. Lawrence advised Winston Churchill that Emir Feisal, Abdullah's brother, had agreed to abandon all claims of his father to Palestine in return for being allowed to control a kingdom of Iraq and what is today Jordan. Feisal in fact did not want Western Palestine or what today is Israel in return for the Eastern part of Palestine and Iraq. Despite this, Churchill in 1992, instructed the British to prevent any Jewish homeland from coming about in West Palestine. In 1928 on British orders, Eastern Palestine (now Jordan) was in fact closed to Jewish settlement, and the Arab Legion was placed by the British to assure no Jews could get in and to also facilitate continued Arab migration to East Palestine.

In fact, from the years from 1890 to 1945 about 500,000 Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi and Eastern Palestine Arabs settled into West Palestine based on a deliberate, planned policy by the British and French to prevent a Jewish homeland. The British in 1929 (Shaw Commission), 1930 (Passfield White Paper) made it clear they would prevent Jewish migration. The British passed the Cultivator’s Ordinance in 1933 that gave land away free in Western Palestine to Arabs. In 1934 the British began deducting “estimated” (subjectively created) numbers of what they claimed were illegal Jewish immigrants from the quotas they otherwise had created for Jews allowed into Palestine. In fact in 1936 the Conference of Protestant and Catholics in America accused the British government of illegally partitioning Palestine and creating Trans-Jordan, and stated what the British did was illegal and that the Palestine territory should be opened back up to Jewish migrants. In this same year Arab riots broke out organized by Nazi Germany.

In 1937 the Palestine Royal Commission, recognizing that Arab majority was building, they recommends partition Western Palestine a second time into two states one Jewish, one Arab. Britain ignored this. Then 1939 the British Government White Paper enforced new, restrictions on Jewish migration. As a result on the same year The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations protested the Britain's "White Paper" in August. Four out of the seven members indicated they would strike down the restrictive White Paper as a violation of the League Mandate of Palestine. WWII then intervened in the few days just before the League was to review the matter. The meeting was to have taken place on September 8, 1939, but Germany marched on Poland September 1, and Britain declared war on Germany September 3.

Higgly also skipped over the fact that BEFORE the 1947 UN General Assembly decision to partition the remaining West portion of Palestine into a second Arab Palestinian state and a Jewish state, King Abdullah proposed sending the Arab Legion to conquer West Palestine. What Higgly also deliberately ignores is that when the UN’s mandate expired, and Jews and Arabs were left in Palestine with no solution, Labanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt sent troops to Jordan with the clear intent to invade and take over all of then West Palestine.

I will say this out and out. Higgly deliberately misrepresents the history of Jordan because of his biases against the creation of the state of Israel.

The fact is Jordan played an active role in fighting Israel and is in fact a Palestinian Arab state created by the British as a puppet monarchy and which then turned on its Palestinians and expelled millions of them when they tried to

Overthrow King Hussein of Jordan in the Black Sabbath uprising.

Jordan fought against Israel in 1949 and 1967. It is a reluctant ally of Israel for the same reason Egypt is. Both countries fear Palestinian terrorists will turn on their nations as well. No more no less, despite Higgly’s pathetic attempts to revise history and once again repeat the Israel bad bad bad mantra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morris is currently professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva. In 2005, he taught at the University of Maryland, College Park."

Not so fast. I can read Wikepedia too. The fact that he can not be fired because of his academic freedom of speech in Israel which is guaranteed by law does not make him an "historian". Here are exerpts from an article by a fellow "historian" which I would urge you to consider before you continue to refer to Mr. Morris as an historian.

"Benny Morris and the Reign of Error

by Efraim Karsh

Middle East Quarterly

March 1999

Efraim Karsh is professor of Mediterranean studies at King's College, University of London, and editor of Israel Affairs.

"In the late 1980s... advent of a group of Israeli academics calling themselves the New Historians who claim to have discovered archival evidence substantiating the anti-Israeli case.....

The Jewish acceptance of the United Nations Resolution of November 29, 1947, partitioning Mandatory Palestine into two new states—Jewish and Arab—is completely ignored or dismissed......

similarly, the violent Palestinian and Arab attempt to abort this resolution is overlooked.

Toward this end, I shall focus on a key charge: the claim by Benny Morris of

Ben-Gurion University, a leading New Historian, that the Zionist and Israeli establishments have systematically falsified archival source material to conceal the Jewish state's less-than-immaculate conception....

Morris engages in five types of distortion: he misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents.

MISREPRESENTATION

The first problem concerns a faulty account of the contents of documents. Morris tells of statements never made, decisions never taken, events that never happened. Consider, for example, the Israeli cabinet meeting of June 16, 1948, about which Morris commits a double misrepresentation: he misattributes a decision to bar the return of the Palestinian refugees to this meeting; then he charges the Israeli establishment with concealing this nonexistent decision.....

On the second matter, Morris charges that later published accounts of this cabinet meeting hide what happened at it. But a look at the works in question, notably two of David Ben-Gurion's books,6 shows not a shred of evidence to support this contention.

...Having falsely claimed the existence of an Israeli cabinet decision to bar a refugee return, Morris has no choice but to distort not only the documents related to this meeting but also those of a subsequent Israeli consultation, about the possibility of refugee return, so as to avoid exposure of his original claim.

II. PARTIAL QUOTES

Through the omission of key passages, Morris repeatedly distorts many quotations. He makes a specialty of partial quotes from Ben-Gurion's books, in the process turning their original intention upside down. Morris claims that Ben-Gurion sought to hide his own views,20 but this is also wrong.

III. WITHHOLDING VITAL EVIDENCE

Morris repeatedly omits key words or even sentences from his quotations, thus distorting their meaning; or he places the quotes out of context; or he portrays them in false light. At times he even omits entire passages, then has the nerve to castigate the speaker or writer for the absence of these very passages!

IV. MAKING FALSE ASSERTIONS

Unconcerned with the necessities of scholarly rigor, at times Morris does not even take the trouble to provide evidence for his charge of Zionist wrongdoing. He expects his readers to take on trust his assertions that fundamental contradictions exist between published accounts and the underlying documents. In fact, these contradictions do not exist.

CONCLUSION

A deep-rooted and pervasive distortion lies at the heart of the revisionists' rewriting of Israel's early history. A close inspection shows Morris's claim that the Zionist movement and the State of Israel are "among the more accomplished practitioners of this strange craft"71 of record falsification to be totally false. If anything, it shows that Morris himself is a master at that very same "strange craft." Morris not only fails to show rewriting by the authorities but he himself is the one who systematically falsifies evidence. Indeed, there is scarcely a document that he does not twist.

This casts serious doubt on the validity of his entire work. For, if the veracity of one's quotes and factual assertions cannot be taken for granted, then the entire raison d'être of the historical discourse will have been lost. It also fits the psychological pattern of projection: a falsifier tends to see in others a mirror image of himself. In the colloquial, it takes one to know one.

Regrettably, Morris's distortions in the article under consideration are neither a fluke nor an exception. As I have sought to demonstrate elsewhere, they typify the New Historians' whole approach.72 Lacking evidence, they invent an Israeli history in the image of their own choosing."

May I strongly suggest that there are those who claim to be historians who have chosen in fact not to be historians any longer and become political commentators using selected versions of history to promote their political beliefs. That is what Morris has chosen to do and why he has no standing in the world of historians any longer. He has violated all the academic rules of history in his papers.

The above article is one of many by historic scholars who are trying to distance themselves from people like him as they feel he is bastardizing hisory and the role of historians.

Before you simply read Wikepedia, find out who Benny Morris is and what his mandate is and how he does not follow accepted protocol of historians.

May I respectfully point out that there are many professors who enjoy tenure and can not be fired for their opinions ( which is probably a good think I would think )but don't make the mistake of thinking that makes them historians. It makes them academics holding down faculty positions in departments of history but not all of them choose to continue being historians. Many choose to become more appropriately called "political historians" or in fact political commentators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morris is currently professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva. In 2005, he taught at the University of Maryland, College Park.

There are many professors who enjoy tenure and can not be fired for their opinions but don't make the mistake of thinking that makes them historians.

I guess it was him being a professor of history which cause me to think he is a historian. That and the fact he received his Phd Doctorate in history. Maybe also because he write books about history.

That being said, Morris being a professor of History, having a doctorate in history and being a published author of history, you're right, he's not a historian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Rue. You're so cute when you're angry :)

I will once again state the historic facts Higgly ignores and challenge anyone to state they are incorrect and why. Transjordan was created illegally by the British out of 80% of Palestine to prevent a Jewish homeland.

Illegal? Under whose law and why?

In fact the League of Nations had a mandate to create a Jewish country in Palestine (now Jordan and Israel)

Where does it say that the Jewish homeland will be all of Palestine? You make this mistake over and over ad nauseum - you assume that the Balfour Declaration and everything that came after promised the entire Palestinian mandate to the Jews. It did not.

and Britain lied and said they would carry out this mandate for the League in return for being allowed to administer Palestine. That is a fact documented and evidenced in thousands of British documents. What is also a fact is that Feisal Hussein, King of Iraq and Syria in fact agreed to a Jewish state in Palestine in 1918. He in fact met with Dr. Weizmann in Amann, Jordan in 1918 and Paris in 1919) and reached an agreement on mutual aid which was to be conditional on the implementation of British promises to the Arabs.

Lied to whom? The Arabs think the British lied to them. Guess what? They're right! Feisal did agree with Weitzmann. However, Weitzmann was less than candid with Feisal and hid from him the true nature of his plans - to take all of Palestine for a Zionist state. In any case, the Jordanians, including Feisal's successor, Abdullah, kept their word. Of course people like you will tell us time and again that the Arabs just hate the Jews, in spite of this generous accommodation from Feisal.

As a result of this planned alliance between Arabs and Jews planning to create to kingdoms that would help one another, the French and British panicked thinking they would no longer be able to control the Middle East and create their own colonies. So the French expelled Hussein from Syria in 1920 and then the British incited other Arab leaders to turn on Hussein’s agreement with the Jews of Palestine. The mandate referred to creating a homeland in what is now Israel and Jordan. In the early 1900’s Palestine (Jordan and Israel today) had about 600,000 people. The League mandate envisioned 12 million Jews joining 50,000 Jews already there and living peacefully with 550,000 non Jews.

Cite your sources please. The British were promising the Arabs a pan-Arab nation at the same time as they were making promises to Weitzmann and the Zionists. Palestine has always been the territory between the Jordan River and the sea. You keep trying to expand it - a good Zionist, true to form. Your last name must be Jabotinsky or Sharon.

The British published the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and were specifically given a mandate from the League to facilitate Jewish migration to Palestine. The British then lied and did the exact opposite. In fact in 1920, the British created Jewish Immigration quotas to restrict Jewish immigration.

Every country has immigration quotas. It is a fact of life. Just because they were applied to Jews is not important. Just how large an influx do you think they could handle in a short space of time and why exactly do you think that the British owed it to anybody to take absolutely every Jew who got it into his head to move there? Just crazy. Even Ben Gurion was limiting the inflow of Jews to young, virile people who could help build the new nation. The Zionists were actually sending sick people back! It is frankly bizarre that you would expect everybody living in Palestine just to move out of the way so that the Zionists could do whatever they pleased. You think like a two year old. Unfortunately so did the Zionists.

They also arranged with the French to facilitate illegal Arab immigration along the border of Lebanon and Syria with West Palestine ( now Israel) allowing free immigration of Arabs into these areas. In fact the British deliberately began encouraging Arab migration into Palestine to prevent the creation of a Jewish homeland and this is precisely why in 1921, Britain’s High Commissioner Herbert Samuel openly challenged the right of Jews to a homeland.

Samuel was a Jew. Lebanon and Syria were French territory.

In 1921, T. E. Lawrence advised Winston Churchill that Emir Feisal, Abdullah's brother, had agreed to abandon all claims of his father to Palestine in return for being allowed to control a kingdom of Iraq and what is today Jordan. Feisal in fact did not want Western Palestine or what today is Israel in return for the Eastern part of Palestine and Iraq. Despite this, Churchill in 1992, instructed the British to prevent any Jewish homeland from coming about in West Palestine. In 1928 on British orders, Eastern Palestine (now Jordan) was in fact closed to Jewish settlement, and the Arab Legion was placed by the British to assure no Jews could get in and to also facilitate continued Arab migration to East Palestine.

OK. So anything Feisal agreed to became moot. What's your point? Again, you are proceeding uder the misguided assumption that all of Palestine was somehow owing to the Jews. It was not and it never promised to them in its entirety.

In fact, from the years from 1890 to 1945 about 500,000 Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi and Eastern Palestine Arabs settled into West Palestine based on a deliberate, planned policy by the British and French to prevent a Jewish homeland. The British in 1929 (Shaw Commission), 1930 (Passfield White Paper) made it clear they would prevent Jewish migration. The British passed the Cultivator’s Ordinance in 1933 that gave land away free in Western Palestine to Arabs. In 1934 the British began deducting “estimated” (subjectively created) numbers of what they claimed were illegal Jewish immigrants from the quotas they otherwise had created for Jews allowed into Palestine.

So what? Palestine was under British rule. In any case, Passfield was re-affirmed by the United Nations when it too partitioned Palestine.

In fact in 1936 the Conference of Protestant and Catholics in America accused the British government of illegally partitioning Palestine and creating Trans-Jordan, and stated what the British did was illegal and that the Palestine territory should be opened back up to Jewish migrants. In this same year Arab riots broke out organized by Nazi Germany.

Right. How many people are in the country of "Conference of Protestant and Catholics?". You talk about these guys as though they actually had the force of law. These sorts of bodies pass resolutions all the time. It gives them something to do. They are meaningless in terms of international law. This is like your statements that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the Occupied Territories because some low level bureaucrat in the US State Department says so. You will embue just about anybody with ultimate authority as long as they agree with you.

yada...yada...more yada...yada...

I will say this out and out. Higgly deliberately misrepresents the history of Jordan because of his biases against the creation of the state of Israel.

Everything you say is based on the incorrect notion that all of Palestine was somehow the property of the Jews. Although you cling to this illusion desperately, you cannot make it true. Your entire argument, Rue, is a house of cards.

The fact is Jordan played an active role in fighting Israel and is in fact a Palestinian Arab state created by the British as a puppet monarchy and which then turned on its Palestinians and expelled millions of them when they tried to

Overthrow King Hussein of Jordan in the Black Sabbath uprising.

The British created Jordan as a Palestinian State? What sheer nonsense! Has anybody told them? Jordan was created as a Hashemite kingdom, Rue. The Jordanians made a treaty with Golda Meir not to attack Israel's borders during the 1948 war and it kept that promise. In fact it was Israel that attacked Jordanian territory.

... Higgly’s pathetic attempts to revise history and once again repeat the Israel bad bad bad mantra.

As I say Rue, your entire argument is a house built on sand. There was never any promise nor intention to turn all of Palestine over to the Zionists. That's not a revision of history. That is just the way it was.

Rue, I have had this discussion with you many, many times, and it is getting pretty tedious. You have developed an idee fixee that somehow all of Palestine was promised to the Jews and it is an illusion. The Balfour Declaration talks about a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. It does not say all of Palestine will be turned over to the Jews. Read it as many times as you like, Rue. That's just what it says. The Balfour declaration was the result of talks between the British government and Weitzmann. The Arabs never had any say in the matter although they were by far the majority population in Palestine. Like the three rabbis from the first Zionist Conference said, Rue: The bride is beautiful but she is married to someone else.

Your constant attempts to depict the British as some sort of treacherous, anti-Israel power is extraordinary. Were it not for the British just where would Israel be today? And how were the British repaid? Terrorism. Incredible though it may seem, Israel and its founders were the original terrorists in the Middle East. :o

Finally, Rue, I really wish you'd learn to use the quote feature properly. It's bad enough that you can't think straight but trying to make out the structure of your posts is more effort than it's really worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does it say that the Jewish homeland will be all of Palestine? You make this mistake over and over ad nauseum - you assume that the Balfour Declaration and everything that came after promised the entire Palestinian mandate to the Jews. It did not.
I do not have the time or the patience to respond to your entire post here. But I have three questions:
  1. Why can Arab Muslims live safely and productively in Israel, even vote there, and the reverse is not true;
  2. Why was Israel willing to peacefully accept partition of the Palestine Mandate in 1948, but the Arabs weren't; and
  3. Why were the Israelis willing to resettle their refugees, i.e. poor Jews from Baghdad and other Arab cities expelled after 1948, but the Arabs kept theirs in fetid camps?

I expect silence rather than intelligent answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morris is currently professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva. In 2005, he taught at the University of Maryland, College Park.

There are many professors who enjoy tenure and can not be fired for their opinions but don't make the mistake of thinking that makes them historians.

I guess it was him being a professor of history which cause me to think he is a historian. That and the fact he received his Phd Doctorate in history. Maybe also because he write books about history.

That being said, Morris being a professor of History, having a doctorate in history and being a published author of history, you're right, he's not a historian.

He used to be. He made a deliebrate choice to cease being an historian and call him self a "new historian", i.e., someone who feels the academic definition and protocol of an historian is not acceptable. He not I chose to reject the traditional role of an historian, and call himself a "new historian". That in his terms means, he no longer wants to be an historian. As he has stated, he feels it necessary to be selective and

only use portions of history since he says he wants to advocate political views and wishes to limit his use of history to only those portions of history he feels are relevant.

That is the point I am making. He may still be in the faculty of history and have tenure, but he himself chooses to distance himself from the role of an historian and makes that crystal clear when asked.

He is to history what a doctor is to science who states he now will not use the metholody of empirical testing but simply base his conclusions on personal opinions.

That is my point. I do not doubt he got a Ph.d in Hisory and was hired and still works in the history faculty. That believe it or not, does not continue to make him an academic historian. It does make him someone who has deliberately rejected the traditional role of an historian and chosen to become a political

commentator. Historians like anthropologists, should in fact have no political opinions when they analyze and report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Higgly;

'Illegal? (the unilateral creation of TransJordan by Britain) Under whose law and why?'.

International law and because Britain like any country in the world at the time, had no legal right to unilaterally seize land and declare a nation. It was also declared illegal by the league of Nations.

"Where does it say that the Jewish homeland will be all of Palestine? You make this mistake over and over ad nauseum - you assume that the Balfour Declaration and everything that came after promised the entire Palestinian mandate to the Jews. It did not."

No Higgly you make the mistake over and over again as you just did trying to pretend historic fact does not exist when it does not suit you. The League of Nations mandate stated clearly that Palestine where the Jewish homeland was to be created was what is today Jordan (East Paletsine) and Israel (West Palestine). The Belfour Declaration is an entirely different document. The mandate can be found on the inter-net. Your choosing to pretend it does not exist is absurd.

"(Britain) Liied to whom? "

The documents released by the British government, in particular the papers of Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, and the High Commissioner to Palestine, all evidence the British deliberately chose to mislead and lie to the Leage of Nations.

"Weitzmann was less than candid with Feisal and hid from him the true nature of his plans - to take all of Palestine for a Zionist state. "

The above comment is a n tter fabrication on your part. It is an historiuc fact that the agreement between Weitzman and Feisal was written out in full and signed by both sides.

"In any case, the Jordanians, including Feisal's successor, Abdullah, kept their word. "

Again you are absolutely wrong. Abdullah had nothing to do with the agreement between Feisal and Weitzman. Later on, he did enter into an agreement with Britain not any Jewish people, that he would give up any rights to West Palestine.

"Of course people like you will tell us time and again that the Arabs just hate the Jews, in spite of this generous accommodation from Feisal."

I have never at any time suggested or stated that Arabs just hate Jews. Your coded words slurring me as a Jew "People like you" is cowardly. If you want

to call me a Jew say it to me. Unlike Figleaf I won't report you.

"The British were promising the Arabs a pan-Arab nation at the same time as they were making promises to Weitzmann and the Zionists. "

At no time did Britain ever promise Weitzman anything as the released documents from Churchill, Eden, the British High Commissioner to Palestine, all evidence. The British were clear fromt he get go that they were completely against giving any credence to a Jewish state under any circumstance. This is precisely why they came into conflict with the League of Nations.

"Palestine has always been the territory between the Jordan River and the sea. You keep trying to expand it - a good Zionist, true to form. "

No, Palestine was always and has always been where Jordan and Israel and for that matter portions of Syria and Lebanon are today. That has nothing to do with me or Zionists it has to do with historic fact and geography and is precisely why the Leage of Nations mandate described it as such.

"Your last name must be Jabotinsky or Sharon."

Ooh some more Jew baiting. Figgy should I report himn?

"Every country has immigration quotas."

Britain was not legally mandated to create or impose quotas. It had no legal authority to set up immigration quotas. Neither did Transjordan. Neither Britain or Transjordan had the legal right through sovereignty to create and impose immigration quotas against Jews. The British did so illegally and unilaterally and in express contradiction of international law and the League of Nations mandate.

"It is a fact of life."

Another coded reference to Jews should know their place in life and not question it right Higgly? Yassuh Massuh Higgly.

"Just because they were applied to Jews is not important."

Right, Jews are not important. I mean what next, someone might think they have the right to exist..

" It is frankly bizarre that you would expect everybody living in Palestine just to move out of the way so that the Zionists could do whatever they pleased. "

Right. Its bizarre for Jews to want self-determination. They should know their place in life right Higgly. Besides Jews aren't important. Why would 2000 years of discrimination make Jews want to live in their own countr....no that would be bizarre. So would wanting a country because in the Muslim world, Jews were not allowed to be citizens or own land...no bizarre. Wanting to leave Europe or to escape pogroms or leave after the holocaust....bixarre The expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab countries and having 700,000 head to Israel because no one else would take them....bizarre All those countries refusing to take in Jews forcing them to head to Israe... bizarre. I mean there you have it. Jews are bizarre for fleeing persecution and wanting peace and security and self-determination. Those unimportant Jews should just shut up and accept their lot in life.

"You think like a two year old. Unfortunately so did the Zionists."

Right. Jews are bizarre for wanting to be free of persecution and anyone who thinks people who suffer and want to be free is a two year old and Zionists are all 2 year olds. Of course you Higgly for stating thi show incredible maturity.

"Samuel was a Jew."

Yes The High Commissioner to Palestine was a Jew. So what is your point? Churchill was Christian? Anthony Eden was Christian. Feisal and Abdullah were Muslims. So? Let's call you out on this Higgly. How does Samuel being a Jew in any way have anything to do with the British policy of preventing an Israeli state from coming about? Samuel carried out exactly what he was required to do as a British civil servant. He carried out their mandate to prevent Israel from coming about. So what does his being a Jew have to do with it? You are so typical of anti-semites. You throw in someone's Jewish religion as a racist slur. It has no relevance at all to the historic developments that led to all of the above.

"Lebanon and Syria were French territory."

Lebanon and Syriawere colonies imposed by the French as part of an agreement with Britain who sliced up Iraq and Jordan for themselves. It is precisely these unilateral colonial divisions by both the British and French which led to the present day conflict.

"OK. So anything Feisal agreed to became moot. What's your point?"

The point is you choose to ignore the historic origins of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"Again, you are proceeding uder the misguided assumption that all of Palestine was somehow owing to the Jews. It was not and it never promised to them in its entirety. "

No it is in fact you continue to pretend the League of Nations mandate which states the above does not exist.

"So what? Palestine was under British rule. In any case, Passfield was re-affirmed by the United Nations when it too partitioned Palestine."

The UN never partitioned Palestine. In fact when it proposed a second Palestinian state and a Jewish state, the Arab League disagreed. Its mandate then expired. The border that then came about with Israel was not partitioned by the UN - it came about by de facto possession because of a war. The war was initiated byt he Arab League. The pre-1967 borders of Israel came about from war not a UN partition.

"Everything you say is based on the incorrect notion that all of Palestine was somehow the property of the Jews."

I have never stated at any time that it is my opinion that all of Palestine is the property of Jews. What I have done is to show that historically, Palestine consisted of Jordan and Israel and in fact today, what we are talking about is the creation of a second Palestinian state. I also call Higgly out on it, because time and time as in the next quote below, he pretends Jordan is not part of Palestine and should not be considered when discussing the Palestinian conflict as constituting a Palestinian state.

"The British created Jordan as a Palestinian State? What sheer nonsense! Has anybody told them? Jordan was created as a Hashemite kingdom, Rue. "

Jordan was carved out of East Palestine that is an hostoric fact. Its population was created by flooding it with migrant Arabs from all over the Middle East while at the same time restricting any immigration of Jews. The fact that the British set up a puppet monarchy and chose to call it a Hashemite Kingdom (Beduins) doesn't change the geographicl location, who lives there and where they came from. The vast majority of Jordans were Palestinian or were encouraged to migrate into Jordan by the British from other Arab locations. Few if any were Hashemite or Beduin. To pretend Jordan is not a Palestinian nation is absurd. Tell that to the Palestinians who live there was well as the PLO and Hamas. It will be new to them. It will also be news to the current King who has stated in numerous speeches that he acknowledges the Palestinian nature of his country as did his father. It will also be news to his Palestinian wife.

"The Jordanians made a treaty with Golda Meir not to attack Israel's borders during the 1948 war and it kept that promise."

Absolutely wrong. It deliberately and openly violated that agreement History shows the attacks were initiated from and led from and by Jordan not Israel.

"In fact it was Israel that attacked Jordanian territory."

The facts show the Arab League initiated attacks from Jordan and Israel then and only then responded. It never initiated any attacks or the war of independence.

"There was never any promise nor intention to turn all of Palestine over to the Zionists. "

The League of Nations mandate which exists and can be found on the inter-net can be read in its full text and is clear on what it promised.

"The Balfour Declaration talks about a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. It does not say all of Palestine will be turned over to the Jews."

So? Why do you pretending history should only commence from the Balfour declaration onwards? Why the selectivity?

"Read it as many times as you like, Rue. That's just what it says. "

No one is debating what the Balfour declaration said. What I am stating is you are deliebrately choosing to ignore the League of Nations mandate on Palestine and how the British violated it and illegally created Transjordan out of 80% of Palestine, and then and only then came up with the Balfour declaration.

"The Balfour declaration was the result of talks between the British government and Weitzmann. "

The Balfour declaration was the result of unilateral British action to take 80% of Palestine, create Tran-Jordan, then suggest two enclaves one for Jews and one for Muslims to be governed by the British. This was not proposed by the Leage uf Nations nor was it the result of anything Weitzman suggested or agreed to and for you to suggest Weitzman created it is a deliberate misrepresentation. It was a unilateral initiative of the British in response to the League of Nations calling on Britain to dismantle TransJordan and cease and desist in its anti-Jewish immigration quotas and attempts to prevent a Jewish homeland. That of course is the part of history Higgly skips over.

"The Arabs never had any say in the matter"

Absolute and utter bull-shit. Not only did the Arab League have a say, but Abdullah, Feisal and many other Arab Leaders constantly had in-put and pressured Eden and Churchill as evidenced by their documents.

"Your constant attempts to depict the British as some sort of treacherous, anti-Israel power is extraordinary. "

The actions of the British have been proven by the very words and documents of Eden, Churchill, and their government papers now released and public record. As much as Higgly would like to suggestI am attempting to suggest this I am not. The decision of the British to prevent a Jewish homeland is an historic fact evidenced by their own documents and words....anyone can find them on the inter-net and read them. Suggesting I am creating them is absurd.

For that matter at no time did I call the British treacherous. If you notice, such name calling is Higgly's m.o. not mine. What I stated is that the British were against the creation of a Jewish state and did everything in their power to stop one from happening including lying to the League of Nations and then unilaterally and illegally seizing 80% of Palestine, creating TransJordan and then flooding it with Arab migrants from outside the area. I have stated this is now been proven iby their own documents and words. It is not something I made up or need to create.

"Were it not for the British just where would Israel be today?"

If it were not for the British, and for that matter the FRench and Germans,Israel would have created a state in Palestine with the assistane of King Feisal and the conflict as we know it would not exist.

"Incredible though it may seem, Israel and its founders were the original terrorists in the Middle East."

Right here was never any terror or violence in the Middle East until those darned Jews came back. Talk about revising history to suit one's anti-semitic agenda.

By the way my historic references for anything I stated come from the League of Nations, United Nations, and the papers and documents from the British government. You can find them yourselves on the web-site. They are public record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...