Settlements liable to turn Israel into an apartheid state

Whatever, I want the same tactic in the WB.

 

the areas of Transjordan were never, at any time, intended to be for a Jewish HOMELAND.

when Balfour and San Remo were issued, Palestine had no legal borders unless you consider the Sykes Picot Agreement, which didn't go south of Hebron or include Israel's northern panhandle.

so suggesting that Jordan was originally supposed to be part of the Jewish HOMELAND, is false.

 

Israel is a Zionist welfare state that deserves non-existence

 

again, totally false.

when Balfour and San Remo were issued, Jordan wasn't part of Palestine.

 

Photo of Palestinian Jews, prior to 1948 - the real genetic and cultural descendants of the Israelites !



Today Palestine is infested with Ashkenazi and North African Jews and Arab Muslims who have no right to the land.

 

Do Catholics have their own country? How about Lutherans or Quakers or the Amish? Can you imagine the Anglican Church requiring its own apartheid country? Do you really believe that the entire world is stacked up against your little denomination?

There's a whole lot more to the Nazi Germany story than the Krauts waking up one morning hating Jews. Same with Russia.

 

Many Jews have no religion. Some do.

This is America. American has the right to not support apartheid. And we do not.

Your Jewish children are putting my American children at risk. That's where I get off, sonny.

I have a right to be arrogant and presumptuous. You are asking (and receiving) my help, not the other way around. I don't owe you anything.

 

Without wanting to deflect any discussion- here's an interesting secular jew;
http://antonyloewenstein.com/tag/west-bank/

 

My view is that historically an exceptional case can be made for Jews. However, it would have been preferable if the Jews in post war Germany would have settled their grievances with, and achieved self-determination, within, the German state itself. After all, this was the very agency responsible for their oppression. The insistence that a third-party actor effectively bare responsibility for the actions of the state who perpetrated the Holocaust seems inherently wrong to me.

 

you're right, the Germans blaimed the Jews for things they had nothing to do with, and falsely accused them of betraying Germany during WW1.

 

Well, that's your opinion. The Germans had other opinions and they had the very recent history of Bolshevism in Eastern Europe (not to mention Jewish/Communist rioting in the streets of Germany) to support their opinions.

 

Your conflation of Jews with Communists and Bolshevism is a crass generalisation of the kind Hitler used as anti-Jewish propaganda.

 

well, that's at least the Nazi view of things.

 

All anybody has to do is look up early Bolshevik leadership to know there is no conflation. And let's not forget, Marx and Engels were both Jewish. As was Trotsky. And then there are those pesky newspaper quotes from rabbis at the time saying that Bolshevism was in keeping with the highest ideals of Judaism. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

Yes, the Nazis used Communism and the lie of Jewish betrayal during WW1, to justify the Holocaust. We know all about this.

 

I don't know about the 'betrayal', but there isn't much question that communists rioted in the streets of Germany just as they did in the streets of Russia. And there is almost no question that the organizers of Russian Bolshevism were Jews. Lenin may have been the sole exception.

 

And a disproportionate amount of Jews are leading capitalists and industrialists.

 

We don't need 'views'. Dispute it with a fact or two. Like the Bolshevik leadership was entirely Russian Orthodox. hehe

 

only a bigot blaims 12 million people for the actions of 10 Jews.

...and murders 2/3rds of them

 

There is a democratic solution for Israel's problems in the Bible: Ezekiel 47 (21): "So, you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as native born sons of Israel... " Is not it clear enough and very democratic? Nothing like ethnic cleansing. Israel government policy relies entirely on support of USA. To survive, Israel needs friends to rely on in case, if USA would terminate the support. Better integrate Arabs and other people as your brothers on truly democratic principles.

 

That's another fable, US didnt even sell Israel arms till after 67 war, that's 3 wars Israel bought arms from Europe, 3 very very crucile wars.

The US did save Israel in 73 with its arms, but given we had a Nuke it probebly saved the Arabs more then it saved Israel.

Now, after we already defeated the major armies and we are down to chase terrorists in the streets - Now you say we totaly depend on the US? why? what will happen if the US will not sell us arms and we'll buy it from Europe?

You are captive to an Islamic propaganda, they fantecise on overrunning Israel since day one and keep losing land to it when they try, the US is a good friend and supports us in the international arena and sells us weapons at big discounts - but rest assure Israel will exist even if it stops.

I'd love to consider Arabs as brothers (cousins more like it) but I dont think I need to lose my identity for it or my indipendance.

 

its not anti-Semitism, just anti-Zionism.

 

I beg your pardon....

Criticism!

 

Who was in charge when 12,000,000 Ukrainians and Belorussians were systematically starved to death?

 

Your comment makes zero sense.

First off it was the Sykes-Picot agreement that established the framework for the mandate system which was imposed in the years following the first world war.

Towards the end of 1918, the Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus.

He then demanded at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference for independence throughout the Arab world but both Britain and France ignored him.

In 1920, Faisal then assumed the throne of Syria and his elder brother Abdullah was offered the crown of Iraq by Britain.

Shortly after that the newly-founded League of Nations awarded Britain the mandates over Transjordan, Palestine and Iraq.

France was given the mandate over Syria and Lebanon, and tookl Damascus by force, removing King Faisal from the throne to which he had been elected by the General Syrian Congress in 1920.

It is a fact that in November of 1920, the Emir (later King) Abdullah led forces from the Hijaz to restore his brother’s throne in Syria.

Emir Abdullah could not remove the French and instead formed a government in Amman. Ther British advised Abdullah, back off and let the French have Syria and Lebanon, and we will place the rest of your family in ruling monarchies in Iraq and a future kingdom that would be called Saudi Arabia.

This deal was brought on by the French and British. Faisal had actually agreed to an Arab state side by side a Jewish one, and to form an alliance between the two. The French then lied to Faisal and said the Jews were planning to rip up the alliance at a later date. Faisal fell for the lie and tried to unilaterally create his own nation only to be crushed by France and be exiled. Abdullah was placated with Jordan and the rest of the Faisal family was paid off with Iraq and later Saudi Arabia.

Since the end of the first world war, the British illegally and unilaterallydivided the land of Transjordan into three local administrative districts, with a British “advisor” appointed to each.

The northern region of ‘Ajloun had its administrative center in Irbid, the central region of Balqa was based in Salt, and the southern region was run by the “Moabite Arab Government,” based in Karak.

The regions of Ma’an and Tabuk were then incorporated into the Kingdom of the Hijaz, ancestral home of the Hashemites.

Emir Abdullah demanded all three regions be unified under the Hashemite banner and so to place him the British proclaimed Abdullah ruler of the three districts, known collectively as Transjordan.

This lead to the creation of TransJordan referred to in its constitution and still on its coat of arms as the Palestinian state on April 11, 1921.
In fact yhe British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.

The draft of this Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and which came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.

The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and not just the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 .

The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948 and most certainly included the old pre 1967 Israel, what is today Syria and Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank.

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer all these lands left defunct after the Ottoman Empire ceased to be.


That mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.

TransJordan would be the Arab Palestinian state and the remaining part of Palestine was to be the Jewish state.

Britain unilaterally created Transjordan. It was never contemplated to be as large as it was most certainly taken from the land Britain was supposed to turn into a Jewish country.

I am not sure what history you want to revise Ronstart but the unilateral creation of TransJordan was illegal and severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of any future Jewish national home in the region. How you can deny that is beyond me.

During the Peace Conference in 1919, Emir Faisal, speaking on behalf of King Hussein, asked for Arab independence, or at minimum the right to pick the mandated land] In the end, he recommended an Arab state under a British mandate.The World Zionist Organization also asked for a British mandate, and asserted the 'historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine.

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement called for British mediation of any disputes. It also called for the establishment of borders, after the Versailles peace conference, by a commission to be formed for the purpose. The World Zionist Organization later submitted to the peace conference a]proposed map of the territory that did not include the area east of the Hedjaz Railway, including most of Transjordan.

That was only one proposal.

In the San Remo Conference (24 April 1920) the Mandate for Palestine was allocated to Great Britain. France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine but Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate.

It is public fact that furing and after World War I, Britain made conflicting and shifting commitments regarding the future division and governance of the region, including those announced in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, and the Churchill White Paper of 1922.

At the San Remo conference, the boundaries of the mandated territories were neverprecisely defined. That is a fact.

During a meeting at Deauville in 1919, David Lloyd George of the UK and Georges Clemenceau of France finalized the Anglo-French Settlement of December 14 1918 and this new agreement allocated Palestine and the Vilayet of Mosul to the British in exchange for British support of French influence in Syria and Lebanon.

At the Paris Peace Conference, Prime Minister Lloyd George told Georges Clemenceau and the other allies that the McMahon-Hussein correspondence was a treaty obligation. He explained that the agreement with Hussein had actually been the basis for the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and that the French could not use the proposed League Of Nations Mandate system to break the terms of the agreement.

He argued that the French had agreed not to occupy the area of the independent Arab state, or confederation of states, with their military forces, including the areas of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo.

The open negotiations began at the Paris Peace Conference, continued at the Conference of London and took definite shape only after the San Remo conference in April 1920.

There the Allied Supreme Council granted the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia to Britain and those for Syria and Lebanon to France.

In August 1920, this was officially acknowledged in the Treaty of Sèvres.

Both Zionist and Arab representatives attended the conference, where they signed the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement which would have ccreasted two states side by side, one Arab, one Jewish. The British and French schemed together to make sure there would never be an alliance between jews and Arabs.

The San Remo conference did assign the mandate for Palestine to the United Kingdom under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations but it never gave them any legal authority to create TransJordan out of part of Palestine and in fact the League of Nations called a meeting to abolish the creation of the state of TransJordan but World War Two broke out interupting that meeting.

The League of Nations then sat back and let the UK be responsible for resolving any competing disputes between Arabns and Jews.

Churchill's memoirs are clear that the British deliberately lied to the League of Nations and had no intention of creating a jewish state as per their mandate as they felt obliged to the arab Kingdom for supporting it during WW1 and they felt this would imperil their interests to control oil in the area today known as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Iraq.

Both David Lloyd George and Churchill are on public record admitting TransJordan was unilaterally carved out of Palestine to rpevent a Jewish state. The actual tiny enclave left for Jews proposed in the Balfour declaration was a miniscule portion of land once proposed for their state but even that was too big for the Arab League.

How you Ronstar can dismiss that with no proof is beyond me.

Does not surprise me though.