Are the Palestinians the Jews NOT expelled from Judaea after Bar Kochba Revolt?

I dunno - but from what I've read - there was no such animal called "Jews " from the tribe of "Judah " in 1300 BC , was there ?

But then . as we - perhaps you / I and many others , are well aware of that those who today call themselves are not really "yehudi_yehudim" -= JEW but are not :



" but are are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--"



[

 

I have no idea what any of this means or how it relates to the issue.

Do you want to clean it up some?

 

Very intelligent question, as it is not needed to substantiate and illustrate ownership of the Land of the Jews after the dissolution of the Canaanite and its absorption into Israel

 

Good enough proof... but the question will not be answered... Muslims/Arabs do not deal with facts but rather with fantasy.

 

Allow me to correct a few ambiguities...

The Arab claim rests on two premises:
(1) At the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Palestinian Arabs were living and cultivating their lands in peace and security, until the European Jewish immigrants drove them from their territory, creating a large class of landless and dispossessed Arabs;

(2) In 1948 a small Jewish minority, which owned only 5% of the territory of the country, took over the 95% that belonged to the Arabs, and, illegally and immorally, established the State of Israel on that territory. It is necessary at this point to examine the state of the land and its inhabitants during the period of Turkish rule. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - long before the beginning of modern Jewish settlement and Jewish acquisition of land - the population of the country was minuscule and continually decreasing. In 1738, the land was described by the English archeologist Thomas Shaw as "lacking in people to till its fertile soil" (Travels and Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant).

The French historian Conte Constantine Francois Volney writes:
"The peasants are incessantly making inroads on each other's lands, destroying their corn, durra, sesame and olive-trees, and carrying off their sheep, goats and camels. The Turks, who are everywhere negligent in repressing similar disorders, are attentive to them here, since their authority is very precarious. The Bedouin, whose camps occupy the level country, are continually at open hostilities with them, of which the peasants avail themselves to resist their authority or do mischief to each other, according to the blind caprice of their ignorance or the interest of the moment. Hence arises an anarchy which is still more dreadful than the despotism that prevails elsewhere, while the mutual the contending parties renders the appearance of devastation of this part of Syria more wretched than that of any other." (Travels Through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785)

There were, in addition to the local disputes, actual wars. In the beginning of the nineteenth century Napoleon's armies invaded the land; in 1831 it was conquered by the Egyptians, and nine years later again by the Turks. All these - in addition to the internal fighting - created in the country a climate of insecurity, which led to a sharp decline in its physical state and to the emigration of its inhabitants, who left in search of better living conditions elsewhere. Many of those who nevertheless stayed and continued to work their land were forced to relinquish ownership of it and find refuge with people of means or with the Muslim religious endowment fund ("the wakf"). A situation was created, then, in which the true owners of the lands did not reside on them, but leased them to others while they themselves spent their lives in such distant places as Damascus, Beirut, and Cairo.

H. B. Tristram, who wrote of his travels in the Holy Land in his 1865 book The Land of Israel.- A Journal of Travels in Palestine, presents a revealing description of the living conditions in the Land of Israel as he found them in the middle of the nineteenth century:

"A few years ago, the whole Ghor (Jordan Valley) was in the hands of the fellahin = (Imported Land tillers) and much of it cultivated for corn. Now the whole of it is in the hands of the Bedouin = (Marauding Nomads), who eschew all agriculture except in a few spots cultivated here and there by their slaves; and with the Bedouin come lawlessness and the uprooting of all Turkish authority. No government is now acknowledged on the east side; and unless the Porte = (Turkish Leader) acts with greater firmness and caution than is his wont... Palestine will be desolated and given up to the nomads."

Alexander Keith, recalling Volney's 1785 description (quoted above) fifty years later, commented: "In his day [Volney's] the land had not fully reached its last degree of desolation and depopulation." (The Land of Israel).

Other travelers and pilgrims recorded similar reports of the dreary state of the Land around the middle of the nineteenth century. Here are just a few examples:

Alphonse de Lamartine, in 183: "...a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, on the highways, in the country ... the tomb of a whole people" (Recollections of the East, Vol. I, p. 30.

A contemporary German encyclopedia (Brockhaus, "Allegmeine deutsche Real-Encyklopaidie", Vol. VIII, p. 206, Leipzig, 1827) calls Palestine "desolate and roamed through by Arab robber-bands."

In 1849, the American W. F. Lynch described the desertion of Palestinian villages "caused by the frequent forays of the wandering Bedouin" (Narrative of the United States Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea, p. 489).

And again H. B. Tristram, in 1865: "... both in the north and south (of the Sharon plain), land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. Since the year 1838, no less than 20 villages have been thus erased from the map (by the Bedouin) and the stationary population extirpated" (p. 490).

Better known in this context, perhaps, are the words of the American author Mark Twain, who records personal impressions of a visit to the Holy Land in 1867. His account abounds in descriptions such as these:

"Desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds - a silent mournful expanse We reached Tabor safely ... We never saw a human being on the whole route" (p. 451, 480); "There is not a solitary village throughout its (the Jezreel Valley's) whole extent - not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles, hereabouts, and not see ten human beings" (p. 44; "Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince. The hills are barren ... the valleys are unsightly deserts... It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land... Palestine is desolate and unlovely... Palestine is no more of this workday world. It is sacred to poetry and tradition - it is dreamland" (pp. 564, 567).

Referring to the same era, the Christian historian James Parkes writes in "Whose Land"? "Peasant and Bedouin alike have contributed to the ruin of the countryside on which both depend for a livelihood... In spite of the immense fertility of the soil, it is probable that in the first half of the nineteenth century the population sank to the lowest level it had ever known in historic times."

Conclusion: The propagandist myth of an "entire Palestinian people uprooted from its soil by the Zionists" is shattered against the reality of the nineteenth century: plunder and devastation, war and destruction, chaos, anarchy, a population dispersed and declining. All this occurred many years before the beginning of the Zionist settlement, while the Jewish population still resided in the "Holy Cities" of Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed, long before these Jews together with Jewish immigrants from the lands of the Diaspora began purchasing land and tilling the soil. Moreover, at the end of the nineteenth century the Jewish pioneers began to make the desert areas of the land bloom, rendering the country highly attractive to Jews and Arabs alike. It is an undisputed fact that after World War I the pattern of Arab emigration was reversed: Until that time, the number of Arabs who left the land exceeded that of those who came to live in it. Starting in the 1920s, there were more immigrants than emigrants. In addition, where did they settle? Usually in those areas which did the Jewish settlers develop!

What was the state of the land - its ownership and cultivation - at the end of the period of Turkish rule? Most of the territory was concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy landlords, most of whom lived far from their property. In many cases these lands were, or seemed, unfit for agriculture, and were therefore neither settled nor cultivated. Tenant farmers worked occasional plots. According to a Turkish register drawn up shortly before World War 1, there were at that time 3,130,000 Dunams in the hands of 144 landlords that is, approximately 22,000 Dunams average per family. In the Nablus and Tul-Karem districts, five families held 157,000 Dunams, of which the Husseini family owned 50,000 Dunams in various parts of the country, and the Abdel-Hadi family 60,000. The largest single holding, 230,000 Dunams in the Jezreel valley, was in the hands of the Sursuk family, which resided in Beirut and Cairo.

The Palestinian peasant, then, was indeed exploited and at times dispossessed, not by the Jewish settler, but rather by his fellow-Arabs: the local sheiks, the Bedouin village elders, the Turkish tax collector, the merchants and moneylenders (at interest rates as high as 60%), and if he was a tenant-farmer = imported Land Tiller, as was usually the case, by the absentee landlord as well.

When considering the issue of the lands which passed from Arabs to Jews, and on which the pioneering Zionist settlement was founded, six facts should be borne in mind:
(1) The land was paid for in full.
(2) Most of the land purchased involved large tracts belonging to absentee landlords.
(3) Most of the land acquired was uncultivated because it was swampy, sandy, or rocky, or for other reasons considered unsuitable for agriculture.
(4) For this reason, the initial purchases did not involve large sums of money, but with the passage of years the price of land began to rise as Arab landowners took advantage of the growing demand for rural tracts.
(5) Modern agricultural methods introduced by the Jewish pioneers, which improved the lands and increased their yield, were quickly adopted by the neighboring Arab farmers.
(6) The number of farmers forced to leave their land due to the Zionist undertaking was relatively very small.

All those who left were compensated in accordance with the law, either by monetary payment or by other agricultural land; and indeed most continued to be farmers.

Furthermore, a large number of Arabs from other parts of the country or from neighboring countries settled in the areas developed by the Jews.

Following are some revealing statistics:
(1) Out of the 429,887 Dunams acquired by PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association) from private landowners between 1880 and 1947, 293,545 Dunams - close to 70% - were large tracts of uncultivated land, most of which belonged to absentee landlords.
(2) The purchases of the Palestine Land Development Corporation included an even greater percentage of large tracts - approximately 90% (455,169 Dunams out of 512,979, which were purchased of private owners).
If we add to this the 66,513 Dunams of Beersheba desert land and the swamps of the Hula Valley, we will find that the purchases of the corporation totaled close to 580,000 Dunams.
(3) A third body which purchased property in Palestine was the Jewish National Fund, which leased the lands to groups or individual settlers for periods of forty-nine or ninety-nine years, in accordance with the principle that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People, and no one has the right to hold permanent ownership of Israeli soil. In the first thirty years of its existence, the JNF acquired 270,084 Dunams, of which 239,170 (close to 90%) were large tracts. This percentage dropped during subsequent years, but of the total area of 566,312 Dunams purchased by individuals, at least 50% were large tracts of land which was either totally uncultivated or only superficially cultivated.

The prices paid by Jewish individuals and organizations for property in Palestine reached, during the 1930s, legendary proportions. The Palestine Royal Commission ("the Peel Commission") of 1937 reported that in the year 1933 alone sums totaling 854,769 Pounds sterling were paid; in 1934 the total reached 1,647,836 Pounds sterling and in 1935, 1,699,488 Pounds sterling. During those three years alone, then, the total sum paid to Arab landlords reached 4,202,180 Pounds sterling, which was the equivalent of over $20 million at the time. Ten years later, in 1944, an acre (4 Dunams) of good, fertile land in the State of Iowa cost $ 100, while in that same year Jews in Palestine were paying over $ 1,000 for an acre of parched soil.

The claim that the Arabs were being driven out was raised as early as the 1930s. This claim was investigated by the British, and rejected almost completely - and this at a time when British policy in Palestine was clearly moving from a pro-Zionist to a pro-Arab position. Two official British documents from the year 1937 deal with this claim. One is the report of the Peel Commission (Chapter 9, Par. 61), which relates that during the years 1920-1939, 688 Arab tenant farmers were removed from their land as a result of purchases made by the Jews. Five hundred twenty-six of the Arab farmers remained in some agricultural occupation, and four hundred received alternative plots of land in other locations. The second document is one of a series of memoranda prepared by the mandatory government and published in London (Colonial No. 133, p. 37). It contains the findings of the 1931 investigation of Lewis French, which totally refute the claim that the Zionist undertaking in Palestine caused the creation of "an entire landless people among the Palestinian Arabs". The memorandum notes that the total number of applications of registration as landless Arabs reached 3,271. Of these, the claims of 2,607 were rejected as not belonging to this category, and only 664 heads of families were recognized as having legitimate claims.

Approximately half this number - 347 - agreed to accept the government's offer of resettlement. The rest refused, either because they had found employment elsewhere, or because they were unaccustomed to the agricultural methods, such as irrigation, employed in the new locations, or because of other reasons. In his investigation of the hill country, where the Jewish purchases were minimal, Lewis French found that out of seventy-one Arab claims of eviction, sixty-eight were rejected (The Esco Foundation for Palestine, Inc., Vol. II, p. 716).

Finally… What was the land ownership situation when the State of Israel was established in 1948? According to the official data published by the outgoing British mandatory administration before the establishment of the State (Survey of Palestine, 1946), only 8.6% of the land was in fact owned by Jews, while over 70% was state land, which had passed from Turkish to British authority and now to Israel, the legal heir of the British Mandate. The remaining lands - 33% belonged to Arab landowners, and the Arab owners who hastened to obey the call of their leaders “to clear the way for the Arab armies, which would annihilate the Jewish State”, abandoned 16.9%. These landowners did not consider the possibility that the Jewish State would remain.

The key to the entire problem lies in that large percentage of state land, most of which was in the Negev - an unsettled area of approximately 12,557,00 Dunams, or close to 50% of the entire area (26,320,000) of mandatory Palestine. These lands had never been under Arab ownership, neither during the period of British rule nor even during the preceding Turkish regime, these were simply STATE LANDS .

The contention heard time and again from Arab propagandists - that 95% of the territory of Palestine had belonged to the Arabs - is, therefore, entirely without basis in fact...!

To those that think differently without any substantiation I say… No amount of Monday morning quarter backing is going to help your belated dreaming…
There was no ARAB country in the middle east called Palestine... the place was called the Ottoman Empire for 400 years until 1917 when the British Forces Liberated it from the Turks and received a Mandate to manage it… They governed it for the next 30 years until 1948..

The Brits recognized the right of the Jews to the Land of their forefathers...
Palestine Arab nationalism to whatever degree it is conscious ideal today, is a product of recent political currents. Until the 1920’s, no such national community had even existed in Palestine. This is why the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandates charged the Jews of the National Home with guaranteeing the civil and religious right of other inhabitants... (The Arabs, Christians, Druze, Circassians, Kurds, Armenians, Bosnians, Moghrabim [North Africans], Egyptians, Syrian, Bedouins... were the other inhabitants.)

No mention was made of other National Rights of other inhabitants..., as it was recognized that the only NATIONAL CLAIM to the Area was that of the Jews...!!

However, the FICTION of Palestine Arab Nationality is still being exploited. If the Palestinian Arabs were in fact a separate nationality, their anger should have been directed against Jordan and Egypt since these were the two countries that invaded duly “Reconstituted Israel in 1948”, and retained a substantial amount of Real Estate. (Jordan... Judea and Samaria and Egypt the Gaza area...) and never even considered creating a Palestinian Arab Entity there for nineteen years...

Now if you had an Atlas from let say from 1517 on to 1917 when the British took over... you would have noticed that the place was called “THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE” for FOUR HUNDRED years and NOTHING ELSE...!

There was NEVER a Palestine…! No independent Arab or Palestinian State ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not. In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an, rather it is called "the holy lands" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash)

At that time, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted, quote:-

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. National, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds connect us with it... Unquote.

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the UN submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said, "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after 1967 Six-Day War [since the PLO was created by Egypt in 1964]... and Israel's liberation of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) from the occupying forces of Jordan.

 

And the answers to the <six day war> are answered here with 6 clips... Enjoy the clips



1967 Arab-Israeli War - part 1/6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E63AKJpa1Tk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaTq_Q2X6tk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4wD5fet_n0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcVu4oPR39I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgjxY6PQJvA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v81xG614M5c

 

Some more about the 1973 war

20th Century Battlefields 1973 Middle East


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGpYOyRp2gY&feature=player_embedded#!


IDF Sinai counterattack 1973 Yom Kippur War


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWaLxm8lvO4

 

Let me end with the <plat de resistance>

The most important video about Israel you'll ever see!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydwxy9yqhzM

 

Some new clips about the 1967 War as an education to those that are trying desperately to REWRITE history.

The Reasons Behind The Arab Defeat In 1967 War - part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoTtGXkZuhY 1/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbywKBSbkzY 2/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzIuxymqqto 3/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P4Zwd4MJRw 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho_IFX5aE4o 5/5

 

nonsense.

 

It's nice that an arab answers you 3 minutes after you wrote a thread with the word "nonsense"...
Can he watch 5 Youtube movies in 3 minutes with his Hightech Extra super speed special TV ?

 

What is <nonsense> to one is <historically accurate> to most of the readers. Sir, you are in the minority who did not open a book and read what has transpired. Nevertheless have a wonderful life.

 

An interesting theory exists that if the leadership of Britain had had the political courage to open the immigration gates for Jews to go to Israel during the Nazi era the holocaust itself might not have occurred???!!!

Pretty well the minimum estimate is that at least one million lives could have been saved!

I read "Churchill and the Jews" by Martin Gilbert a few years ago. It is amazing how high the level of anti-Semitic thought was in the leadership of Britain at that time!!!

So what did they gain by their policies???

Not much......the British Empire pretty much fell apart after this act of cowardice!!

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Churchill_and_the_Jews.html?id=helhVh_dG0sC&redir_esc=y
Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship

You would almost think that the Being who planned and choreographed an infinite number of Big Bang events over infinite time in the past might just be able to back up promises!!!

 

As an Israeli and a non politician I can say <PERFIDIOUS ALBION> that is exactly the definition I had in mind then, and still rings in many, many ears today... England International policy was duplicitous then, and is an aberration today after absorbing Arabs and Muslims to do their menial jobs... Do not expect anything good from the UK!!!

 

How did the English shut the immigration gates to go to "Israel"? First off, it wasn't Israel at the time. Second, Jews had been immigrating to Palestine in droves since the 1850's. That's what zionism and aliyah was all about.

I may be ignorant on this issue, please show how England was limiting the flow of Jews to Palestine.

 

Here are a few cases where the British and American were involved in denying refuge to Jewish refugees... From dozens of known cases these ones come to mind.

The Struma
http://www.dangoor.com/73page120.html

The Tragedy of the S.S. St. Louis (USA)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stlouis.html

The Patria disaster (UK)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_disaster

Exclusive: WW2 Britain Blew Up Jewish Refugee Ships (UK)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/09/19/mi6-attacked-jewish-refugee-ships-after-wwii.html

 

All of the cites you provided involved numbers of illegal and undocumented immigrants and refugees, several didn't even have anything to do with Palestine. Between 1918 and 1948 660,000 Jews immigrated legally to Palestine.

So again, show is how England was attempting to limit the flow of legal Jewish immigrants to Palestine.

 

My friend you should by now be able to differentiate between <emigration> and <immigration>...
The Jews of Europe were running away from Nazi Europe and were trying to EMIGRATE to the old Patrimony.

Their emigration in the direction of their 'Ancient Land' was systematically opposed by the Brits in contravention of the 'Mandate for Palestine'



ARTICLE 6
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other section of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

N.B.

Definition of EMIGRATE
: to leave one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere <emigrated from Canada to the United States>

Definition of IMMIGRATE
intransitive verb
: to enter and usually become established; especially: to come into a country of which one is not a native for permanent residence

 

Here are two good articles on what happened.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html
British Restrictions on Jewish Immigration

By Mitchell Bard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

 

Why should the leadership of Britian have had 'courage' to let Jews in? What on earth makes you believe that was something which was only not done because of courage. Limits on immigration were put in because having their homeland taken over was giving rise to Arab unrest. If however Jews had gone with the earlier offer of a smaller state they could of course have brought as many as they wanted. Equally there was a British Rabbi who suggested to government that a plan be set in force for all suitable countries to agree to take in a number of European Jews for a temporary time until the problems in Europe were sorted. Parliament was in agreement with it but Zionists would have none of it. The reality is that if Zionist Jews had not been determined that no one would emigrate to anywhere but Palestine most Jews could probably have been saved.

Churchill I read one time saw Jews as three different types of beings - well at least he managed three personalities Antisemitism was high in the entire Western world at the time and fascism too including the US and the UK. In the UK the Jews in London's East End managed to get the help of the local working community. Eventually they confronted the fascists in what has come to be known as the battle of Cable Street. Although it is argued that for a short time antisemitism grew after this, it was violent and showed the Government that there were parts of society which would not tolerate this. This led to them introducing laws which had the effect of reducing the ability of the fascists to spread their hate. This led to what was conceived as the end of fascism in Britain. Something people are still proud of.

I take it you are a zionist given that you appear to be saying that not allowing massive immigration of foreigners into a land where there already was a population whose ancestors had lived there for up to 5,000 years or more cowardice and have no respect or empathy for them. I do not have much sympathy for your view. Jews could have been saved by other methods I have mentioned above.

Why Britain went for it was because once they got their bibles to read for themselves Puritan Protestants started believing that they had to get Jews back to Israel. It was also wanted as a colony and was seen by different European countries as a possibly way to get rid of Jews (antisemitism). Napoleon wanted this first. The Christian Zionists as they are called managed to get the British Government interested in Palestine as a British colony with Jews and then there was help from Jews in WW1 which people say turned the war round.

An investigation by a team of Americans and British after WW2 suggested no state should be formed there as the European Jews and the Arabs would never stop fighting. Obviously that is how it has been though Jews clearly had the advantage of having already built up armies and the Palestinians had lost all their best fighters and leaders through death or deportation during the 1930's riots.

You would think that people would understand that spirituality has nothing to do with real estate.

 

The whole above dissertation is <BUNK>!!!!!!!! Where do you get 5000 years of Arab residence on the Land of the Jews?
I will not waste my time correcting here for this person seems to have forgotten what she had for lunch.

The whole of Mandatory Palestine the Mandate for Palestine in TRUSTED to Great Britain incorporated Jordan of today and Israel of today, the duplicitous Brits surreptitiously excised Trans Jordan (77% of the Mandate) to create an Emirate to an upstart from the Hejaz that had just lost his country to Ibn Saud, a line along the river Jordan also cut the Bashan/Golan out that was handed over to the French Mandatory powers of the Levant who had interests in acquiring Kirkuk and Mosul... What is missing here is history books that pretentiously and deliberately are set aside for blabber.

 

This is an exceptionally good comment Alexa!

I will definitely do some research on this!

The full answer though to any question is often far more complicated than we would wish to admit.....and the following statement is not merely five or ten percent accurate:


.....

 

Yes I apologise for not leaving a quote. You will find it on the net if you have enough time and find the right words as I did a couple of years ago.

Of course there are many more ingredients. Britain's competition with France and Germany to get the mandate, her promises to the arabs as well as to the Jews and not least because she found in the end the place was ungovernable.

You however have chosen a particular slant which appears as far as I can see to be wrongly blaming the British for the Jews who died in the holocaust and suggesting their only way of surviving would be if they were in Palestine. I am happy that my own conclusion on that is much more accurate. There are unfortunately many quotes of Zionists saying they would rather Jews died than that Zionism was lost and you must remember that prior to the holocaust most Jews were not interested in moving to Palestine at all. They were far more interested in moving to Western Europe or even more the US. It should also be remembered that certainly most western religious Jews did not support Zionism. Further it should be remembered that until the late 19th early 20th century, indeed when Zionism began, Jews who gave up Judaism stopped being Jews. The early Zionists were in no way going on a religious journey, far from it - they wanted to be free of religion and have a secular 'Jewish' state where people spoke German not Hebrew.

So.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story645.html

True Torah Jews, I think also have a tale of the possibility of stopping people being sent to death camps if the Zionists would provide money which was not forthcoming. There are many stories like that.

The reality is that prior to the Holocaust there was not sufficient demand for a Jewish state for such to have come into being. Jews would have been much better helped if countries had opened their borders - but also so would a lot of other people and we should not fall into the trap of believing the holocaust was just about Jews.

Now I think your attempt to blame the British for Jewish deaths is incredibly partisan and has no justification in reality. The Germans did not even start their mass killing until 42 - now possibly the UK and the US should have bombed those camps but that is another issue.

For the mandate. I have chosen to look at a site which I think is Israeli. However it has a reputation for being less biased than most and although I have often found stronger and better information elsewhere I think it is pretty reliable on basic stuff like this. Britain offered the Jews ' A Jewish Home in Palestine'. She did not offer her a State and she did not offer all of Eretz Israel. Further the biggest critics to anything being offered were British and US Jews. Just one more thing before I give you the link. The people who came up with the idea of giving Palestine to Jews first were not Jews. They were British Christian Zionists who managed to convince the government that it would be a handy colonial hideout with European Jews there. Obviously their interest was and is Armageddon. These people then went out and put the idea, with ease, I must say into the mind of European Jews but that happened 20-30 years after they had got the UK Government interested.

Oh and please tell me why your interest does not concern itself with the reality that this was other people's homeland and the British, the League of Nations and the UN had no right to offer it to anyone else - you talk as if you think it was Jewish. It was not.

Here is the link with full details.
http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

 

I have found details of the plan to save Jews

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

Being a Wiki article it has changed since I last looked at it. Then it was quite definite that it was Zionists who stopped his plan. This makes sense though obviously some may not like to admit this.

We all in the UK know this man for his Kindergarten rescue of children but his proposals to rescue so many more people and the opposition to this is not discussed.

 

I've ran into that problem with Wikpedia before too. Sometimes the previous version is available if you hit the link View History...in the top right hand corner of the article!

I really appreciate your digging this up for me Alexa....I'm taking a look at the older versions of this article right now!