Swastikas Deface Temple Mount after Incitement by Abbas

yeah, until 1968 Congress wanted to keep America as white and as Christian as possible.

 

Not exactly so... Durring the time of Saddam Hussein of Iraq... Kuwait accepted nearly 300,000 Palestinians, Saudi Arabia around 30,000 of them... they asked them to leave as they were <UNRELIABLE/UNTRUSTWORTHY> since they cooperated with the conqueror of Kuwait Saddam Hussein... (the figures might not be exact but what I described above is correct)!

 

This is also not adequate... The Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon were sent there from Jordan after a rebellion and a take over attempt... Jordan killed nearly 20,000 of them and the rest accepted to go to Lebanon and Tunis.

 

Sorry, Ron... Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were very poor.. Saudi Arabia was even poorer until the late 1960s and early 1970s... KSA was pumping almost 3 million pbd in 1970 and the price was low.. In 1948 oil was less than $3 a barrel and they were pumping 300,000 bpd.

Nonetheless KSA did provide some money for Palestinian relief from 1948 forward.

- - - Updated - - -

Not in 1948 and 1967 when Israel was forcing them out and shooting them if they tried to return to their homes.

 

Don't worry Israel is strong enough, has the most modern technical innovations and will be here long after everyone will be gone.

 

Here is a link on the Palestinian Refugees in Kuwait...

http://www.meforum.org/3391/kuwait-expels-palestinians

Here is another link about Saudi Arabia expelling aliens incl. Palestinians.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/saudis-expel-500000-illegals/2013/12/02/

 

The Muslim world has nukes, and they will use them on Israel if Israel dares to attempt ethnic cleansing.

 

At one time KSA was home to 50,000 Palestinians both Muslim and Christian.. They were very reliable middle mgmt. types who ran the commissary, post office and such.. The Saudis are very sympathetic towards the Palestinians... Always have been.

I suppose you don't remember when Western countries and Cuba would not accept Jewish refugees.. Two reasons: most were socialists and jobs were scarce.

You forget what it was like to be forced out and turned into refugees.

 

We are returning back again to the most preferred Arab subject it is called <prevarication>... When there is a lot of logged proof to the contrary... nothing has changed with the Arabs for whatever they base their claim on sounds so hollow... A lot of noise and no evidentiary proof to implicate the Jews. Read on...


ON APRIL 23, 1948 Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC), told the UN Security Council: "The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, as saying: "The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

ON OCTOBER 2, 1948, the London Economist reported, in an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs: "There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit ... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

On February 19, 1949, THE JORDANIAN daily Falastin wrote : "The Arab states... encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."

ON JUNE 8, 1951, Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda that in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, had "assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade ... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states."

ON APRIL 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying: "For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."

ANOTHER refugee told the Jordanian daily a-Difaa on September 6, 1954: "The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in."

THE PRIME Minister of Syria in 1948, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, listed what he thought were the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948: " ... the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries ... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."

"FOLLOWING a visit to refugees in Gaza, a British diplomat reported the following: 'But while they express no bitterness against the Jews...they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states: 'We know who our enemies are,' they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes." -

IN THE MARCH 1976 issue of Falastin a-Thaura, then the official journal of the Beirut-based PLO, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), PLO spokesman, wrote: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

British Foreign Office Document #371/75342/XC/A/4991 [From "Revising or Devising Israel's History" by Prof. Shlomo Slonim in Jewish Action, Summer 5760/2000, Vol. 60 #4]

This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
Brooklyn, New York

 

Arab refugees without <equivocation>


Arab Refugees # 1 by HB

The claim that the Arabs were driven out and turned into &#8220;refugees&#8221; was raised as early as the 1930s. This claim was investigated by the British, and completely rejected&#8230; 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 about 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&#8230; 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).

And finally: What was the land ownership situation when the State of Israel was reconstituted 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 less than 33% belonged to "absentee Arab owners" and Arab landowners. 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. The contention heard repeatedly from Arab propagandists and some other with a deluded/incited Arab approach that 95% of the territory of Palestine had belonged to the Arabs - is, therefore, entirely without basis in fact. (These are factual documents that deluded Arabs i.e. Readers and others should take the time to check as they are now referenced).

 

Families always flee violence and persecution.. You remember. The Jews did also.. when Hitler and the Nazis began to crank up the persecution and confiscations.

 

The Negev Bedu have been in the Negev for 6,000 years.. It never "belonged " to anyone but them.. Certainly it didn't belong to European Jews. In fact all the Arab states recognized the rights of the Bedouin throughout the region. Saudi Arabia and has camps along their routes for their use in PERPETUITY.

 

We've been over this nonsense of yours several times before :

Quick search produced this from Klipkap

Jan 11 - 2013

http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/18097-resolution-242-what-really-means-53.html



tata...

 

HBendor has got his head deep in the sand - I doubt he'd read this , or anything else which is different his Zionist indoctrination:

As a result of the 1967 hostilities, the future of Palestine and its inhabitants was bound up with the question of the Middle East, which has been a source of constant concern to the international community. On 22 November 1967, the international community adopted resolution 242 (1967), in which the Security Council:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

"1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both of the following principles:
i) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

ii) termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknolwedgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"
What happened to that resolution and how it was interpreted by either side are a matter of record. However, it must be recognized that resolution 242 (1967) does not mention the plight of the Palestinians, and their rights even ess. These rights were, however, to be recognized subsequently in Part B of General Assembly resolution 2535 (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, in which the General Assemby:

"Desirous of giving effect to its resolutions for relieving the plight of the displaced persons and refugees,
"1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine; "
The inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, which the international community has reaffirmed every year since 1969, consist mainly of their right to return to their homes and property and their right of self-determination. However, the well-being of the population of the occupied territories has been a subject of constant concern to the United Nations, which in 1968 - one year earlier - had established the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Populations of the Occupied Territories. On 10 November 1975, the international community, concerned at the disregard of its resolutions on the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, established the Committee on the Exercise of the inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

It is relevant here to recall that the State of Isrra4 and some other States Members of the United Nations opposed the establishment of this Committee, whose recommendations on the Palestinian people's right to return to their homes and their right of self-determination have been clearly formulated and widely publicized.

In formulating its recommendations, the Committee emphasized the difficulties it had encountered in carrying out its mandate.

For instance, in his correspondence with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Chairman of the Committee drew attention to several factors which had impeded the Committee's efforts to carry out the mandate it had been given by the General Assembly. One of these was the policy applied by the State of Israel in the occupied territories, a policy which has been condemned by the international community. The main feature of this policy is the establishment of Jewish settlements and the violation of fundamental human rights in the occupied territories.

The establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is only the logical consequence of implementing a policy based on two concepts regarding the future of those territories. Those who hold these concepts, which will be discussed in the next paragraph, have never ceased proclaiming their position with respect to the occupation of the Arab territories. Their occupation of Palestinian land and the policy they apply there continue to meet with the condemnation of the international community and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. In a letter to the Secretary-General, the Chairman of this Committee said:

"If statements by the Prime Minister of Israel to the Israeli Parliament, as reported in the press, to the effect that Israel would d never return to the pre 5 June 1967 frontiers and that Jerusalem would forever be the capital of the Israeli State and that there would never be a Palestinian State on the West Bank of the Jordan aid in the Gaza Strip, are to be believed, it can be stated that Israel continues to oppose resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council an the question of Palestine and is carrying out actions that are contrary to the spirit and the letter of those resolutions, and to the principles of international law".

The disapproval expressed by the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in the paragraph quoted above contains several elements, the most important of which are the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the application of the principles contained in the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is contrary to Article 49 of that Convention, the sixth paragraph of which reads as follows:

"The Occupying Power stall not deport or transfer parts of its can civilian population into the territory it occupies".

Despite the international community's opposition to the Israeli policy of establishing Jewish settlements, the number and population of these settlements have steadily grown, to such an extent that 27,000 families of Jewish settlers are expected to settle on the West Bank of the Jordan in the next three years. 32/

- See more at: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7D094FF80FF004F085256DC200680A27#sthash.YLfAqIBa.dpuf


....