7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides

[Challenger]

The region is no closer to peace today, then it was in 1920. and it is not likely to change if the leadership does not open a dialog.

Dialogues are all well and good, but what is really needed is a willingness on all sides to arrive at a just and equitable settlement. Building/expanding settlements, creates more anger, which creates more violence from both sides. Ultimately the occupation must end and borders negotiated and agreed, even if that means Israel returning to the armistice lines of 1967 or even 1948.

 

[Challenger]

What do terrorists shout before murder?

Sh'ma Yisrael?

Funny 'cause when a Jew says so he has to whisper it to himself and cover his eyes.

OK, how about "Am Yisrael Chai"?

 

[Challenger]

The foremost respected and prominent Arab Leader of the Region was HRH Prince Faisal.

I think you'll find that Sharif Hussein bin Ali was the foremost respected and prominent Arab Leader of the Region...Faisal was more a British stooge in any event.

 

[Challenger]

HRH Prince Faisal agreed to "large Scale" --- Jewish Immigration "as quickly as possible."

With caveats.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Agreed. But then, in almost every conflict involving Muslims and Jewish, religion becomes an element. It does not mean that the focus of the conflict was along religious lines.

True. Although you cannot ignore the effects of religion in this conflict, Zionist Hasbara likes to focus on the religious element in order to deflect from the fact that from the very start, the Zionist objective was colonisation and disposession by force, which would necessitate the extermination or expulsion of the indigenous population in order to ultimately create a state for Jewish people only.

(COMMENT)

In 1919 The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement made a few of the early intents a matter of record:

• [T]he surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine,

• The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.

• Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.
​

The record and the very first Arab-Jewish Agreement, of the long line of agreements that were to followed, made it plain that NEITHER --- His Royal Highness the Amir FAISAL (representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ), and Dr. CHAIM WEIZMANN (representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organisation), had any intention to take anything by force. FAISAL and WEIZANN agreed that these essential concepts were important enough to set down in writing:

• All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
​

And these concepts were set down in writing and given such consideration, by the Allied Powers at 1920 San Remo Conference, that they were amplified and included in the Mandate for Palestine. (See Articles 2, 4, and 6) If there was some "colonization agenda," THEN it was not just the Zionist involved --- but with the knowledge and active participation by the Arab Community and agreed to by the Allied Powers to which Turkey renounced all territorial rights and title; and with the understanding that "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned" (the appropriate Allied Powers). (See Article 16 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, 24 July, 1923; See Part III --- Sections VII Articles 94 thru 97 and Article 132, Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey Signed at Sevres 10 August 1920; and again See Article 16, The Armistice of Mudros, 30 October, 1918)

Even before the Treaty of Lausanne went into force, the first of the significant clashes called the "Bloody Passover" riot of March 1920 occurred (prompting the creation of the first version of the Haganah in June), and then the1929 Riots violence at the Wailing Wall had occurred, organized the a former enemy Ottoman Army Officer turn Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem; and the Palestinian Black Hand was founded.

It is hypothesized that Haj Amin al-Husseini was a prime mover and personality involved in the organization of the 1920 Riots, which he politically benefited from in his 1921 rise to Mufti of Jerusalem. And again, Haj Amin al-Husseini was a principle instigator behind the 1929 riots. While there are nearly always overtones in any Islamic clash, behind it all was the power, wealth, and prominent influence that came with the leadership that was behind the anti-Jewish movement.

Any time you talk about immigration and settlements --- and argument can be made using the simplistic understand of "colonisation and disposession." And in the same vein, it was nothing that the senior Arab Leadership in the immediate post-War years, did not understand and appreciate.

It is rare to find a pro-Palestinian that does not blame all the regional ills on the Israelis. Similarly, most Israelis see the Palestinians as the dominant influence in the Regional history of 1920 to the present in rioting, murder, hijacking, piracy, bombing and general assaults on Israeli citizens. Both positions take the extreme, and both have elements of truth and disinformation in them. But at the end of the day, both side are now at the line of an unproductive line or pursuit. The region is no closer to peace today, then it was in 1920. and it is not likely to change if the leadership does not open a dialog.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Feisal-Weitzmann agreement is a footnote in history. It had no impact other than a wistfull "what might have been" scenario.

• All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

I find this interesting; you emphasise, "encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale" where I would have emphasised, "In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development." The Zionists had no intention of fulfilling this aspect regardless of what Wietzmann may have said.

A bit like the Garmeno-Zionist agreement then ?

And then you come out with your usual RACIST LIE that you have failed to substantiate

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One thing is for sure, if the Arab Palestinians turned peaceful, greater opportunities would open.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

(COMMENT)

It is Palestinian policy to use force and violence to coerce a surrender to Palestinian demands. That simply is not going to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why they are moving to non violence and BDS.

So the series of murders just recently is the Palestinians being non violent, and from what I have seen of BDS it is very violent. So want to try again only this time saying they are stepping up the violence to start another war

Why do you leave out all of the violence against the Palestinians by Israel.

A half truth is the same as a lie because it is meant to deceive.

What violence would that be that was not as a result of Palestinian terrorism, violence and murders ?

 

[Phoenall]

The foremost respected and prominent Arab Leader of the Region was HRH Prince Faisal.

I think you'll find that Sharif Hussein bin Ali was the foremost respected and prominent Arab Leader of the Region...Faisal was more a British stooge in any event.

Nope he was a two bit tin pot mayor of Jerusalem. Faisal was a Prince of Royal blood with direct links to mo'mad

 

[Phoenall]

The region is no closer to peace today, then it was in 1920. and it is not likely to change if the leadership does not open a dialog.

Dialogues are all well and good, but what is really needed is a willingness on all sides to arrive at a just and equitable settlement. Building/expanding settlements, creates more anger, which creates more violence from both sides. Ultimately the occupation must end and borders negotiated and agreed, even if that means Israel returning to the armistice lines of 1967 or even 1948.

Israel is already at the armistice lines of 1967, and that is the green line. That is also the line of the separation barrier so this delineates the future borders. The occupation will end once the Palestinians accept a just peace and lay down there weapons

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

There were a completely different era of people that were dealing with these issue at the turn into the 20th Century. Most of these leaders were influenced and educated in the time of the post-era of the Age of Enlightenment. In the last half of the 19th was the beginning of the end to indentured servitude. But in terms of where the greater portion of thinkers and philosophers were on the issue of human rights, --- we had just opened the door.

Wikipedia Quote:
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948) declares in Article 4 "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms". More specifically, It is dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. Although illegal under international law, only national legislation can establish its unlawfulness in a specific jurisdiction. In the United States, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA) of 2000 extended servitude to cover peonage as well as Involuntary Servitude."
​

Like some other discussion members here, you attempt to see the leaders and career political civil servants through your eyes from the 21st Century. That is neither a sound nor valid approach from which to base your foundation to understand why decisions were influence the way that they were.

The Feisal-Weitzmann agreement is a footnote in history. It had no impact other than a wistfull "what might have been" scenario.

(COMMENT)

Most of the political agreements of the time had no real means to interpret or enforce the framework. To a certain extend, you are right --- it was a challenged scenario. What is important stems from the fact that neither party represented any government, international agency, or covenant of a collective (Very Important). They each represented their respective "people and culture." The spoke plainly and made it clear what their national aspirations were and what they needed to do to make it successful. Yes, at one point in time, the Arabs and the Jews talked to one another.

Yes, in terms of a mandate or requirements, the Faisal-Weizmann agreement is merely a "footnote." But as to the future intentions --- it spoke plainly.

• All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

I find this interesting; you emphasise, "encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale" where I would have emphasised, "In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development." The Zionists had no intention of fulfilling this aspect regardless of what Wietzmann may have said.

(COMMENT)

You are correct, I emphasized the phases pertaining to Jewish Immigration because that was were are discussion and conversation was; --- (who knew what, when did the know it ---- and Who agreed to it.). That is not to say that the phrase you emphasized is not just as important; just to a different conversation. Your phrase dealt with the:

• Arab Peasant's (member of a class of farmers, and workers on and owners of small farms).
• Tenant Farmers (who resides on land owned by a another).
• Rights to be protected of the Arab Peasant and Tenant farmers.
• --- WHO protects the rights of the "Arab Peasant and Tenant farmers." ---
​

The agreement is between the Arab and Jew. Read Article 4 of the Agreement. What are the implications?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

LINK ? ? ?

What do terrorists shout before murder?

Sh'ma Yisrael?

Funny 'cause when a Jew says so he has to whisper it to himself and cover his eyes.

OK, how about "Am Yisrael Chai"?

 

[Challenger]

...and yet another Phoney phail: Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

...and yet another Phoney phail: Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know the drill, try using an unbiased source for your links




User:HamzaWaheed123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Look at the history and see that the article is full of obvious mistakes that even a 10 year old would be ashamed of

 

[Challenger]

...Like some other discussion members here, you attempt to see the leaders and career political civil servants through your eyes from the 21st Century. That is neither a sound nor valid approach from which to base your foundation to understand why decisions were influence the way that they were...

I suspect we will disagree on many things, not least of which is your statement above. I feel you, like many casual students of history fall into the trap of thinking, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

However, it is only when you delve into the subject matter, from momentous events to mundane day to day affairs; read the accounts and letters written centuries or decades ago, you inevitably find, to your astonishment, that although the past may be a foreign country, the differences are not as great as you first thought.

As Ecclesiastes puts it, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Human problems have remained constant, so have the solutions to those problems, only technology has changed.

The Congress of Versailles in 1919 and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, for example, faced very similar problems and came up with remarkably similar solutions; The League of Nations and the Concert of Europe/Congress System; both maintained the general peace for roughly the same length of time before collapsing.

I’ve studied history and have several qualifications in that field. I’m not claiming any spurious authority or expert knowledge, but one thing I know for sure is that I have no need to impose 21st century moral or political values/ethics on those of the 20th or 19th to understand why decisions were influenced the way that they were; amongst the power elites and the working poor, scratch the surface and you won’t find they’ve changed that much, if at all.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I don't concur.

...Like some other discussion members here, you attempt to see the leaders and career political civil servants through your eyes from the 21st Century. That is neither a sound nor valid approach from which to base your foundation to understand why decisions were influence the way that they were...

I suspect we will disagree on many things, not least of which is your statement above. I feel you, like many casual students of history fall into the trap of thinking, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

However, it is only when you delve into the subject matter, from momentous events to mundane day to day affairs; read the accounts and letters written centuries or decades ago, you inevitably find, to your astonishment, that although the past may be a foreign country, the differences are not as great as you first thought.

As Ecclesiastes puts it, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Human problems have remained constant, so have the solutions to those problems, only technology has changed.

The Congress of Versailles in 1919 and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, for example, faced very similar problems and came up with remarkably similar solutions; The League of Nations and the Concert of Europe/Congress System; both maintained the general peace for roughly the same length of time before collapsing.

I’ve studied history and have several qualifications in that field. I’m not claiming any spurious authority or expert knowledge, but one thing I know for sure is that I have no need to impose 21st century moral or political values/ethics on those of the 20th or 19th to understand why decisions were influenced the way that they were; amongst the power elites and the working poor, scratch the surface and you won’t find they’ve changed that much, if at all.

(COMMENT)

I don't think the Allied Powers that defeated the Axis Powers had any doubt in their mind that they new what was best for the "Arab." They had just finish the Great War, but were very familiar with wars and the treatment of the defeated opposing force. The Franco-Mexican War (FR 1862-67//US 1965-67), Basuto-Boer War (UK 1865-68), Kalkadoon Wars (Brit Colonialist 1870-90), Second Anglo-Afghan War (UK 1878-80), Anglo-Zulu War (UK 1879), Ekumeku Movement (UK 1883-1914), Tonkin Campaign (FR 1883-1886), Cuban War of Independence (US 1895-89), Philippine Revolution (US 1896-98), Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901 Everybody), Second Boer War (UK 1899-1902), is the short list. The Allied Powers know that they understood the world in a way that the Arab could never comprehend.

The Second Boer War ended in victory for the British and the annexation of both republics [South African Republic (Transvaal Republic) and the Orange Free State]. The war officially ended in 1902 with the Philippine leaders accepting, that the Americans had won. Central African-Chad Mission was a French military expedition sent out from Senegal in 1898 to conquer the Chad Basin and unify all French territories in West Africa. The Philippines were given independence in 1946 from US control. The idea that there were such things as the right to self-determination and territorial sovereignty, simply never occurred to the Allied Powers. The suggestion that the Allied Powers could not annex or indefinitely occupy territory after a victorious combat exchange was simply not common or contemporary law. These were the powers that were to determine the fate of the Middle East at the conclusion of the Great War (1918).

I fully understand and respect you position. But, at the time the decisions were made, the application of these "rights" were not considered "rights" at all. Look at how we (US) acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Hawaii Island (+atolls)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

What do terrorists shout before murder?

Sh'ma Yisrael?

Funny 'cause when a Jew says so he has to whisper it to himself and cover his eyes.

OK, how about "Am Yisrael Chai"?

Am Israel is Chai! (Meaning Israel nation forever)
Nice song to celebrate

but we both know that the total majority of terror attacks are preceded by 'alla akbar' and followed by screams of agony and terror. this is what people associate this sentence with...but it also sounds as 'the mouse is gone' in Hebrew

Just like here but with a different outcome, enjoy-

 

[P F Tinmore]

Alice Rothchild and a Just Peace in Palestine

 

[Vigilante]

Seems The Donald is AGAIN on the right side of the debate!

• Trump: Revoke Passports For Those Who Go To Fight For ISIS, Would Look At Closing Certain Mosques
  Zionists4Trump.com ^
  Republican presidential candidate #Donald Trump stated he would revoke passports from people who go overseas to fight for #ISIS and “You’re going to have to certainly look at” closing mosques “if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear” on Tuesday’s “Varney & Co” on the Fox Business Network. ... He was also asked [relevant remarks begin in the second video] “Now, in the UK, in Britain, they’ve obviously got a terror problem. They’ve got a lot of youngsters going over to fight for ISIS, about — just under 1,000 are going over there, and they’ve got a whole new...

 

[Phoenall]

Alice Rothchild and a Just Peace in Palestine

Depends on what you mean by a just peace, and which side you support for this just peace. As an example the one sided arab league peace is only just for the Palestinians, for the Jews it is a suicide note

 

[Phoenall]

Seems The Donald is AGAIN on the right side of the debate!

• Trump: Revoke Passports For Those Who Go To Fight For ISIS, Would Look At Closing Certain Mosques
  Zionists4Trump.com ^
  Republican presidential candidate #Donald Trump stated he would revoke passports from people who go overseas to fight for #ISIS and “You’re going to have to certainly look at” closing mosques “if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear” on Tuesday’s “Varney & Co” on the Fox Business Network. ... He was also asked [relevant remarks begin in the second video] “Now, in the UK, in Britain, they’ve obviously got a terror problem. They’ve got a lot of youngsters going over to fight for ISIS, about — just under 1,000 are going over there, and they’ve got a whole new...

Just what is being proposed in the UK and the looney left are up in arms over it