Do you stand with Israel or Palestine?

[Big Hoss]

Palestine.

 

[abu afak]

There are a number of inaccuracies and otherwise misleading statements in your brief history of Palestine, but the most troubling is that it leaves out the bloody Arab uprising that followed the collapse of the general strike in 1936. This uprising may have been the single most significant event in determining the consequences of Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948. The Arabs. it is estimated that as many as 10,000 young men participated, attacked both British and Jewish targets with the goal of driving them both out of Palestine.

It has been said constantly, at least a million times, that the "Arabs" attacked the Jews because they hate Jews and the Jews merely defended themselves.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened. Since the turn of the century the Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine and create a Jewish state. Importing Jews by the boatload was a necessary step in implementing this plan.

The Palestinians did not attack the Jews because they were Jews, they were attacking foreign invaders who came to take over their country. The Palestinians attacked the British also. They were not Jews but were part of the invasion. The foreign invasion is the common denominator here.

Of course the Palestinians had every legal right to defend their country from foreign invasion. They still have that legal right to defend themselves from this invasion and resulting occupation of their country.

I have studied this all before and I can't be bothered re-reading it all again but some points. In for instance the Hebron Massacre most of the Jews were saved because their long time arab neighbours risked their own lives by hiding them in their houses until it was over.

There was no innate hatred of the Jews. The Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews had an amicable relationship before the Zionists came onto the scene. This is not a religious conflict. It is a simple matter of the Palestinians defending their country.

There was NO "Palestine" nor "palestinians" at that time.
Not until the 1960's actually.

Before the brief British Mandate/Rule there was just 3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire (for 400 Years).
Before that ruled by the Mamluks.

There has NEVER been a self-governing state on the land since it was last called ISRAEL.
-

 

[Ropey]

there are a number of inaccuracies and otherwise misleading statements in your brief history of palestine, but the most troubling is that it leaves out the bloody arab uprising that followed the collapse of the general strike in 1936. This uprising may have been the single most significant event in determining the consequences of israel's declaration of statehood in 1948. The arabs. It is estimated that as many as 10,000 young men participated, attacked both british and jewish targets with the goal of driving them both out of palestine.

it has been said constantly, at least a million times, that the "arabs" attacked the jews because they hate jews and the jews merely defended themselves.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened. Since the turn of the century the zionist's stated goal was to take over palestine and create a jewish state. Importing jews by the boatload was a necessary step in implementing this plan.

The palestinians did not attack the jews because they were jews, they were attacking foreign invaders who came to take over their country. The palestinians attacked the british also. They were not jews but were part of the invasion. The foreign invasion is the common denominator here.

Of course the palestinians had every legal right to defend their country from foreign invasion. They still have that legal right to defend themselves from this invasion and resulting occupation of their country.

i have studied this all before and i can't be bothered re-reading it all again but some points. In for instance the hebron massacre most of the jews were saved because their long time arab neighbours risked their own lives by hiding them in their houses until it was over.

there was no innate hatred of the jews. The palestinian muslims, christians, and jews had an amicable relationship before the zionists came onto the scene. This is not a religious conflict. It is a simple matter of the palestinians defending their country.

there was no "palestine" nor "palestinians" at that time.
Not until the 1960's actually.

Before ther brief british mandate/rule there was just 3 provinces of the ottoman empire (for 400 years).
Before that ruled by the mamluks.

There has never been a self-governing state on the land since it was last called israel.

qft

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are a number of inaccuracies and otherwise misleading statements in your brief history of Palestine, but the most troubling is that it leaves out the bloody Arab uprising that followed the collapse of the general strike in 1936. This uprising may have been the single most significant event in determining the consequences of Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948. The Arabs. it is estimated that as many as 10,000 young men participated, attacked both British and Jewish targets with the goal of driving them both out of Palestine.

It has been said constantly, at least a million times, that the "Arabs" attacked the Jews because they hate Jews and the Jews merely defended themselves.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened. Since the turn of the century the Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine and create a Jewish state. Importing Jews by the boatload was a necessary step in implementing this plan.

The Palestinians did not attack the Jews because they were Jews, they were attacking foreign invaders who came to take over their country. The Palestinians attacked the British also. They were not Jews but were part of the invasion. The foreign invasion is the common denominator here.

Of course the Palestinians had every legal right to defend their country from foreign invasion. They still have that legal right to defend themselves from this invasion and resulting occupation of their country.

I have studied this all before and I can't be bothered re-reading it all again but some points. In for instance the Hebron Massacre most of the Jews were saved because their long time arab neighbours risked their own lives by hiding them in their houses until it was over.

There was no innate hatred of the Jews. The Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews had an amicable relationship before the Zionists came onto the scene. This is not a religious conflict. It is a simple matter of the Palestinians defending their country.

There was NO "Palestine" nor "palestinians" at that time.
Not until the 1960's actually.

Before the brief British Mandate/Rule there was just 3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire (for 400 Years).
Before that ruled by the Mamluks.

There has NEVER been a self-governing state on the land since it was last called ISRAEL.
-

And Jerusalem was not in that Israel so should we go there?

Did US history start in 1776. It is a name game.

 

[sparky]

In December 1942 he discussed his ideas about rescue with a number of highly positioned church men and Members of Parliament, and organized Parliament-wide support for a motion that asked the government to make a declaration along the following lines:

"That in view of the massacres and starvation of Jews and others in enemy and enemy-occupied countries, this House asks H. M. Government, following the United Nations Declaration read to both Houses of Parliament on 17th December, 1942, and in consultation with the Dominion Governments and the Government of India, to declare its readiness to find temporary refuge in its own territories or in territories under its control for endangered persons who are able to leave those countries; to appeal to the Governments of countries bordering on enemy and enemy-occupied countries to allow temporary asylum and transit facilities for such persons; to offer to those Governments, so far as practicable, such help as may be needed to facilitate their co-operation; and to invite the other Allied Governments to consider similar action."

Within ten days, two Archbishops, eight Peers, four Bishops, the Episcopate of England and Wales and 48 members of all parties signed the notice of meeting to consider the Motion. Eventually the number of members of Parliament in support of the motion rose to 177.

not much mention of the Romanies, although thier #'s were on par with the Jews.......

 

[alexa]

not much mention of the Romanies, although thier #'s were on par with the Jews.......

very true. He will have been looking after his own.

 

[sparky]

so....will the UN will eventually find them a country when they get around to it Alexa?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are a number of inaccuracies and otherwise misleading statements in your brief history of Palestine, but the most troubling is that it leaves out the bloody Arab uprising that followed the collapse of the general strike in 1936. This uprising may have been the single most significant event in determining the consequences of Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948. The Arabs. it is estimated that as many as 10,000 young men participated, attacked both British and Jewish targets with the goal of driving them both out of Palestine.

It has been said constantly, at least a million times, that the "Arabs" attacked the Jews because they hate Jews and the Jews merely defended themselves.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened. Since the turn of the century the Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine and create a Jewish state. Importing Jews by the boatload was a necessary step in implementing this plan.

The Palestinians did not attack the Jews because they were Jews, they were attacking foreign invaders who came to take over their country. The Palestinians attacked the British also. They were not Jews but were part of the invasion. The foreign invasion is the common denominator here.

Of course the Palestinians had every legal right to defend their country from foreign invasion. They still have that legal right to defend themselves from this invasion and resulting occupation of their country.

I have studied this all before and I can't be bothered re-reading it all again but some points. In for instance the Hebron Massacre most of the Jews were saved because their long time arab neighbours risked their own lives by hiding them in their houses until it was over.

There was no innate hatred of the Jews. The Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews had an amicable relationship before the Zionists came onto the scene. This is not a religious conflict. It is a simple matter of the Palestinians defending their country.

There was NO "Palestine" nor "palestinians" at that time.
Not until the 1960's actually.

Before the brief British Mandate/Rule there was just 3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire (for 400 Years).
Before that ruled by the Mamluks.

There has NEVER been a self-governing state on the land since it was last called ISRAEL.
-

That is all so much smokescreen. The bottom line is that the Palestinians are the people of the place. They are the permanent population. They and their ancestors built that country.

The name may change or the flag over city hall may change but it is still their country.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There are a number of inaccuracies and otherwise misleading statements in your brief history of Palestine, but the most troubling is that it leaves out the bloody Arab uprising that followed the collapse of the general strike in 1936. This uprising may have been the single most significant event in determining the consequences of Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948. The Arabs. it is estimated that as many as 10,000 young men participated, attacked both British and Jewish targets with the goal of driving them both out of Palestine.

It has been said constantly, at least a million times, that the "Arabs" attacked the Jews because they hate Jews and the Jews merely defended themselves.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened. Since the turn of the century the Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine and create a Jewish state. Importing Jews by the boatload was a necessary step in implementing this plan.

The Palestinians did not attack the Jews because they were Jews, they were attacking foreign invaders who came to take over their country. The Palestinians attacked the British also. They were not Jews but were part of the invasion. The foreign invasion is the common denominator here.

Of course the Palestinians had every legal right to defend their country from foreign invasion. They still have that legal right to defend themselves from this invasion and resulting occupation of their country.

I have studied this all before and I can't be bothered re-reading it all again but some points. In for instance the Hebron Massacre most of the Jews were saved because their long time arab neighbours risked their own lives by hiding them in their houses until it was over.

There was no innate hatred of the Jews. The Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews had an amicable relationship before the Zionists came onto the scene. This is not a religious conflict. It is a simple matter of the Palestinians defending their country.

You make essentially two point, neither of which is true, although both are cherished myths of anti Israeli/pro Palestinian posters.

First, you claim that the Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine were motivated by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous Arab population. The evidence is that this sense of nationalism by the indigenous Arab population was an invention of some Arab intellectuals, mostly expatriates living in Europe, and ambitious Arab politicians, mostly leaders of the wealthiest families and clans, who sought to carve out an Arab state they might, themselves rule. The Jerusalem riots of the mid 1920's were motivated by false rumors of Jewish land theft spread by Arab leaders, not by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous population and the massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safed in 1929 were motivated by false rumors the Jews were attacking al Aksa, again spread by Arab leaders trying to stoke up some anti Jewish and anti British violence in the hope of advancing their own political ambitions. Even the violence of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's was motivated false rumors about the British and Jews spread by these same Arab politicians after their general strike had failed. Even today, it is not clear whether the Palestinian Arabs are motivated more by a sense of Palestinian nationalism or a sense of Arab nationalism.

Your second point seems to be that the Arab population in the western part of the Mandate was overwhelmingly indigenous and therefore had a strong sense of this being their country. In fact, each year the British reported to the League of Nations that huge numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries, and some from farther away, were flooding into the Mandate to take advantage of economic opportunities created by British and Jewish industry. Arab immigration from the surrounding countries was so great that by the time of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's, it is not even clear that the indigenous Arab population of western Palestine, those whose families were there before the British and most of the Jews arrived, constituted a majority, and by 1948, there can be little doubt that the majority of Arabs west of the Jordan River arrived there after the British had. This is why UNWRA's definition of a Palestinian refugee is some one who lived in the area for two years prior to May 1948. Surely, if two years residence is sufficient to be able to claim Palestine/Israel your homeland with the same right as some one whose family had lived there for generations, then every Jew there had the same right to claim it his/her homeland as every Arab.

One can take this even further and wonder if the Arabs in the disputed territories today see themselves more as Palestinians trying to establish a state of their own or more as Arabs and Muslims seeking to establish a forward base from which to carry on the Arab effort to take over Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are a number of inaccuracies and otherwise misleading statements in your brief history of Palestine, but the most troubling is that it leaves out the bloody Arab uprising that followed the collapse of the general strike in 1936. This uprising may have been the single most significant event in determining the consequences of Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948. The Arabs. it is estimated that as many as 10,000 young men participated, attacked both British and Jewish targets with the goal of driving them both out of Palestine.

It has been said constantly, at least a million times, that the "Arabs" attacked the Jews because they hate Jews and the Jews merely defended themselves.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened. Since the turn of the century the Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine and create a Jewish state. Importing Jews by the boatload was a necessary step in implementing this plan.

The Palestinians did not attack the Jews because they were Jews, they were attacking foreign invaders who came to take over their country. The Palestinians attacked the British also. They were not Jews but were part of the invasion. The foreign invasion is the common denominator here.

Of course the Palestinians had every legal right to defend their country from foreign invasion. They still have that legal right to defend themselves from this invasion and resulting occupation of their country.

I have studied this all before and I can't be bothered re-reading it all again but some points. In for instance the Hebron Massacre most of the Jews were saved because their long time arab neighbours risked their own lives by hiding them in their houses until it was over.

There was no innate hatred of the Jews. The Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews had an amicable relationship before the Zionists came onto the scene. This is not a religious conflict. It is a simple matter of the Palestinians defending their country.

You make essentially two point, neither of which is true, although both are cherished myths of anti Israeli/pro Palestinian posters.

First, you claim that the Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine were motivated by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous Arab population. The evidence is that this sense of nationalism by the indigenous Arab population was an invention of some Arab intellectuals, mostly expatriates living in Europe, and ambitious Arab politicians, mostly leaders of the wealthiest families and clans, who sought to carve out an Arab state they might, themselves rule. The Jerusalem riots of the mid 1920's were motivated by false rumors of Jewish land theft spread by Arab leaders, not by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous population and the massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safed in 1929 were motivated by false rumors the Jews were attacking al Aksa, again spread by Arab leaders trying to stoke up some anti Jewish and anti British violence in the hope of advancing their own political ambitions. Even the violence of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's was motivated false rumors about the British and Jews spread by these same Arab politicians after their general strike had failed. Even today, it is not clear whether the Palestinian Arabs are motivated more by a sense of Palestinian nationalism or a sense of Arab nationalism.

Your second point seems to be that the Arab population in the western part of the Mandate was overwhelmingly indigenous and therefore had a strong sense of this being their country. In fact, each year the British reported to the League of Nations that huge numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries, and some from farther away, were flooding into the Mandate to take advantage of economic opportunities created by British and Jewish industry. Arab immigration from the surrounding countries was so great that by the time of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's, it is not even clear that the indigenous Arab population of western Palestine, those whose families were there before the British and most of the Jews arrived, constituted a majority, and by 1948, there can be little doubt that the majority of Arabs west of the Jordan River arrived there after the British had. This is why UNWRA's definition of a Palestinian refugee is some one who lived in the area for two years prior to May 1948. Surely, if two years residence is sufficient to be able to claim Palestine/Israel your homeland with the same right as some one whose family had lived there for generations, then every Jew there had the same right to claim it his/her homeland as every Arab.

One can take this even further and wonder if the Arabs in the disputed territories today see themselves more as Palestinians trying to establish a state of their own or more as Arabs and Muslims seeking to establish a forward base from which to carry on the Arab effort to take over Israel.

each year the British reported to the League of Nations that huge numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries, and some from farther away, were flooding into the Mandate

The "Arab" population reduced from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1947.

WOW, that is really flooding into the country.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It has been said constantly, at least a million times, that the "Arabs" attacked the Jews because they hate Jews and the Jews merely defended themselves.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened. Since the turn of the century the Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine and create a Jewish state. Importing Jews by the boatload was a necessary step in implementing this plan.

The Palestinians did not attack the Jews because they were Jews, they were attacking foreign invaders who came to take over their country. The Palestinians attacked the British also. They were not Jews but were part of the invasion. The foreign invasion is the common denominator here.

Of course the Palestinians had every legal right to defend their country from foreign invasion. They still have that legal right to defend themselves from this invasion and resulting occupation of their country.



There was no innate hatred of the Jews. The Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews had an amicable relationship before the Zionists came onto the scene. This is not a religious conflict. It is a simple matter of the Palestinians defending their country.

You make essentially two point, neither of which is true, although both are cherished myths of anti Israeli/pro Palestinian posters.

First, you claim that the Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine were motivated by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous Arab population. The evidence is that this sense of nationalism by the indigenous Arab population was an invention of some Arab intellectuals, mostly expatriates living in Europe, and ambitious Arab politicians, mostly leaders of the wealthiest families and clans, who sought to carve out an Arab state they might, themselves rule. The Jerusalem riots of the mid 1920's were motivated by false rumors of Jewish land theft spread by Arab leaders, not by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous population and the massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safed in 1929 were motivated by false rumors the Jews were attacking al Aksa, again spread by Arab leaders trying to stoke up some anti Jewish and anti British violence in the hope of advancing their own political ambitions. Even the violence of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's was motivated false rumors about the British and Jews spread by these same Arab politicians after their general strike had failed. Even today, it is not clear whether the Palestinian Arabs are motivated more by a sense of Palestinian nationalism or a sense of Arab nationalism.

Your second point seems to be that the Arab population in the western part of the Mandate was overwhelmingly indigenous and therefore had a strong sense of this being their country. In fact, each year the British reported to the League of Nations that huge numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries, and some from farther away, were flooding into the Mandate to take advantage of economic opportunities created by British and Jewish industry. Arab immigration from the surrounding countries was so great that by the time of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's, it is not even clear that the indigenous Arab population of western Palestine, those whose families were there before the British and most of the Jews arrived, constituted a majority, and by 1948, there can be little doubt that the majority of Arabs west of the Jordan River arrived there after the British had. This is why UNWRA's definition of a Palestinian refugee is some one who lived in the area for two years prior to May 1948. Surely, if two years residence is sufficient to be able to claim Palestine/Israel your homeland with the same right as some one whose family had lived there for generations, then every Jew there had the same right to claim it his/her homeland as every Arab.

One can take this even further and wonder if the Arabs in the disputed territories today see themselves more as Palestinians trying to establish a state of their own or more as Arabs and Muslims seeking to establish a forward base from which to carry on the Arab effort to take over Israel.

each year the British reported to the League of Nations that huge numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries, and some from farther away, were flooding into the Mandate

The "Arab" population reduced from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1947.

WOW, that is really flooding into the country.

And yet there were more Arabs in the western Mandate in 1947 than there had been in 1900. Do you really need some one to explain to you how the absolute number of Arabs could increase and yet comprise a smaller percent of the total population?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You make essentially two point, neither of which is true, although both are cherished myths of anti Israeli/pro Palestinian posters.

First, you claim that the Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine were motivated by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous Arab population. The evidence is that this sense of nationalism by the indigenous Arab population was an invention of some Arab intellectuals, mostly expatriates living in Europe, and ambitious Arab politicians, mostly leaders of the wealthiest families and clans, who sought to carve out an Arab state they might, themselves rule. The Jerusalem riots of the mid 1920's were motivated by false rumors of Jewish land theft spread by Arab leaders, not by a sense of nationalism on the part of the indigenous population and the massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safed in 1929 were motivated by false rumors the Jews were attacking al Aksa, again spread by Arab leaders trying to stoke up some anti Jewish and anti British violence in the hope of advancing their own political ambitions. Even the violence of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's was motivated false rumors about the British and Jews spread by these same Arab politicians after their general strike had failed. Even today, it is not clear whether the Palestinian Arabs are motivated more by a sense of Palestinian nationalism or a sense of Arab nationalism.

Your second point seems to be that the Arab population in the western part of the Mandate was overwhelmingly indigenous and therefore had a strong sense of this being their country. In fact, each year the British reported to the League of Nations that huge numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries, and some from farther away, were flooding into the Mandate to take advantage of economic opportunities created by British and Jewish industry. Arab immigration from the surrounding countries was so great that by the time of the Arab uprising of the late 1930's, it is not even clear that the indigenous Arab population of western Palestine, those whose families were there before the British and most of the Jews arrived, constituted a majority, and by 1948, there can be little doubt that the majority of Arabs west of the Jordan River arrived there after the British had. This is why UNWRA's definition of a Palestinian refugee is some one who lived in the area for two years prior to May 1948. Surely, if two years residence is sufficient to be able to claim Palestine/Israel your homeland with the same right as some one whose family had lived there for generations, then every Jew there had the same right to claim it his/her homeland as every Arab.

One can take this even further and wonder if the Arabs in the disputed territories today see themselves more as Palestinians trying to establish a state of their own or more as Arabs and Muslims seeking to establish a forward base from which to carry on the Arab effort to take over Israel.

each year the British reported to the League of Nations that huge numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries, and some from farther away, were flooding into the Mandate

The "Arab" population reduced from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1947.

WOW, that is really flooding into the country.

And yet there were more Arabs in the western Mandate in 1947 than there had been in 1900. Do you really need some one to explain to you how the absolute number of Arabs could increase and yet comprise a smaller percent of the total population?

Sure, explain it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The "Arab" population reduced from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1947.

WOW, that is really flooding into the country.

And yet there were more Arabs in the western Mandate in 1947 than there had been in 1900. Do you really need some one to explain to you how the absolute number of Arabs could increase and yet comprise a smaller percent of the total population?

Sure, explain it.

Lots of Jews emigrated to the Mandate at the same time Arabs from the surrounding countries were emigrating there, at least until 1939, so while the total number of Arabs increased, because of the Jewish immigration the Arabs came to represent a smaller percent of the total population, and the indigenous Arabs, those whose families had been there before the British came, came to represent an increasingly smaller percent of the total Arab population as well as of the total population.

I hope that helps you to understand what happened.

 

[Jos]

All Aid given to Israel is illegal under US law,

The Symington Amendment is legislation introduced by Stuart Symington, a Democratic senator from Missouri, authored to strengthen the US position on nuclear non-proliferation.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

Symington Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[docmauser1]

All Aid given to Israel is illegal under US law,

Good luck suing Jimmy Carter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

All Aid given to Israel is illegal under US law,

The Symington Amendment is legislation introduced by Stuart Symington, a Democratic senator from Missouri, authored to strengthen the US position on nuclear non-proliferation.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

Symington Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There isn't much of anything legal about Israel.

 

[Godboy]

All Aid given to Israel is illegal under US law,

The Symington Amendment is legislation introduced by Stuart Symington, a Democratic senator from Missouri, authored to strengthen the US position on nuclear non-proliferation.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

Symington Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There isn't much of anything legal about Israel.

Prove it in a court of law, until then your words are meaningless and pathetic.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And yet there were more Arabs in the western Mandate in 1947 than there had been in 1900. Do you really need some one to explain to you how the absolute number of Arabs could increase and yet comprise a smaller percent of the total population?

Sure, explain it.

Lots of Jews emigrated to the Mandate at the same time Arabs from the surrounding countries were emigrating there, at least until 1939, so while the total number of Arabs increased, because of the Jewish immigration the Arabs came to represent a smaller percent of the total population, and the indigenous Arabs, those whose families had been there before the British came, came to represent an increasingly smaller percent of the total Arab population as well as of the total population.

I hope that helps you to understand what happened.

I knew that. I just wanted to see how you would explain it. Essentially you are correct. While there was a moderate immigration of Arabs, the Zionists were importing Jews by the boatload in their quest to take over Palestine.

I read a report someplace (I didn't bookmark the link) that stated that the increase in the Arab population was due mostly to natural growth while the immigration was "insignificant" to use the word used in the report. When you start with 93% of the population natural growth can be a large number of people. When you start with 7% natural growth can be virtually nil. I calculated the population growth of the Arabs over a forty year period and it worked out to a little less than 1% per year.

I question the validity of the report you quoted because the numbers just do not add up.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sure, explain it.

Lots of Jews emigrated to the Mandate at the same time Arabs from the surrounding countries were emigrating there, at least until 1939, so while the total number of Arabs increased, because of the Jewish immigration the Arabs came to represent a smaller percent of the total population, and the indigenous Arabs, those whose families had been there before the British came, came to represent an increasingly smaller percent of the total Arab population as well as of the total population.

I hope that helps you to understand what happened.

I knew that. I just wanted to see how you would explain it. Essentially you are correct. While there was a moderate immigration of Arabs, the Zionists were importing Jews by the boatload in their quest to take over Palestine.

I read a report someplace (I didn't bookmark the link) that stated that the increase in the Arab population was due mostly to natural growth while the immigration was "insignificant" to use the word used in the report. When you start with 93% of the population natural growth can be a large number of people. When you start with 7% natural growth can be virtually nil. I calculated the population growth of the Arabs over a forty year period and it worked out to a little less than 1% per year.

I question the validity of the report you quoted because the numbers just do not add up.

This is getting silly. 93% of the population could mean that there were only 100 people living and 93 of them were Arabs. If 8 Arabs emigrated to Palestine for each Jew that did, as a percent of the total population would continue to fall despite the fact that their absolute numbers would be growing rapidly. I'm sure you already understand this.

In fact, according to the first report of the British to the League of Nations, the entire population of Palestine, including what would soon become Trans Jordan, was only about 700,000. Considering that Trans Jordan consumed 78% of Palestine, one might estimate the population west of the Jordan River was 22% of 700,000, 154,000. The report states that the Jewish population of Palestine was 76,000. Since nearly all the Jews lived in the western part of the Mandate, essentially what would become pre 1967 Israel, or in or around Jerusalem, it is not at all clear that the Arabs enjoyed much of a majority over the Jews in the area that would come to comprise pre 1967 Israel.

Considering that these early Zionists encouraged high birth rates and likely were able to afford better nutrition and medical care for their children than their Arab neighbors, one would expect that without immigration by natural growth alone Jews would soon come to outnumber Arabs in the area that would come to be pre 1967 Israel. Obviously, the stunning growth of the Arab population had to be due to massive immigration from the surrounding countries since by natural growth alone they would soon have become a minority in the area that would become pre 1967 Israel.

An Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine to the League of Nations, June 1921

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lots of Jews emigrated to the Mandate at the same time Arabs from the surrounding countries were emigrating there, at least until 1939, so while the total number of Arabs increased, because of the Jewish immigration the Arabs came to represent a smaller percent of the total population, and the indigenous Arabs, those whose families had been there before the British came, came to represent an increasingly smaller percent of the total Arab population as well as of the total population.

I hope that helps you to understand what happened.

I knew that. I just wanted to see how you would explain it. Essentially you are correct. While there was a moderate immigration of Arabs, the Zionists were importing Jews by the boatload in their quest to take over Palestine.

I read a report someplace (I didn't bookmark the link) that stated that the increase in the Arab population was due mostly to natural growth while the immigration was "insignificant" to use the word used in the report. When you start with 93% of the population natural growth can be a large number of people. When you start with 7% natural growth can be virtually nil. I calculated the population growth of the Arabs over a forty year period and it worked out to a little less than 1% per year.

I question the validity of the report you quoted because the numbers just do not add up.

This is getting silly. 93% of the population could mean that there were only 100 people living and 93 of them were Arabs. If 8 Arabs emigrated to Palestine for each Jew that did, as a percent of the total population would continue to fall despite the fact that their absolute numbers would be growing rapidly. I'm sure you already understand this.

In fact, according to the first report of the British to the League of Nations, the entire population of Palestine, including what would soon become Trans Jordan, was only about 700,000. Considering that Trans Jordan consumed 78% of Palestine, one might estimate the population west of the Jordan River was 22% of 700,000, 154,000. The report states that the Jewish population of Palestine was 76,000. Since nearly all the Jews lived in the western part of the Mandate, essentially what would become pre 1967 Israel, or in or around Jerusalem, it is not at all clear that the Arabs enjoyed much of a majority over the Jews in the area that would come to comprise pre 1967 Israel.

Considering that these early Zionists encouraged high birth rates and likely were able to afford better nutrition and medical care for their children than their Arab neighbors, one would expect that without immigration by natural growth alone Jews would soon come to outnumber Arabs in the area that would come to be pre 1967 Israel. Obviously, the stunning growth of the Arab population had to be due to massive immigration from the surrounding countries since by natural growth alone they would soon have become a minority in the area that would become pre 1967 Israel.

An Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine to the League of Nations, June 1921

From your link.

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions.

Of course all of this is relatively irrelevant.