Does Isreal build on deeded land for"illegal settelements ?

[Mr.Fitnah]

Did the Ottomans take Palestine with them when they left?

The Ottomans surrendered sovereignty over all of the Empire, including Palestine, to the World War I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres, moron.

Most of Palestine was state-owned land, stupid.

You're the forum dunce.

Too bad Britain left before they created a homeland for the Jews. They must have left it to the natives.

You mean the Jewish people
Who have been there for 3500 years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You know nothing, forum dunce. The Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland is a trust that supercedes the British. The trust was transferred to the UN at the dissolution of the League of Nations. The British presence had no legal effect on the matter.

You're the forum dunce. Go sit in the corner wearing your pointy hat.

Answer me this. If there was in fact a Jewish homeland in Palestine Why did the UN try to partition that homeland.

The forum dunce has a question. The Palestine Mandate establishing the Jewish homeland in Palestine is the only fact needed in your empty head.

You're the forum dunce.

Why do you wimp out when it comes answering questions?

 

[Marc39]

Answer me this. If there was in fact a Jewish homeland in Palestine Why did the UN try to partition that homeland.

The forum dunce has a question. The Palestine Mandate establishing the Jewish homeland in Palestine is the only fact needed in your empty head.

You're the forum dunce.

Why do you wimp out when it comes answering questions?

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

 

[Dr Grump]

Middle East historian and scholar Bernard Lewis...

For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable. For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant but not abhorrent in the same way as it was to Jews. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole. Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.

This Bernard Lewis?

Lewis' views on the issue were criticized by human rights activists, historians and scholars, including Alain Finkielkraut, Yves Ternon, Richard G. Hovannisian, Albert Memmi, Pierre Vidal-Naquet,[35][36] Robert Melson,[37] David B. MacDonald,[38] Norman Finkelstein;[39] Stephen Zunes described him as a "notorious genocide-denier".[40] According to historian Yair Auron, "Lewis’ stature provided a lofty cover for the Turkish national agenda of obfuscating academic research on the Armenian Genocide".[41] Israel Charny wrote about Lewis' views that "the seemingly scholarly concern with putting the historical facts in the context of Armenians constituting a threat to the Turks as a rebellious force who together with the Russians threatened the Ottoman Empire, and the insistence that only a policy of deportations was executed, barely conceal the fact that the organized deportations constituted systematic mass murder".[42] Charny compares the "logical structures" employed by Lewis in his denial of the genocide to those employed by Ernst Nolte in his Holocaust negationism.[43]

 

[Marc39]

Middle East historian and scholar Bernard Lewis...

For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable. For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant but not abhorrent in the same way as it was to Jews. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole. Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.

This Bernard Lewis?

This Dr. Bernard Lewis, idiot...

"There is probably no scholar alive today who can equal his breadth of knowledge of the Muslim past...a book that anyone who is interested in the Middle East will consult with profit"
F.H. Stewart, New Middle East

"Professor Lewis never fails in respect for the culture he has illuminated so brilliantly...this is a book for everyone interested in the contemporary evolution of the Islamic world"
Middle East International

"Lewis brings to this work not only his superb technical competence as a historian and mastery of the requisite Near Eastern and European languages but also an underlying humanism which raises his scholarship above a purely academic level. For this reason this book should be read by anyone who is interested in the Middle East, past and present"---CHOICE

"Lewis has done us all--Muslim and non-Muslim alike--a remarkable service.... The book's great strength, and its claim upon our attention, [is that] it offers a long view in the midst of so much short-term and confusing punditry on television, in the op-ed pages, on campuses and in strategic studies think tanks." --Paul Kennedy, The New York Times Book Review

"When it comes to Islamic studies, Bernard Lewis is the father of us all. With brilliance, integrity, and extraordinary mastery of languages and sources, he has led the way for Jewish and Christian investigators seeking to understand the Muslim world."--National Review

Muslim loss of civilizational leadership and retreat from modernity is at the center of global history over the last five hundred years and remains at this very time a major factor in international conflicts and diplomatic quarrels. What went wrong? Indeed. Muslims often have the feeling that history has somehow betrayed them, and on no comparable issue is the historian's potential contribution more important--the more so because the subject is plagued by ideological commitments, partisan blather, and the constraints of political correctness. People have shunned the topic for all the wrong reasons. All the more reason to be grateful for Bernard Lewis's interventions. No one knows better the languages and motivations of the players, and no one is more reliable in the objectivity of his judgments."--David Landes, Harvard University

"Replete with the exceptional historical insight that one has come to expect from the world's foremost Islamic scholar." --Karen Elliott House, Wall Street Journal

"Lewis's scholarship is prodigious....He avoids dogmatic positions himself and sees dogma as something to be analyzed. It is this sense of nuance, of historical setting, of honesty to texts, that informs the essays in Islam and the West."--The New York Review of Books

"Demonstrate breadth and depth of scholarship and an ability to communicate with both specialists and nonspecialists."--Journal of Ecumenical Studies

"Brilliant...weaves a seamless web between past and present. In collection of remarkable learning and range Mr. Lewis takes us, as he alone among today's historians and interpreters of Islam can, from the early encoutners of Christendom and Islam to today's Islamic dilemmas. To read Mr. Lewis on Europe's obsession with the Ottoman Turks, the raging battle between secularism and fundamentalism in the Muslim world, or the difficulty of studying other peoples' histories is to be taken through a treacherous terrain by the coolest and most reassuring of guides. You are in the hands of the Islamic world's foremost living historian. Of that world's ordeal he writes with the greatest care and authority and no small measure of sympathy."--Fouad Ajami, writing in The Wall Street Journal

"Arguably the West's most distinguished scholar on the Middle East."--Newsweek

"A timely and provocative contribution to the current raging debate about the tensions between the West and the Islamic world.... One wishes leaders in the Islamic world would pay heed to some of Lewis' themes." --Stanley Reed, Business Week

"Lucidly argued and richly supported by telling quotations.... Lewis is a persuasive chronicler of Muslim resistance to change and modernity."--Robert Irwin, Washington Post Book World

"An accessible and excitingly knowledgeable antidote to today's natural sense of befuddlement." --Michael Pakenham, Baltimore Sun

"A compelling book. One of our most distinguished historians throws a floodlight on that cruel divide between the West and the societies of Islam. Learned and urgent at the same time." --Fouad Ajami, The Johns Hopkins University

"Lewis's academic credentials are impeccable... the collection of essays, articles, reviews, lectures and contributions to encyclopaedias gives a glimpse of his towering scholarship.' -- Michael Binyon THE TIMES

"Our greatest authority on the world of Islam has followed his recent series of best-selling books with this gathering of fifty-one essays from the past fifty-one years. And an enjoyable, as well as an enlightening, collection it turns out to be.' -- Hazhir Tiemourian

"As this collection of writings and speeches from the last 40 years demonstrates once again, Lewis is probably the world's most erudite scholar of the Middle East. The pieces cover virtually all aspects of the region--from medieval Turkish history to the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and everything in between. Food for thought abounds.... Reflects the thinking of a profound mind."--Publishers Weekly

"The press of world events has transformed Bernard Lewis into the most public sort of intellectual, well into the emeritus phase of his scholarly career. His 2002 study, What Went Wrong?, shed much welcome, if controversial, light on the divergent courses of Islamic and Western civilization at a moment when the question could not be more urgent. Now in a new collection of essays, From Babel to Dragomans, Lewis teases out the implications of his earlier argument in a wide range of settings, from traditional Middle Eastern feasts and rituals to the anti-Western propaganda campaigns of al Qaeda."--Chris Lehmann, The Washington Post

"Inestimable...replete with the exceptional historical insight that one has come to expect from the world's foremost Islamic scholar."--The Wall Street Journal

"No scholar of Islam in the Western world has more thoroughly earned the respect of generalists and academics alike than Bernard Lewis."--Baltimore Sun

"A towering figure among experts on the culture and religion of the Muslim world" (Baltimore Sun)

 

[P F Tinmore]

The forum dunce has a question. The Palestine Mandate establishing the Jewish homeland in Palestine is the only fact needed in your empty head.

You're the forum dunce.

Why do you wimp out when it comes answering questions?

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

My question was relevant and it has not been addressed. It is said that The League of Nations/Palestine Mandate created a homeland for the Jews, i.e. a Jewish state, in all of Palestine. It was a done deal.

Then at a later date the UN partitions Palestine into a Jewish state and Arab state. It is said that the Zionists accepted this partition while the Arabs rejected it.

This does not make sense. Why would the Zionists accept a part of a state when they already had the whole pie? And why would the UN partition when it was already a done deal?

 

[Marc39]

Why do you wimp out when it comes answering questions?

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

My question was relevant and it has not been addressed. It is said that The League of Nations/Palestine Mandate created a homeland for the Jews, i.e. a Jewish state, in all of Palestine. It was a done deal.

Then at a later date the UN partitions Palestine into a Jewish state and Arab state. It is said that the Zionists accepted this partition while the Arabs rejected it.

This does not make sense. Why would the Zionists accept a part of a state when they already had the whole pie? And why would the UN partition when it was already a done deal?

I have already addressed the matter, however, your mental disability gets in the way of assimmilating it. Too bad you weren't aborted. Must be sadto go through life mentally disturbed.

 

[Shogun]

The forum dunce has a question. The Palestine Mandate establishing the Jewish homeland in Palestine is the only fact needed in your empty head.

You're the forum dunce.

Why do you wimp out when it comes answering questions?

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

clearly, in THIS case you dance around answering him because you are a giant PUSSY.

 

[Marc39]

Why do you wimp out when it comes answering questions?

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

clearly, in THIS case you dance around answering him because you are a giant PUSSY.

Go back to sleep.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

My question was relevant and it has not been addressed. It is said that The League of Nations/Palestine Mandate created a homeland for the Jews, i.e. a Jewish state, in all of Palestine. It was a done deal.

Then at a later date the UN partitions Palestine into a Jewish state and Arab state. It is said that the Zionists accepted this partition while the Arabs rejected it.

This does not make sense. Why would the Zionists accept a part of a state when they already had the whole pie? And why would the UN partition when it was already a done deal?

I have already addressed the matter, however, your mental disability gets in the way of assimmilating it. Too bad you weren't aborted. Must be sadto go through life mentally disturbed.

You have never answered that question.

The truth is that they planned to create a homeland for the Jews but the plan failed. It flopped. It never happened.

Plan B was to have the UN create a Jewish state. That flopped too. It never happened.

When the foreigners declared themselves to be a state in Palestine they had no legitimacy to hang their yarmulke on.

 

[Marc39]

My question was relevant and it has not been addressed. It is said that The League of Nations/Palestine Mandate created a homeland for the Jews, i.e. a Jewish state, in all of Palestine. It was a done deal.

Then at a later date the UN partitions Palestine into a Jewish state and Arab state. It is said that the Zionists accepted this partition while the Arabs rejected it.

This does not make sense. Why would the Zionists accept a part of a state when they already had the whole pie? And why would the UN partition when it was already a done deal?

I have already addressed the matter, however, your mental disability gets in the way of assimmilating it. Too bad you weren't aborted. Must be sadto go through life mentally disturbed.

You have never answered that question.

The truth is that they planned to create a homeland for the Jews but the plan failed. It flopped. It never happened.

Plan B was to have the UN create a Jewish state. That flopped too. It never happened.

When the foreigners declared themselves to be a state in Palestine they had no legitimacy to hang their yarmulke on.

Your mental disability makes it hard to instruct you. You have everyone's sympathy.
Both the League of Nations and the UN have bestowed legitimacy on Israeli statehood, making Israel unique.

You are a legitimate dunce.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have already addressed the matter, however, your mental disability gets in the way of assimmilating it. Too bad you weren't aborted. Must be sadto go through life mentally disturbed.

You have never answered that question.

The truth is that they planned to create a homeland for the Jews but the plan failed. It flopped. It never happened.

Plan B was to have the UN create a Jewish state. That flopped too. It never happened.

When the foreigners declared themselves to be a state in Palestine they had no legitimacy to hang their yarmulke on.

Your mental disability makes it hard to instruct you. You have everyone's sympathy.
Both the League of Nations and the UN have bestowed legitimacy on Israeli statehood, making Israel unique.

You are a legitimate dunce.

And when I ask you to present any documentation to back up your claim you duck the issue.

You must not like your answer.

BTW, The League of Nations did define borders for what they called the state of Palestine. They are recognized, undisputed, and have not change since 1922. Israel has no borders and resides inside Palestine.

 

[Shogun]

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

clearly, in THIS case you dance around answering him because you are a giant PUSSY.

Go back to sleep.

keep crying, you broken record. It's fun to watch you get batted around on the head and neck. No wonder you dive into repeat cycle while being totally PWNed in these threads..

sheesh.

 

[Marc39]

clearly, in THIS case you dance around answering him because you are a giant PUSSY.

Go back to sleep.

keep crying, you broken record. It's fun to watch you get batted around on the head and neck. No wonder you dive into repeat cycle while being totally PWNed in these threads..

sheesh.

Go back to sleep.

 

[del]

since south africa reformed, israel is my favorite apartheid country.

the u.s. would do well to copy some of israel's policies, like making it easy to identify minority groups via license plates.

 

[Shogun]

Go back to sleep.

keep crying, you broken record. It's fun to watch you get batted around on the head and neck. No wonder you dive into repeat cycle while being totally PWNed in these threads..

sheesh.

Go back to sleep.

make me, bitch.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I love ya shogun, but your wrong

and so is tin dude, i forgot his name

Israel's border was defined by the u.n. in 1948.

do your history

clearly, in THIS case you dance around answering him because you are a giant PUSSY.

Go back to sleep.

keep crying, you broken record. It's fun to watch you get batted around on the head and neck. No wonder you dive into repeat cycle while being totally PWNed in these threads..

sheesh.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

offers you milk and cookies

keep crying, you broken record. It's fun to watch you get batted around on the head and neck. No wonder you dive into repeat cycle while being totally PWNed in these threads..

sheesh.

Go back to sleep.

make me, bitch.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

what is your question, maybe ill take a stab at it

Why do you wimp out when it comes answering questions?

You ask questions that either have been answered previously, which you are unable to assimmilate due to your mental disability, or, that require some study. In either case, you ask questions because you're a dolt.

My question was relevant and it has not been addressed. It is said that The League of Nations/Palestine Mandate created a homeland for the Jews, i.e. a Jewish state, in all of Palestine. It was a done deal.

Then at a later date the UN partitions Palestine into a Jewish state and Arab state. It is said that the Zionists accepted this partition while the Arabs rejected it.

This does not make sense. Why would the Zionists accept a part of a state when they already had the whole pie? And why would the UN partition when it was already a done deal?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I love ya shogun, but your wrong

and so is tin dude, i forgot his name

Israel's border was defined by the u.n. in 1948.

do your history

Go back to sleep.

keep crying, you broken record. It's fun to watch you get batted around on the head and neck. No wonder you dive into repeat cycle while being totally PWNed in these threads..

sheesh.

The borders for the "state of Palestine" and the "state of Jordan" were defined in 1922 when the Palestine Mandate was divided into those two states. Those borders have not changed.

UN resolution 181 defined the border between Israel and Palestine but that resolution was never implemented. No one in the world including Israel and Palestine recognize that border.

The 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and five neighboring states, but excluding Palestine, laid out divisions of occupation. Egypt would occupy the Gaza Strip, Jordan would occupy the West Bank, and Israel would occupy the rest. The "Green Line" between these occupations was explicitly stated to not to be national or political borders.

Palestine's borders are the same as they were in 1922.

Israel has no borders.