Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Challenger, et al,
Again, an improper analogy!
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm not sure this is true.
(COMMENT)It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.
How would that change Palestine's legal status?
At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.
- The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
- The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
- The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
- The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.
For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.
You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.
Most Respectfully,
R
In 1939 Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, nothing was left of pre-1939 Poland but that did not mean that the Polish people reliquished their sovereignty over the Polish territory that existed before September 1939. Poles remained Poles and Palestinians still remained Palestinians.
The Polish were sovereign and independent people prior to the invasion. While it is true that (from 1795 until 1918) no truly independent Polish state existed, prior to the end of WWI, from 1918 until the Nazi and Russian takeover in 1939, the Second Polish Republic, was a sovereign power over Poland. Much different a history than the Arab Palestinians.
The Arab Palestinians have not been sovereign or independent for nearly a 1000 years; not until 1988. Prior to the surrender (1918 Armistice of Mudros) of the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers, what is today called the Arab Palestinian, was (in fact) Arab Ottomans.
In 1914 what became known as the Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, there was to the East of the Jordan River, in the Vilayet (Province) of Syria, the three Sanjaks (administrative divisions/districts) of Damascus, Hauran and Maan which were either in whole or in part included. Similarly, there was to the West of the Jordan River, in the Vilayet of Beirut, the three Sanjaks of Berirut, Acre, and Balqa. Additionally, and because of its religious significance, was the administratively separate Sanjak of Jerusalem; which reported directly to the Vilayet Government of Syria. Damascus was both the Beylerbeylik (governor-generalship/provincial seat) and a Sanjak locally. BUT their was no administrative subdivision in the Ottoman Empire known as "Palestine." Nor was it a legal entity. It was a ancient name for a regional area that had no particular boundary.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)What difference does it make Rocco? Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary. Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.
What difference does it make Rocco?
(COMMENT)Are you still pimping that Israeli propaganda?
It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question
(Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).
Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.
Partition and the Law - 1948
Nonsense. What is the meaning of "such peoples?"P F Tinmore, et al,
You must be imagining things.
(COMMENT)Are you still pimping that Israeli propaganda?
It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question
(Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).
Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.
Partition and the Law - 1948
I have searched and searched Article 22 and cannot find that verbiage anywhere in the text.
In fact I can't find, anywhere in the entire covenant, the words/phrases:
- Where does it say that in 1919, it was "universally and legally accepted" --- anything?
- Where does it say that "the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent" --- of anything?
- Where does it say the "Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state?"
In fact, the Covenant doesn't "invest" anything to any entity for any reason. What it said was: "The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. THREE times the Arab Community was asked to join the process; --- and THREE times the Arab population of Palestine rejected being brought into cooperation with the government.
- "universally and legally accepted"
- "Palestine"
- "The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine."
If there was ever strong evidence that the Arab Population did not want to cooperate in the Article 22 process, it was their rejection to contribute to the formation of a cooperative government.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Nonsense. What is the meaning of "such peoples?"
Stupid BastardYou show yourself, as usual, to be both willfully ignorant and profoundly dishonest.P F Tinmore, et al,
Where does that come from???
(COMMENT)[
Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate
That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.
The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.
However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.
Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.
The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.
Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.
TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,
Now that is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.
Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
Israel is hardly as you ignorantly and dishonestly describe. In fact, Israel is a world economy.
Israel Economy Facts & Stats
With your ignorance and dishonesty now addressed, discuss for us the "Plight of the Pal'istanians". Discuss for us the billions of welfare dollars that have been showered upon a group of welfare scammers who are incapable of cobbling together even the most rudimentary of social structures and conventions.
Please do make your usual excuses for a collection of Islamic terrorist misfits who have contributed nothing to the world community other than welfare fraud and the promotion of hate and misery.
the world economy, are you crazy. Its China, the EU and then the US. Israel is dependent on the US for aid. If they are the "world economy" they have best pay us back. They sponge off of all others. They hate the Evans but take their money, they bad mouth us but take our money. They are existent on OPM.
The EU is not a world economy at all as it is a group of nations that are a mixture of thriving and failing economies. Look at the EU nations that have failed in the last 10 years and had to be bailed out, one has been bailed out 3 times and still it struggles to exist.
The US is dependent on Israel for keeping many of its workers of the unemployment lines by laundering US money through aid and loans to get round international monopoly laws. Under the muslim POTUS the US has seen its credit rating drop to that of a third orld nation. The US also needs Israel to develop and prove new technology as it is fast losing the ability and resources to do it themselves. The American empire is reliant on China to provide the income to float the companies as the riches are fast dissappearing
You show yourself, as usual, to be both willfully ignorant and profoundly dishonest.P F Tinmore, et al,
Where does that come from???
(COMMENT)
The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.
Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.
TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,
Now that is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.
Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
Israel is hardly as you ignorantly and dishonestly describe. In fact, Israel is a world economy.
Israel Economy Facts & Stats
With your ignorance and dishonesty now addressed, discuss for us the "Plight of the Pal'istanians". Discuss for us the billions of welfare dollars that have been showered upon a group of welfare scammers who are incapable of cobbling together even the most rudimentary of social structures and conventions.
Please do make your usual excuses for a collection of Islamic terrorist misfits who have contributed nothing to the world community other than welfare fraud and the promotion of hate and misery.
the world economy, are you crazy. Its China, the EU and then the US. Israel is dependent on the US for aid. If they are the "world economy" they have best pay us back. They sponge off of all others. They hate the Evans but take their money, they bad mouth us but take our money. They are existent on OPM.
The EU is not a world economy at all as it is a group of nations that are a mixture of thriving and failing economies. Look at the EU nations that have failed in the last 10 years and had to be bailed out, one has been bailed out 3 times and still it struggles to exist.
The US is dependent on Israel for keeping many of its workers of the unemployment lines by laundering US money through aid and loans to get round international monopoly laws. Under the muslim POTUS the US has seen its credit rating drop to that of a third orld nation. The US also needs Israel to develop and prove new technology as it is fast losing the ability and resources to do it themselves. The American empire is reliant on China to provide the income to float the companies as the riches are fast dissappearing
Stupid Bastard
montelatici, et al,
This might be true in a majority of cases. But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
(COMMENT)What difference does it make Rocco? Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary. Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.
In 1918, the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers.
- XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen,Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
The original unconditional surrender was made to the Allied Powers, by the Ottoman Empire, before the Turkish Government was established (29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey).
At the San Remo Convention (26 April 1920), the Allied Supreme Council (Principal Allied Powers of World War I )
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not finalized until several years later. The conference's decisions were the basis of the never-implemented Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97).In 1920, the Allied Powers proceeded to accomplish their goals under this agreement; understanding that Turkey will accept the terms and any decision the Allied Powers made.
Turkey rejected this treaty, after Kemal Ataturk revolted, overthrew the Sultan and produced "facts on the ground" that nullified grants of territory to the Greeks and other concessions. The allies also quarreled over the mandates and their jurisdiction. The conference's decisions were finally confirmed, after considerable modification, by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. ...
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
The San Remo Resolution is the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home." Class "A" mandates were mandates that were presumed to eventually become self governing and independent.
Attempts in 1923 to provide the tutelage for the Arab population was rejected by the Arab Representative. Three attempts in total were made to bring the Arabs closer to self-governance --- and three times it was rejected. The Arab leaders declined these offers on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. The aspirations apparently being the establishment of another Arab State over the remained of the territory to which the mandate applied.
What difference does it make Rocco?
In 1948, the Jewish Population did not insist that they should have "X" amount of territory allotted to them simply because of historical ties. The Jewish Immigrants, coming to the territory under the auspices of the Mandate --- exercised the self-determination --- following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly. By contrast, “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration” in that they owned land. They insisted that the UN and the Mandatory, to which the Ottoman/Turkish Government surrendered, had no authority to allocate the territory or to recognize self-determination of a formally invited and duly authorized immigrants following the UN adopted process. The Jewish population, although they claim a historical connection to the land, and that the Allied Powers recognized as having a historical connection, did not entirely rely on that aspect of the bid for independence. Whereas the Arab Palestinian did everything in its power to alienate the UN and the Allied Powers, and avoid cooperation in the process at every turn. In the end, the conditions today generally reflect that outcome and temperament. As we all know, failure to comply with the general rules and practices will normally meet with negative results.
In hindsight, how much better-off would the Palestinian be today if they had mimicked the Jewish Agency and followed the parallel of a Arab Agency? How much better-off would the Arab Palestinian be today if they had not encouraged or induced an Arab League Assault and Invasion into the territory to which the Mandate applied in 1948?
Most Respectfully,
R
montelatici, et al,
This might be true in a majority of cases. But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
(COMMENT)What difference does it make Rocco? Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary. Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.
In 1918, the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers.
- XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen,Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
The original unconditional surrender was made to the Allied Powers, by the Ottoman Empire, before the Turkish Government was established (29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey).
At the San Remo Convention (26 April 1920), the Allied Supreme Council (Principal Allied Powers of World War I )
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not finalized until several years later. The conference's decisions were the basis of the never-implemented Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97).In 1920, the Allied Powers proceeded to accomplish their goals under this agreement; understanding that Turkey will accept the terms and any decision the Allied Powers made.
Turkey rejected this treaty, after Kemal Ataturk revolted, overthrew the Sultan and produced "facts on the ground" that nullified grants of territory to the Greeks and other concessions. The allies also quarreled over the mandates and their jurisdiction. The conference's decisions were finally confirmed, after considerable modification, by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. ...
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
The San Remo Resolution is the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home." Class "A" mandates were mandates that were presumed to eventually become self governing and independent.
Attempts in 1923 to provide the tutelage for the Arab population was rejected by the Arab Representative. Three attempts in total were made to bring the Arabs closer to self-governance --- and three times it was rejected. The Arab leaders declined these offers on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. The aspirations apparently being the establishment of another Arab State over the remained of the territory to which the mandate applied.
What difference does it make Rocco?
In 1948, the Jewish Population did not insist that they should have "X" amount of territory allotted to them simply because of historical ties. The Jewish Immigrants, coming to the territory under the auspices of the Mandate --- exercised the self-determination --- following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly. By contrast, “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration” in that they owned land. They insisted that the UN and the Mandatory, to which the Ottoman/Turkish Government surrendered, had no authority to allocate the territory or to recognize self-determination of a formally invited and duly authorized immigrants following the UN adopted process. The Jewish population, although they claim a historical connection to the land, and that the Allied Powers recognized as having a historical connection, did not entirely rely on that aspect of the bid for independence. Whereas the Arab Palestinian did everything in its power to alienate the UN and the Allied Powers, and avoid cooperation in the process at every turn. In the end, the conditions today generally reflect that outcome and temperament. As we all know, failure to comply with the general rules and practices will normally meet with negative results.
In hindsight, how much better-off would the Palestinian be today if they had mimicked the Jewish Agency and followed the parallel of a Arab Agency? How much better-off would the Arab Palestinian be today if they had not encouraged or induced an Arab League Assault and Invasion into the territory to which the Mandate applied in 1948?
Most Respectfully,
R
It was an invasion of Palestine. It would as if the millions arriving in Europe now were to insist on a state of their own on Europe. If the indigenous people had not resisted, there would be no non-Jews living anywhere in Palestine. The Zionist plan, was to be implemented stealthily and the resistance of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with its inherent publicity and UN attention, made it impossible for the Jews to implement their plan of removing all the non-Jews from Palestine. Had the Christians and Muslims behaved like sheep they would have been eliminated one way or another. The Jews, left to their own devices, are an evil people, like Muslims, in short, they are not Christians and do not have our Christian values, that is what you fail to understand Rocco.
"... it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.....Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country....."
"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
montelatici, et al,
This might be true in a majority of cases. But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
(COMMENT)What difference does it make Rocco? Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary. Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.
In 1918, the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers.
- XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen,Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
The original unconditional surrender was made to the Allied Powers, by the Ottoman Empire, before the Turkish Government was established (29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey).
At the San Remo Convention (26 April 1920), the Allied Supreme Council (Principal Allied Powers of World War I )
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not finalized until several years later. The conference's decisions were the basis of the never-implemented Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97).In 1920, the Allied Powers proceeded to accomplish their goals under this agreement; understanding that Turkey will accept the terms and any decision the Allied Powers made.
Turkey rejected this treaty, after Kemal Ataturk revolted, overthrew the Sultan and produced "facts on the ground" that nullified grants of territory to the Greeks and other concessions. The allies also quarreled over the mandates and their jurisdiction. The conference's decisions were finally confirmed, after considerable modification, by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. ...
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
The San Remo Resolution is the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home." Class "A" mandates were mandates that were presumed to eventually become self governing and independent.
Attempts in 1923 to provide the tutelage for the Arab population was rejected by the Arab Representative. Three attempts in total were made to bring the Arabs closer to self-governance --- and three times it was rejected. The Arab leaders declined these offers on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. The aspirations apparently being the establishment of another Arab State over the remained of the territory to which the mandate applied.
What difference does it make Rocco?
In 1948, the Jewish Population did not insist that they should have "X" amount of territory allotted to them simply because of historical ties. The Jewish Immigrants, coming to the territory under the auspices of the Mandate --- exercised the self-determination --- following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly. By contrast, “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration” in that they owned land. They insisted that the UN and the Mandatory, to which the Ottoman/Turkish Government surrendered, had no authority to allocate the territory or to recognize self-determination of a formally invited and duly authorized immigrants following the UN adopted process. The Jewish population, although they claim a historical connection to the land, and that the Allied Powers recognized as having a historical connection, did not entirely rely on that aspect of the bid for independence. Whereas the Arab Palestinian did everything in its power to alienate the UN and the Allied Powers, and avoid cooperation in the process at every turn. In the end, the conditions today generally reflect that outcome and temperament. As we all know, failure to comply with the general rules and practices will normally meet with negative results.
In hindsight, how much better-off would the Palestinian be today if they had mimicked the Jewish Agency and followed the parallel of a Arab Agency? How much better-off would the Arab Palestinian be today if they had not encouraged or induced an Arab League Assault and Invasion into the territory to which the Mandate applied in 1948?
Most Respectfully,
R
It was an invasion of Palestine. It would as if the millions arriving in Europe now were to insist on a state of their own on Europe. If the indigenous people had not resisted, there would be no non-Jews living anywhere in Palestine. The Zionist plan, was to be implemented stealthily and the resistance of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with its inherent publicity and UN attention, made it impossible for the Jews to implement their plan of removing all the non-Jews from Palestine. Had the Christians and Muslims behaved like sheep they would have been eliminated one way or another. The Jews, left to their own devices, are an evil people, like Muslims, in short, they are not Christians and do not have our Christian values, that is what you fail to understand Rocco.
"... it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.....Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country....."
"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Did you respond to my request to supply your historical knowledge base?
So you are a Jew Hating piece of scum.montelatici, et al,
This might be true in a majority of cases. But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
(COMMENT)What difference does it make Rocco? Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary. Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.
In 1918, the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers.
- XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen,Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
The original unconditional surrender was made to the Allied Powers, by the Ottoman Empire, before the Turkish Government was established (29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey).
At the San Remo Convention (26 April 1920), the Allied Supreme Council (Principal Allied Powers of World War I )
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not finalized until several years later. The conference's decisions were the basis of the never-implemented Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97).In 1920, the Allied Powers proceeded to accomplish their goals under this agreement; understanding that Turkey will accept the terms and any decision the Allied Powers made.
Turkey rejected this treaty, after Kemal Ataturk revolted, overthrew the Sultan and produced "facts on the ground" that nullified grants of territory to the Greeks and other concessions. The allies also quarreled over the mandates and their jurisdiction. The conference's decisions were finally confirmed, after considerable modification, by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. ...
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
The San Remo Resolution is the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home." Class "A" mandates were mandates that were presumed to eventually become self governing and independent.
Attempts in 1923 to provide the tutelage for the Arab population was rejected by the Arab Representative. Three attempts in total were made to bring the Arabs closer to self-governance --- and three times it was rejected. The Arab leaders declined these offers on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. The aspirations apparently being the establishment of another Arab State over the remained of the territory to which the mandate applied.
What difference does it make Rocco?
In 1948, the Jewish Population did not insist that they should have "X" amount of territory allotted to them simply because of historical ties. The Jewish Immigrants, coming to the territory under the auspices of the Mandate --- exercised the self-determination --- following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly. By contrast, “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration” in that they owned land. They insisted that the UN and the Mandatory, to which the Ottoman/Turkish Government surrendered, had no authority to allocate the territory or to recognize self-determination of a formally invited and duly authorized immigrants following the UN adopted process. The Jewish population, although they claim a historical connection to the land, and that the Allied Powers recognized as having a historical connection, did not entirely rely on that aspect of the bid for independence. Whereas the Arab Palestinian did everything in its power to alienate the UN and the Allied Powers, and avoid cooperation in the process at every turn. In the end, the conditions today generally reflect that outcome and temperament. As we all know, failure to comply with the general rules and practices will normally meet with negative results.
In hindsight, how much better-off would the Palestinian be today if they had mimicked the Jewish Agency and followed the parallel of a Arab Agency? How much better-off would the Arab Palestinian be today if they had not encouraged or induced an Arab League Assault and Invasion into the territory to which the Mandate applied in 1948?
Most Respectfully,
R
It was an invasion of Palestine. It would as if the millions arriving in Europe now were to insist on a state of their own on Europe. If the indigenous people had not resisted, there would be no non-Jews living anywhere in Palestine. The Zionist plan, was to be implemented stealthily and the resistance of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with its inherent publicity and UN attention, made it impossible for the Jews to implement their plan of removing all the non-Jews from Palestine. Had the Christians and Muslims behaved like sheep they would have been eliminated one way or another. The Jews, left to their own devices, are an evil people, like Muslims, in short, they are not Christians and do not have our Christian values, that is what you fail to understand Rocco.
"... it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.....Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country....."
"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Did you respond to my request to supply your historical knowledge base?
I provide sources, via links. Read them.
So you are a Jew Hating piece of scum.montelatici, et al,
This might be true in a majority of cases. But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
(COMMENT)What difference does it make Rocco? Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary. Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.
In 1918, the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers.
- XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen,Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
The original unconditional surrender was made to the Allied Powers, by the Ottoman Empire, before the Turkish Government was established (29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey).
At the San Remo Convention (26 April 1920), the Allied Supreme Council (Principal Allied Powers of World War I )
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not finalized until several years later. The conference's decisions were the basis of the never-implemented Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97).In 1920, the Allied Powers proceeded to accomplish their goals under this agreement; understanding that Turkey will accept the terms and any decision the Allied Powers made.
Turkey rejected this treaty, after Kemal Ataturk revolted, overthrew the Sultan and produced "facts on the ground" that nullified grants of territory to the Greeks and other concessions. The allies also quarreled over the mandates and their jurisdiction. The conference's decisions were finally confirmed, after considerable modification, by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. ...
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
The San Remo Resolution is the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home." Class "A" mandates were mandates that were presumed to eventually become self governing and independent.
Attempts in 1923 to provide the tutelage for the Arab population was rejected by the Arab Representative. Three attempts in total were made to bring the Arabs closer to self-governance --- and three times it was rejected. The Arab leaders declined these offers on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. The aspirations apparently being the establishment of another Arab State over the remained of the territory to which the mandate applied.
What difference does it make Rocco?
In 1948, the Jewish Population did not insist that they should have "X" amount of territory allotted to them simply because of historical ties. The Jewish Immigrants, coming to the territory under the auspices of the Mandate --- exercised the self-determination --- following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly. By contrast, “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration” in that they owned land. They insisted that the UN and the Mandatory, to which the Ottoman/Turkish Government surrendered, had no authority to allocate the territory or to recognize self-determination of a formally invited and duly authorized immigrants following the UN adopted process. The Jewish population, although they claim a historical connection to the land, and that the Allied Powers recognized as having a historical connection, did not entirely rely on that aspect of the bid for independence. Whereas the Arab Palestinian did everything in its power to alienate the UN and the Allied Powers, and avoid cooperation in the process at every turn. In the end, the conditions today generally reflect that outcome and temperament. As we all know, failure to comply with the general rules and practices will normally meet with negative results.
In hindsight, how much better-off would the Palestinian be today if they had mimicked the Jewish Agency and followed the parallel of a Arab Agency? How much better-off would the Arab Palestinian be today if they had not encouraged or induced an Arab League Assault and Invasion into the territory to which the Mandate applied in 1948?
Most Respectfully,
R
It was an invasion of Palestine. It would as if the millions arriving in Europe now were to insist on a state of their own on Europe. If the indigenous people had not resisted, there would be no non-Jews living anywhere in Palestine. The Zionist plan, was to be implemented stealthily and the resistance of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with its inherent publicity and UN attention, made it impossible for the Jews to implement their plan of removing all the non-Jews from Palestine. Had the Christians and Muslims behaved like sheep they would have been eliminated one way or another. The Jews, left to their own devices, are an evil people, like Muslims, in short, they are not Christians and do not have our Christian values, that is what you fail to understand Rocco.
"... it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.....Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country....."
"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Did you respond to my request to supply your historical knowledge base?
I provide sources, via links. Read them.
But I already knew that.
You see people, these Jew Haters LOVE the weak non-Jewish Jew.
And Jew Haters even hate Jews who convert and then rise to the top of society and start running the nation in which they are currently residing.
Most of the Jews in the US who are at the top of the political game are non-Jewish Jews who are still blamed for everything wrong in the world.
Monte and company won't be happy until all Jews, religious and not, are exterminated.
So you are a Jew Hating piece of scum.montelatici, et al,
This might be true in a majority of cases. But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
(COMMENT)
In 1918, the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers.
- XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen,Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
The original unconditional surrender was made to the Allied Powers, by the Ottoman Empire, before the Turkish Government was established (29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey).
At the San Remo Convention (26 April 1920), the Allied Supreme Council (Principal Allied Powers of World War I )
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not finalized until several years later. The conference's decisions were the basis of the never-implemented Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97).In 1920, the Allied Powers proceeded to accomplish their goals under this agreement; understanding that Turkey will accept the terms and any decision the Allied Powers made.
Turkey rejected this treaty, after Kemal Ataturk revolted, overthrew the Sultan and produced "facts on the ground" that nullified grants of territory to the Greeks and other concessions. The allies also quarreled over the mandates and their jurisdiction. The conference's decisions were finally confirmed, after considerable modification, by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. ...
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
The San Remo Resolution is the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home." Class "A" mandates were mandates that were presumed to eventually become self governing and independent.
Attempts in 1923 to provide the tutelage for the Arab population was rejected by the Arab Representative. Three attempts in total were made to bring the Arabs closer to self-governance --- and three times it was rejected. The Arab leaders declined these offers on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. The aspirations apparently being the establishment of another Arab State over the remained of the territory to which the mandate applied.
In 1948, the Jewish Population did not insist that they should have "X" amount of territory allotted to them simply because of historical ties. The Jewish Immigrants, coming to the territory under the auspices of the Mandate --- exercised the self-determination --- following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly. By contrast, “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration” in that they owned land. They insisted that the UN and the Mandatory, to which the Ottoman/Turkish Government surrendered, had no authority to allocate the territory or to recognize self-determination of a formally invited and duly authorized immigrants following the UN adopted process. The Jewish population, although they claim a historical connection to the land, and that the Allied Powers recognized as having a historical connection, did not entirely rely on that aspect of the bid for independence. Whereas the Arab Palestinian did everything in its power to alienate the UN and the Allied Powers, and avoid cooperation in the process at every turn. In the end, the conditions today generally reflect that outcome and temperament. As we all know, failure to comply with the general rules and practices will normally meet with negative results.
In hindsight, how much better-off would the Palestinian be today if they had mimicked the Jewish Agency and followed the parallel of a Arab Agency? How much better-off would the Arab Palestinian be today if they had not encouraged or induced an Arab League Assault and Invasion into the territory to which the Mandate applied in 1948?
Most Respectfully,
R
It was an invasion of Palestine. It would as if the millions arriving in Europe now were to insist on a state of their own on Europe. If the indigenous people had not resisted, there would be no non-Jews living anywhere in Palestine. The Zionist plan, was to be implemented stealthily and the resistance of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with its inherent publicity and UN attention, made it impossible for the Jews to implement their plan of removing all the non-Jews from Palestine. Had the Christians and Muslims behaved like sheep they would have been eliminated one way or another. The Jews, left to their own devices, are an evil people, like Muslims, in short, they are not Christians and do not have our Christian values, that is what you fail to understand Rocco.
"... it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.....Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country....."
"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Did you respond to my request to supply your historical knowledge base?
I provide sources, via links. Read them.
But I already knew that.
You see people, these Jew Haters LOVE the weak non-Jewish Jew.
And Jew Haters even hate Jews who convert and then rise to the top of society and start running the nation in which they are currently residing.
Most of the Jews in the US who are at the top of the political game are non-Jewish Jews who are still blamed for everything wrong in the world.
Monte and company won't be happy until all Jews, religious and not, are exterminated.
What is a "non-Jewish Jew"? Sounds like an oxymoron.
I have nothing against Jews. I do hate oppressive regimes that oppress others because of their race, religion or any other characteristic.
Jews are not hated in Europe?Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe. Zionists are hated by many.
Jews are not hated in Europe?Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe. Zionists are hated by many.
White Supremists in the US don't blame the Jews in Congress and the President's Cabinet for all the ills in the world?
Are you on crack?
Jews are not hated in Europe?Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe. Zionists are hated by many.
White Supremists in the US don't blame the Jews in Congress and the President's Cabinet for all the ills in the world?
Are you on crack?
I don't see Jewish kids being killed by police in the U.S. The police seem to kill blacks, not Jews. The old victim thing doesn't work anymore. Jews are not hated in Europe or the U.S.
Zionists are hated in Europe, not Jews.
Jews are not hated in Europe?Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe. Zionists are hated by many.
White Supremists in the US don't blame the Jews in Congress and the President's Cabinet for all the ills in the world?
Are you on crack?
I don't see Jewish kids being killed by police in the U.S. The police seem to kill blacks, not Jews. The old victim thing doesn't work anymore. Jews are not hated in Europe or the U.S.
Zionists are hated in Europe, not Jews.
France, Neo-Nazi groups in Great Britain, Germany actually having to outlaw Free Speech in regards to Jew Hatred.
Read much outside of I Hate Israel sites?
