Israel faces mindboggling threat from 150,000 missiles

[Rigby5]

So, why do Jewish texts, say otherwise?

There are a LOT of Jewish texts. They say a LOT of things. They often have apparent contradictions. They often have multiple interpretations. They are often subjected to vigorous debate (all recorded). They are always subject to new information in the forms of new technology or newly understood scientific principles.

You, as a non-Jew and one prone to an atrocious lack of understanding and tolerance, do not get to take the enormous bulk of Jewish knowledge and decide, on behalf of all humanity, that this tiny subset of Jews are "right" and hold the key to the Jewish faith.

Only the Jewish people, as a collective, get to apply meaning to Jewish law and faith.

NO! This is not at all true.
When the Romans easily defeated the Jewish rebellion of 160 AD, the Jews had to come up with a reason how that could happen. The choices were that God did not exist or was not all powerful, that Jews were not the Chosen People, or that they had sinned and were being punished. So it is JEWS, ALL JEWS, who agreed they would disperse and atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, (like the massacre of the Canaanites at Jericho).
That can NOT be changes by atheists now who only call themselves Jews but no longer follow the faith.
And NO, it is not just Jews who get to decide, because the atheist Jews are claiming all of Palestine.
That is not their call, so they have to do be restrained by the Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law has to supersede false religious claims.

 

[Shusha]

Then why did the Jews disperse after the 160 AD defeat,

They were ethnically cleansed after defeat by an invading conquest of a foreign empire.

and why were they told to atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, so that the Messiah would come, as a sign they had been forgiven?

That is a matter for the Jewish faith to determine. Its not a matter for people of other faiths to (mis)interpret. And the very idea that people of other faiths can or should impart their beliefs on others is abhorrent. You are welcome to your faith. You don't get to re-imagine ours.

Who is a real Jew and who is a fake Jews is not for atheists like Zionists to decide.

Again, it is not for non-Jews to decide who is or who is not a Jew. The Jewish people are the sole arbiters of identification. (Incidentally, true for all faiths. I don't get to decide who is a real Muslim and who is not).

 

[Shusha]

So, why do Jewish texts, say otherwise?

There are a LOT of Jewish texts. They say a LOT of things. They often have apparent contradictions. They often have multiple interpretations. They are often subjected to vigorous debate (all recorded). They are always subject to new information in the forms of new technology or newly understood scientific principles.

You, as a non-Jew and one prone to an atrocious lack of understanding and tolerance, do not get to take the enormous bulk of Jewish knowledge and decide, on behalf of all humanity, that this tiny subset of Jews are "right" and hold the key to the Jewish faith.

Only the Jewish people, as a collective, get to apply meaning to Jewish law and faith.

NO! This is not at all true.
When the Romans easily defeated the Jewish rebellion of 160 AD, the Jews had to come up with a reason how that could happen. The choices were that God did not exist or was not all powerful, that Jews were not the Chosen People, or that they had sinned and were being punished. So it is JEWS, ALL JEWS, who agreed they would disperse and atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, (like the massacre of the Canaanites at Jericho).
That can NOT be changes by atheists now who only call themselves Jews but no longer follow the faith.
And NO, it is not just Jews who get to decide, because the atheist Jews are claiming all of Palestine.
That is not their call, so they have to do be restrained by the Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law has to supersede false religious claims.

Seriously?

You don't see the ridiculousness of claiming that you understand a religious faith better than the adherents of that faith do? And the ridiculousness of you claiming to be the arbiter of "false religious claims"? You don't see the ugliness of that line of thinking?

 

[Rigby5]

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

You are reaching in the EXTREME to suggest that the above noted paragraph in any way precludes, in perpetuity, any Jewish involvement in any future self-determining, sovereign government. Especially considering the language of the Mandate for Palestine, which expressly invites such a thing.

NO!!!!
The language of the Mandate for Palestine does not at all include anything for Jews in Palestine except a safe haven under Arab rule.
That should be obvious since the Jews were not even living in Palestine in any significant number yet.
Clearly Gt. Britain would not have any legal authority concerning immigration, over the desires and interests of the indigenous natives.
The acceptance of Jewish immigration into Palestine was at the permission of the local natives.
They have decided it would be good for Palestine, because European Jews would bring in much needed capital for improvements.
But at no time had anyone at that time considered that Jews would ever have the desire or ability to take over.
And they are still a minority even now, with only 6 million Jews and 12 million Muslim Palestinians.
In no way could anyone ever suggest any possibility of Jewish participation in rule.

{...
In Palestine, the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" was to be established inside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population; .... The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities. On 29 November 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed, envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem being transferred to UN trusteeship. Two weeks later, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would terminate on 15 May 1948. On the last day of the Mandate, the creation of the State of Israel was proclaimed, and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War began.
...}

The Balfour Declaration was not legal because Palestine was under legal ownership of the Ottoman Empire at the time, so it was clearly just enticement, without legal basis.
The real agreement was made with the Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, (T.E. Lawrence), who had promised Arab Palestinian independence for help against the Ottoman Empire. So the legal binding contract with with the Arabs, not the Jews.

 

[Rigby5]

Then why did the Jews disperse after the 160 AD defeat,

They were ethnically cleansed after defeat by an invading conquest of a foreign empire.

and why were they told to atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, so that the Messiah would come, as a sign they had been forgiven?

That is a matter for the Jewish faith to determine. Its not a matter for people of other faiths to (mis)interpret. And the very idea that people of other faiths can or should impart their beliefs on others is abhorrent. You are welcome to your faith. You don't get to re-imagine ours.

Who is a real Jew and who is a fake Jews is not for atheists like Zionists to decide.

Again, it is not for non-Jews to decide who is or who is not a Jew. The Jewish people are the sole arbiters of identification. (Incidentally, true for all faiths. I don't get to decide who is a real Muslim and who is not).

Wrong!

The Hebrew tribes were illegal invader from the beginning.
And no one liked their arrogance or hostility.
They were defeated and forced to leave by the Assyrians and later the Babylonians, even before the Romans.
The reality is that it was the Romans who brought the Jews back into Palestine, in order to rule for them.
For example, King Herod the Great was actually just a Roman who claimed to convert to Judaism.
They were not ethnically cleansed by an invading conquest of a foreign power.
They were ordered to leave by their employer who fired them for arrogance and incompetence.
They were lucky they were not all killed, after pulling such a stupid stunt as starting a rebellion.

Any scholar can easily verify the fact I am right.
History can not be altered by anyone, no matter what religion then can claim to believe in.
The facts are the facts, and Jews are NOT supposed to go to Jerusalem until the Messiah comes.
PERIOD!
If you do NOT believe that, then you are NOT Jewish!

And YES, everyone does get to decide who is a real Muslim if they drink alcohol, murder innocent people, etc.
No one gets to commit crimes by falsely trying to hide behind a religion when that clearly is a lie.

 

[Rigby5]

So, why do Jewish texts, say otherwise?

There are a LOT of Jewish texts. They say a LOT of things. They often have apparent contradictions. They often have multiple interpretations. They are often subjected to vigorous debate (all recorded). They are always subject to new information in the forms of new technology or newly understood scientific principles.

You, as a non-Jew and one prone to an atrocious lack of understanding and tolerance, do not get to take the enormous bulk of Jewish knowledge and decide, on behalf of all humanity, that this tiny subset of Jews are "right" and hold the key to the Jewish faith.

Only the Jewish people, as a collective, get to apply meaning to Jewish law and faith.

NO! This is not at all true.
When the Romans easily defeated the Jewish rebellion of 160 AD, the Jews had to come up with a reason how that could happen. The choices were that God did not exist or was not all powerful, that Jews were not the Chosen People, or that they had sinned and were being punished. So it is JEWS, ALL JEWS, who agreed they would disperse and atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, (like the massacre of the Canaanites at Jericho).
That can NOT be changes by atheists now who only call themselves Jews but no longer follow the faith.
And NO, it is not just Jews who get to decide, because the atheist Jews are claiming all of Palestine.
That is not their call, so they have to do be restrained by the Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law has to supersede false religious claims.

Seriously?

You don't see the ridiculousness of claiming that you understand a religious faith better than the adherents of that faith do? And the ridiculousness of you claiming to be the arbiter of "false religious claims"? You don't see the ugliness of that line of thinking?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem?
How many times do I have to tell you I AM Jewish, and do I have to show you that all ultra orthodox Jews agree with me that modern Zionism is sinful and against Judaism?
Clearly the Jewish traditions on Zionism have for thousands of years been predicated on atonement and the coming of the Messiah. No one could be remotely Jewish and believe otherwise.
Who best can speak for Judaism?
Atheists like Netanyhu, or the ultra orthodox?

 

[Shusha]

NO!!!!
The language of the Mandate for Palestine does not at all include anything for Jews in Palestine except a safe haven under Arab rule.

LOL. No.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 11.
The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.


The Mandate clearly, unequivocally envisioned Jewish participation in government. Indeed ONLY mentioned Jewish participation in government. There is absolutely no mention of "Arab rule", let alone a prohibition on Jewish participation in government.

Clearly Gt. Britain would not have any legal authority concerning immigration, over the desires and interests of the indigenous natives.

On the contrary, all of the legal authority fell to the Allied Powers at the conclusion of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

The Balfour Declaration was not legal because Palestine was under legal ownership of the Ottoman Empire at the time, so it was clearly just enticement, without legal basis.

The Balfour Declaration is not part of law. Its just a letter. BUT it became law, when it was entrenched in the Mandate for Palestine and the San Remo agreements. The Ottoman Empire relinquished control over the territory in 1923. After that, it had no more claim to the territory. The principle of self-determination gave rise to the valid legal claim made by the Jewish people. Supported by the international community of the time. Entrenched in law.

 

[Shusha]

So, why do Jewish texts, say otherwise?

There are a LOT of Jewish texts. They say a LOT of things. They often have apparent contradictions. They often have multiple interpretations. They are often subjected to vigorous debate (all recorded). They are always subject to new information in the forms of new technology or newly understood scientific principles.

You, as a non-Jew and one prone to an atrocious lack of understanding and tolerance, do not get to take the enormous bulk of Jewish knowledge and decide, on behalf of all humanity, that this tiny subset of Jews are "right" and hold the key to the Jewish faith.

Only the Jewish people, as a collective, get to apply meaning to Jewish law and faith.

NO! This is not at all true.
When the Romans easily defeated the Jewish rebellion of 160 AD, the Jews had to come up with a reason how that could happen. The choices were that God did not exist or was not all powerful, that Jews were not the Chosen People, or that they had sinned and were being punished. So it is JEWS, ALL JEWS, who agreed they would disperse and atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, (like the massacre of the Canaanites at Jericho).
That can NOT be changes by atheists now who only call themselves Jews but no longer follow the faith.
And NO, it is not just Jews who get to decide, because the atheist Jews are claiming all of Palestine.
That is not their call, so they have to do be restrained by the Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law has to supersede false religious claims.

Seriously?

You don't see the ridiculousness of claiming that you understand a religious faith better than the adherents of that faith do? And the ridiculousness of you claiming to be the arbiter of "false religious claims"? You don't see the ugliness of that line of thinking?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem?
How many times do I have to tell you I AM Jewish, and do I have to show you that all ultra orthodox Jews agree with me that modern Zionism is sinful and against Judaism?
Clearly the Jewish traditions on Zionism have for thousands of years been predicated on atonement and the coming of the Messiah. No one could be remotely Jewish and believe otherwise.
Who best can speak for Judaism?
Atheists like Netanyhu, or the ultra orthodox?

I was addressing Sobie, who has self-identified as not Jewish.

 

[protectionist]

DNA is relevant because Asiatic invaders are never going to accept Islam really, since Mohammad would not be of their same nationality.
They adopted Islam as an advantage, something with power they could control, not because of beliefs.

As far as the Quran, have you ever read it?
It is very just and peaceful, suggesting one never resort to violence unnecessarily.
Violence is only justified in defense, not conquest.

What kind of numbskull could ever make a statement like this, or agree with it ? Rigby is a Muslim jihadist screwball, so anything might come from his posts, but SSE, you should know better.

Koran 8:12 >> "" I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

And I have read 18 translations of the Koran, since 1959, most recently Dawood, Pickthall, Ali, Shakir, and Arberry, What would you like to know ?

 

[protectionist]

Timur the Great looks very Mongolian to me.

{...
Timur[3] ( 9 April 1336 – 18 February 1405), sometimes spelled Taimur and historically best known as Amir Timur or Tamerlane[4] ( "Timur the Lame"), was a Turco-Mongol Persianate[5][6]conqueror. As the founder of the Timurid Empire in and around modern-day Iran and Central Asia, he became the first ruler of the Timurid dynasty.[7] According to John Joseph Saunders, Timur was "the product of an Islamized and Iranized society", and not steppe nomadic.[8]

Born into the Barlas confederation in Transoxiana (in modern-day Uzbekistan) on 9 April 1336, Timur gained control of the western Chagatai Khanate by 1370. From that base, he led military campaigns across Western, South and Central Asia, the Caucasus and southern Russia, and emerged as the most powerful ruler in the Muslim world after defeating the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria, the emerging Ottoman Empire, and the declining Delhi Sultanate.[9] From these conquests, he founded the Timurid Empire, but this empire fragmented shortly after his death.

Timur was the last of the great nomadic conquerors of the Eurasian Steppe, and his empire set the stage for the rise of the more structured and lasting Gunpowder Empires in the 16th and 17th centuries.[10][11]:1 Timur envisioned the restoration of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan (died 1227) and according to Gérard Chaliand, saw himself as Genghis Khan's heir.[12] Though not a Borjigid or a descendant of Genghis Khan,[13] he clearly sought to invoke the legacy of the latter's conquests during his lifetime.[14] According to Beatrice Forbes Manz, "in his formal correspondence Temur continued throughout his life to portray himself as the restorer of Chinggisidrights. He justified his Iranian, Mamluk, and Ottoman campaigns as a re-imposition of legitimate Mongol control over lands taken by usurpers."[15] To legitimize his conquests, Timur relied on Islamic symbols and language, referred to himself as the "Sword of Islam", and patronized educational and religious institutions. He converted nearly all the Borjigin leaders to Islam during his lifetime. Timur decisively defeated the Christian Knights Hospitaller at the Siege of Smyrna, styling himself a ghazi.[16]:91 By the end of his reign, Timur had gained complete control over all the remnants of the Chagatai Khanate, the Ilkhanate, and the Golden Horde, and even attempted to restore the Yuan dynasty in China.

Timur's armies were inclusively multi-ethnic and were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe,[16] sizable parts of which his campaigns laid to waste.[17] Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population at the time.
...}

Informative without necessity.

 

[protectionist]

First of all, I am Jewish.
But anyone can read what the Jewish religious leaders decided after their defeat by the Romans in 160 AD.
So then YES, anyone can read and then tell what is authentic for the Jewish people.
Anyone attempting to make Zion on Earth by force is committing a sin according to Judaism.

You're a Muslim jihadist.

 

[protectionist]

I can find agreements made between Jews who wished to emigrate to Palestine and the Ottoman rulers, but the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 probably says it all best.
From the Avalon project at Yale:

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

So then the massive and unregulated Jewish immigration was illegal, and they deliberately also smuggled in weapons and started murdering British soldiers. But at no time were Jews ever more than a third of the population.
Yet the UN then illegally took over 55% of Palestine and illegally gave it to the Israelis.
That is especially criminal since Jews had never purchased more than 5% of the land, and most of the Jews in Israel illegally live in stolen homes.

Useless, pointless, worthless "knowledge". Jews resided in the Middle Wast for thousands of years. Muslims started up and stole it from them. No territory anywhere should be Muslim.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong!

The Hebrew tribes were illegal invader from the beginning.

How can a people (Jews) who inhabited an area for thousands of years before another group (Muslims) existed, be an illegal invader in that area ? Of course that is preposterous, as is your bullshit presence in this forum.

 

[protectionist]

It sounds like you think
genocide is acceptable, against Muslims, because you don't like them.
Wow, just wow.

Why did Irish Catholics, Irish Protestants, Jews, Italians, Germans, Basque, Cubans, all engage in far more terrorist activities than the Islamic Tatars, who look pretty White looking?

I tend to disagree, I think the Muslim problem is mostly racial, rather than religious.

NO, it does NOT "sound like" that at all. What it sounds like is that I think SELF-DEFENSE is acceptable against the #1 genocidal maniacs of world history (ie. Islamic lunatics).

The Muslim problem is neither racial nor religious. Muslims are of all race, and Islam is a vile, satanic cult, not a religion.

 

[protectionist]

Nuke the filthy murdering ragheads.

 

[Rigby5]

NO!!!!
The language of the Mandate for Palestine does not at all include anything for Jews in Palestine except a safe haven under Arab rule.

LOL. No.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 11.
The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.


The Mandate clearly, unequivocally envisioned Jewish participation in government. Indeed ONLY mentioned Jewish participation in government. There is absolutely no mention of "Arab rule", let alone a prohibition on Jewish participation in government.

Clearly Gt. Britain would not have any legal authority concerning immigration, over the desires and interests of the indigenous natives.

On the contrary, all of the legal authority fell to the Allied Powers at the conclusion of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

The Balfour Declaration was not legal because Palestine was under legal ownership of the Ottoman Empire at the time, so it was clearly just enticement, without legal basis.

The Balfour Declaration is not part of law. Its just a letter. BUT it became law, when it was entrenched in the Mandate for Palestine and the San Remo agreements. The Ottoman Empire relinquished control over the territory in 1923. After that, it had no more claim to the territory. The principle of self-determination gave rise to the valid legal claim made by the Jewish people. Supported by the international community of the time. Entrenched in law.

Your reading comprehension needs much work.
Clearly the Jews were ONLY being given encouragement to develop an economic agency to coordinate Jewish economic activities. Absolutely NO participation in government what so ever.
The entire point of the British Mandate for Palestine was the obligation of Britain to defend the Arab administration of Palestine until it could defend itself.
Gt. Britain was to have no sovereignty over Palestine, at all.
The word "Mandate" means an "obligation".
The British had to pay the Palestinians back for helping to defeat the Ottoman Empire.
Jews were owed no such obligation.

And you seem to not know that the Balfour Declaration was at all.
It was in 1916, while the war was still ongoing, and England have not even captured any of the Ottoman Empire yet.
And all the Balfour Declaration said was that the government of Gt. Britain would look favorably on a Jewish homeland inside of an independent Arab Palestine.

In 1923 the population was over 90% Muslim Arab, and the Jews were not at all an indigenous population, native, or the majority. It was and is criminal for them to try to rule.

 

[Rigby5]

DNA is relevant because Asiatic invaders are never going to accept Islam really, since Mohammad would not be of their same nationality.
They adopted Islam as an advantage, something with power they could control, not because of beliefs.

As far as the Quran, have you ever read it?
It is very just and peaceful, suggesting one never resort to violence unnecessarily.
Violence is only justified in defense, not conquest.

What kind of numbskull could ever make a statement like this, or agree with it ? Rigby is a Muslim jihadist screwball, so anything might come from his posts, but SSE, you should know better.

Koran 8:12 >> "" I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

And I have read 18 translations of the Koran, since 1959, most recently Dawood, Pickthall, Ali, Shakir, and Arberry, What would you like to know ?

Wrong again.
You can't take a single line out of context.
For example, 8:12 is about war, after you have been attacked.
It does not mean you are supposed to attack nonbelievers if they have not attacked you first.
The title of the 9th Surrah is Forgiveness and Redemption, which mean you are supposed to forgive those who turn traitor on you twice, and only slay them where ever you find them, after they do it a third time.

 

[Rigby5]

Timur the Great looks very Mongolian to me.

{...
Timur[3] ( 9 April 1336 – 18 February 1405), sometimes spelled Taimur and historically best known as Amir Timur or Tamerlane[4] ( "Timur the Lame"), was a Turco-Mongol Persianate[5][6]conqueror. As the founder of the Timurid Empire in and around modern-day Iran and Central Asia, he became the first ruler of the Timurid dynasty.[7] According to John Joseph Saunders, Timur was "the product of an Islamized and Iranized society", and not steppe nomadic.[8]

Born into the Barlas confederation in Transoxiana (in modern-day Uzbekistan) on 9 April 1336, Timur gained control of the western Chagatai Khanate by 1370. From that base, he led military campaigns across Western, South and Central Asia, the Caucasus and southern Russia, and emerged as the most powerful ruler in the Muslim world after defeating the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria, the emerging Ottoman Empire, and the declining Delhi Sultanate.[9] From these conquests, he founded the Timurid Empire, but this empire fragmented shortly after his death.

Timur was the last of the great nomadic conquerors of the Eurasian Steppe, and his empire set the stage for the rise of the more structured and lasting Gunpowder Empires in the 16th and 17th centuries.[10][11]:1 Timur envisioned the restoration of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan (died 1227) and according to Gérard Chaliand, saw himself as Genghis Khan's heir.[12] Though not a Borjigid or a descendant of Genghis Khan,[13] he clearly sought to invoke the legacy of the latter's conquests during his lifetime.[14] According to Beatrice Forbes Manz, "in his formal correspondence Temur continued throughout his life to portray himself as the restorer of Chinggisidrights. He justified his Iranian, Mamluk, and Ottoman campaigns as a re-imposition of legitimate Mongol control over lands taken by usurpers."[15] To legitimize his conquests, Timur relied on Islamic symbols and language, referred to himself as the "Sword of Islam", and patronized educational and religious institutions. He converted nearly all the Borjigin leaders to Islam during his lifetime. Timur decisively defeated the Christian Knights Hospitaller at the Siege of Smyrna, styling himself a ghazi.[16]:91 By the end of his reign, Timur had gained complete control over all the remnants of the Chagatai Khanate, the Ilkhanate, and the Golden Horde, and even attempted to restore the Yuan dynasty in China.

Timur's armies were inclusively multi-ethnic and were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe,[16] sizable parts of which his campaigns laid to waste.[17] Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population at the time.
...}

Informative without necessity.

No, the necessity was to show that the conflict with the west was successive nomadic horsemen off the Steppes and not Arabs.
Does the bust of Timor look Arab or Mongolian?

 

[Rigby5]

It sounds like you think
genocide is acceptable, against Muslims, because you don't like them.
Wow, just wow.

Why did Irish Catholics, Irish Protestants, Jews, Italians, Germans, Basque, Cubans, all engage in far more terrorist activities than the Islamic Tatars, who look pretty White looking?

I tend to disagree, I think the Muslim problem is mostly racial, rather than religious.

NO, it does NOT "sound like" that at all. What it sounds like is that I think SELF-DEFENSE is acceptable against the #1 genocidal maniacs of world history (ie. Islamic lunatics).

The Muslim problem is neither racial nor religious. Muslims are of all race, and Islam is a vile, satanic cult, not a religion.

Clearly it is the west that was always attacking Muslims.
The Muslims are not the guilty party.
And Islam is the exact same Old Testament.
It is Judaism with only an additional prophet.

 

[Rigby5]

Nuke the filthy murdering ragheads.

If you read the Old Testament, you would know that Jews also are supposed to wear a turban to cover their head.