Israeli Germany?

[BillBryson]

Does it not make sence that instead of the Jews fighting & killing the British after they liberated them in 1945, for the lands of the Palestinians that they instead partition Germany? This was the suggestion put forward by the Saudi Arabian leader at the time & rings true today. I can hardly see wealthy Germans in their BMWs wanting to suicide bomb any Israel formed from German lands. However, the Israelies refused to listen to the apparent wiser Brits & instead chose to kill their soldiers!
Now history is repeating itself with the British (along with the world, excl. US) advising Israel not to build a security wall in someone else's country (technically speaking its all Palestine), if it wasn't the most obvious thing anyway. Blatently they should build it in the Israel defined in 1947 by the UN so as not to infruiate people, anyone could work that out. And the defence that Israelies live in Palestinian lands & so need to be deffended is utter nonsence, go and move back to Israel proper!
There is absolutely no conceivable moral defence for occupying Palestine including the suggestion that all the Jews left in search for the promise land. The Jews of today are merely another European people, thats what happens when you live in Europe for thousands of years. One can tell by the colour of the Palestinian & surrounding nation's skin compared to the white Israelies that they have an extremely diluted claim to their lands.
I do not however hope to convinced any Israelies of this (other than those who are liberal minded) just as the world hasn't been able to.



Mike

 

[5stringJeff]

So the Israelis should just bend over backwards to appease the Palestianian Arabs? They should go back to their non-congruous borders of 1948, even though they won the other land in wars in which they were attacked?

I think you have been listening to too many PLO and Hezbollah broadcasts.

 

[BillBryson]

So the Israelis should just bend over backwards to appease the Palestianian Arabs? They should go back to their non-congruous borders of 1948, even though they won the other land in wars in which they were attacked?

I think you have been listening to too many PLO and Hezbollah broadcasts.

The Palestinians had bent over backwards to appease the Israelis, they were bullied into giving up the land by the UN. No one believes that the European Jews managed to be liberated from the Germans and then occupy the 1948 boarders by themselves. Instead they were helped by the Allies to be given there freedom & then pressured the UN with the sympathy vote to forced the Palestianians to give them the land. If it hadn't been for the Allies they would be all dead, so I'm not sure where you are comming from with this victory idea "even though they won " its far from bieng that straightforward. Had it been that Israel colonised Palestine with their own military & weapons (not US) than maybe you could make that argument. Also you say "which they were attacked?" how were they able to attack Israel when before 1948 it was 98% Palestinian, was it that they seized Palestianian lands. I thnk those land owners would have a different take. How can you suggest that Israel can righfully take Palestianian lands by force?
As for your snub I have never heard a "PLO" or "Hezbollah" broadcast in my life I have merely researched the matter indepthly as should anyone else before they question what I have said for its all factual. Besides I question whether they would be so historical.



Mike

 

[ajwps]

Does it not make sence that instead of the Jews fighting & killing the British after they liberated them in 1945, for the lands of the Palestinians that they instead partition Germany?

Interesting observation. The Jewish Brigades also fought alongside the British and allies against Germany and the Nazis. Would the British government have partitioned Israel if those same Jews did not subtly urge the Brits to leave their English colony in Israel? The Jews then had a land to return to after the British saw the light and went back to England. Does that answer your Arab Saudi leader statement put forward as time and reality proves false?

This was the suggestion put forward by the Saudi Arabian leader at the time & rings true today. I can hardly see wealthy Germans in their BMWs wanting to suicide bomb any Israel formed from German lands.

Well it seems the German people just this week wanted to and voted in the UN to continue the suicide bombing in Israel by their vote against the fence that keeps the Arabs from killing innocent babies, women and men.

However, the Israelies refused to listen to the apparent wiser Brits & instead chose to kill their soldiers!

Premise errors: Brits wiser than the Jews; Jewish people fought against and were killed by the Brits who colonized their 3 eon old land of Israel.

Now history is repeating itself with the British (along with the world, excl. US) advising Israel not to build a security wall in someone else's country (technically speaking its all Palestine), if it wasn't the most obvious thing anyway.

Whose country did you say (technically speaking the Arabs) was building a 'security wall' to protect itself from alien Arabs living in a recognized world democracy? Could you please give proof that Israel was ever an Arab country with recognized borders, a constitution or a valid government! Did you say that the entire world (excluding the US) voted against Israel building a wall to protect itself from foreigners squatting on Jewish lands? The countries voting with the United States were Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Australia and of course Israel. So you are wrong again. What a surprise.

Blatently they should build it in the Israel defined in 1947 by the UN so as not to infruiate people, anyone could work that out. And the defence that Israelies live in Palestinian lands & so need to be deffended is utter nonsence, go and move back to Israel proper!

What people (specifically the Muslim world) were never infuriated or that anyone could not work out for themselves? Could you give a date or a valid document that made Israel a land of Palestinians? Should America go back to England because they captured and moved the Indian peoples off of their ancesteral land into small closed reservations? Who exactly gave you the authority to DEFINE the borders of Israel proper? Possibly you mean in the Mediterranian sea?

There is absolutely no conceivable moral defence for occupying Palestine including the suggestion that all the Jews left in search for the promise land. The Jews of today are merely another European people, thats what happens when you live in Europe for thousands of years. One can tell by the colour of the Palestinian & surrounding nation's skin compared to the white Israelies that they have an extremely diluted claim to their lands.

The Jews originated for the city of Ur in the Chaldees but moved to the land of Israel some 3,316 years ago. They captured this land by the rules of war on more than one occasion. The Jews have lived in Europe but were killed and expelled from those countries as well as all the rest of the nations in which they lived. Now they have returned to their own land, captured and recaptured it fairly and squarely from the surrounding country armies.

Now this entire land belongs to the Jews by right of conquest just like every other country in the entire world. So skin color determines ownership and because they are white instead of olive skin toned, they should leave their lands. You are brilliant.... Who diluted you to irrelevancy?

I do not however hope to convinced any Israelies of this (other than those who are liberal minded) just as the world hasn't been able to.

You really mean that you can't convince any Israeli people (other than the mentally disabled) to leave the land that their youth spilled their blood on to recover their 3 eon long land ownership.

How about you trying to convince the Arab world to move to the antartic where they can find themselves fighting and killing one another in the name of the two nephews of the last great prophet Muhammad!







Mike[/QUOTE]

 

[ajwps]

The Palestinians had bent over backwards to appease the Israelis, they were bullied into giving up the land by the UN. No one believes that the European Jews managed to be liberated from the Germans and then occupy the 1948 boarders by themselves. Instead they were helped by the Allies to be given there freedom & then pressured the UN with the sympathy vote to forced the Palestianians to give them the land. If it hadn't been for the Allies they would be all dead, so I'm not sure where you are comming from with this victory idea "even though they won " its far from bieng that straightforward. Had it been that Israel colonised Palestine with their own military & weapons (not US) than maybe you could make that argument. Also you say "which they were attacked?" how were they able to attack Israel when before 1948 it was 98% Palestinian, was it that they seized Palestianian lands. I thnk those land owners would have a different take. How can you suggest that Israel can righfully take Palestianian lands by force?
As for your snub I have never heard a "PLO" or "Hezbollah" broadcast in my life I have merely researched the matter indepthly as should anyone else before they question what I have said for its all factual. Besides I question whether they would be so historical. Mike

Mike Billy Bryson (Muslim without papers) says Allahu Akbar....

He lies in the name of Allah the moon-rock-god. Recognize your Al-Taqiyya taechnique Muslim?

 

[BillBryson]

Mike is my real name, Bill Bryson is a famous writer whose name I use as an allias to sign up for messageboards etc. I'm from Briton & thats why I have a pro British stance which I had thought was obvious but never mind. I don't have any Muslim blood & I haven't a clue what a "Al-Taqiyya taechnique" is. But personally I find it that to be a racist slur for you suggest my argument would be compromised by believing in a different religion!?! Ok then...

 

[ajwps]

Mike is my real name, Bill Bryson is a famous writer whose name I use as an allias to sign up for messageboards etc. I'm from Briton & thats why I have a pro British stance which I had thought was obvious but never mind. I don't have any Muslim blood & I haven't a clue what a "Al-Taqiyya taechnique" is. But personally I find it that to be a racist slur for you suggest my argument would be compromised by believing in a different religion!?! Ok then...

British Bill you say? The British are serving in Iraq and fighting those same peaceful Islamics that you seem to extol.

What is the official pro-British stance? Is that the one of Tony Blair, the Church of England or the Queen?

You are simply another troll Islamist spouting the lies as authoritized by your British bible the Qur'an.

For you British Muslims who march in your streets against the Blair government. Here is what you use for deceit.

http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran5.html

Al-taqiyya and dissimulation are words used for a practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims. All but some of the most fundamental Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work. This is very important when one remembers that, in Islam, salvation is determined by good works. This means that a Muslim lying to a non-Muslim is that Muslim doing a good work to earn salvation. It is almost equivalent to a Christian accepting Jesus as his savior. One of the big differences is that a Christian only needs to accept Jesus as his savior once to become saved forever but a Muslim must do his good works consistently and repeatedly to earn his salvation with the except of the greatest work of dying while fighting non-Muslims.

Many Muslims live in England while speaking English also speak with the forked tongue you so readily display Mr. Bill......

 

[ajwps]

Mike is my real name....

I noted that you failed to address my post. I guess that fact is sufficient to prove exactly who you are and not who you pretend to be.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.lawrenceofarabia.info/

AJ---brush up on your history-- you will find the discussions regarding the partioning of Palestine interesting !

"In this situation, Clayton argued, Britain would have to maintain a costly army of occupation in Palestine and, 'by definitely alienating Arab sentiment,'9 would also incur very unfavourable consequences for British interests and influence in the Arabian Peninsula and even Mesopotamia.

This led to a conclusion which few British politicians at that time would have found palatable: if Britain did not take both Palestine and Syria, she should take neither of them: 'If France must have Syria it would be preferable that America, or some Power other than Great Britain or France, be given the Mandate for Palestine.' Clayton continued: 'The alternative is to offer to France such inducement as will lead her to renounce her claims in Syria, and to give to some other Power the mandate for both Syria and Palestine. It is only thus that a compromise might be arrived at, between Arab aspirations for a united and autonomous Syria and Zionist demands for a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine . . . In these circumstances the Power entrusted with the Mandate can only be America or Great Britain.'10

As the weeks passed, it became increasingly clear that Clayton was right. Both the British and American Delegations could foresee the additional difficulties which would face the Zionist programme in Palestine if the Arabs were alienated in Syria. Yet there was one immovable factor which prevented a satisfactory solution: namely the attitude of France. "

 

[BillBryson]

First point about the Jewish Brigades this had the same influence on UK as the Russain invloement to the British opinion of Communism. partioned Israel/Palestine they instead handed the problem over to the United Nations as their LoN mandate required. While the Saudi Arabian comment (get them the right way round, smacks of American ignorance) still rings true for if they were given the best bit of Germany then they would still have a homeland to return to.

While the comment about Germany is rediculous, they voted for the wall to be moved back to Israeli land its not theirs or anyone else's thought that Israel chooses to flaunt these boarders & to live within Palestinian lands. If I go & squat in your garden I wouldn't be allowed to anex a portion by building a fence!?!

"Premise errors" "colonized their 3 eon old land of Israel" I think you'll find that Israel/Palestine was occupied by the several Turkish empires since the Romans until WW1. Indeed Britain was given a LoN mandate to stay there until 1948, that would be like suggesting the US was colonising Bosnia. lol. So I'm not sure how these Jews managed to get killed, especially seeing as they weren't living in Palestine at the time of British rule. But please do enlighten me.

You have taken my "(technically speaking the Arabs)" comment out of context perhaps I should of put "Arab's" so meaning Israel or the lands of was Palestinian. While the proof that Israel/Palestine was ever an Arab country can be found in any history of Israel I don't think you will find anyone who would deny Israel has only been in existance since 1948.

I correct my self when I say the entire world we mustn't forget Palau (former US), Micronesia (former US), Marshall Islands (former US AGAIN) & Austrailia. So I forgot 3 US satalite nations, & Austrailia while it was obvious that I hadn't meant Israel so thats 26 million that I forgot to offset agaisnt the other 6.1 billion (US taken into account). Is it just me or was that spliting hairs on your point, "So you are wrong again" lol do you have to resort to that petty level to make your point!?!

I suppose the time when everyone living in the current Israel were Palestinian would be the date say arround thousand+ years ago, just to be on the safe side. But as soon as 1948 they (Jews) were still a minute minority.

This point I utterly agree with you: "Should America go back to England because they captured and moved the Indian peoples off of their ancesteral land into small closed reservations." And that I believe is to be applied here as "Should Palestine go back to the West Bank & Gaza strip because they captured & moved the Palestinian peoples off of their ancesterel land into small refugee camps." Hoist on your own petard.

First of all have I broken a law by which I need to seek permission to define Israel Proper? Well if there is such a law I'm alright because I never did define it, so if you were really pathetic (ie. yourself) than you could interpret it as the current Palestianian land occupied. I did however mean the Isreali boarders of 1948. That is the sillest comment I have ever heard to be honest, first of all its flawed & secondry I never even did it!!! "gave you the authority to DEFINE the borders of Israel proper."

"Possibly you mean in the Mediterranian sea?" No mate read it carefully "Israel defined in 1947 by the UN" Capesh?

"The Jews originated for the city of Ur in the Chaldees but moved to the land of Israel some 3,316 years ago. They captured this land by the rules of war on more than one occasion. The Jews have lived in Europe but were killed and expelled from those countries as well as all the rest of the nations in which they lived. Now they have returned to their own land, captured and recaptured it fairly and squarely from the surrounding country armies."

Oh right so the Jews went from having all their poessions taken away & reduced tojust having the clothes on their backs (European) to capturing a country protected by the larest Empire ever to exist. All from having no guns or weapons, that sounds pretty impressive to me. Or was it that they "fairly" procured weapons from the Americans to fight the poorly equiped arab nations. Either that or the American made Israeli airforce magically appeared. No indeed it was America armed Israel to give it an unfair advantage.

"Now this entire land belongs to the Jews by right of conquest just like every other country in the entire world. So skin color determines ownership and because they are white instead of olive skin toned, they should leave their lands. You are brilliant.... Who diluted you to irrelevancy?"

Can't remember saying leave their lands, I did say occupy the original Palestianian lands seized in 1947 & be happy with that. "defined in 1947 by the UN ."

So you think its natural that a white people should so happen to live in the middle of several olive toned nations. The sun decided not to tan those people living within the Israeli boarders who poessed an Israeli passport. No it because your average "Jew" is indeed European. Do me a favour...

"convince any Israeli people " Interesting English & you're disputing me bieng British lol. "youth spilled their blood" a lot of German blood was spilt durring WW2 should we give them their lebensraum.

"How about you trying to convince the Arab world to move to the antartic where they can find themselves fighting and killing one another in the name of the two nephews of the last great prophet Muhammad!"

Ok then...!?! More Stereotypical American Ignorance?

You need to check up on your History before you dispute what I have said, not just search for the origions of Israel on the net ""The Jews originated for the city of Ur in the Chaldees but moved to the land of Israel some 3,316 years ago." Better luck next time!

 

[BillBryson]

I noted that you failed to address my post. I guess that fact is sufficient to prove exactly who you are and not who you pretend to be.

lol, It took me some time to address your post as you can see!! I think thats something even yourself can not dispute.


While in regard to your Islam crap, don't you think its possible for an Englishman such as myself to have an interest in a former British asset? Or do you think the whole United Kingdom is pro the Isaeli cause!?!

 

[ajwps]

http://www.lawrenceofarabia.info/

AJ---brush up on your history-- you will find the discussions regarding the partioning of Palestine interesting !

"In this situation, Clayton argued, Britain would have to maintain a costly army of occupation in Palestine and, 'by definitely alienating Arab sentiment,'9 would also incur very unfavourable consequences for British interests and influence in the Arabian Peninsula and even Mesopotamia. The following scenario is probably much closer to the truth than Billy boy's versions. The ultimate fact remains clear to this very day. Israel won their land back fair and square. No amount of contrived history can change the current ownership of the country of Israel.

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

This led to a conclusion which few British politicians at that time would have found palatable: if Britain did not take both Palestine and Syria, she should take neither of them: 'If France must have Syria it would be preferable that America, or some Power other than Great Britain or France, be given the Mandate for Palestine.' Clayton continued: 'The alternative is to offer to France such inducement as will lead her to renounce her claims in Syria, and to give to some other Power the mandate for both Syria and Palestine. It is only thus that a compromise might be arrived at, between Arab aspirations for a united and autonomous Syria and Zionist demands for a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine . . . In these circumstances the Power entrusted with the Mandate can only be America or Great Britain.'10

As the weeks passed, it became increasingly clear that Clayton was right. Both the British and American Delegations could foresee the additional difficulties which would face the Zionist programme in Palestine if the Arabs were alienated in Syria. Yet there was one immovable factor which prevented a satisfactory solution: namely the attitude of France. "

You amd Bill say Britain could not afford a costly occupation of just one of their colonies around the world in 1946 and 1947? Why did Britain have to worry about the "alienation of Arab sentiment,'9 would also incur very unfavourable consequences for British interests and influence in the Arabian Peninsula and even Mesopotamia." This is nonsense and is in anyway recorded as fact.

In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now and they were determined to get ALL of that remaining 25%. Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron slaughters of 1929 and later the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British, at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became obvious to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.

The year was 1922, the British were empowered by the League of Nations to fulfill the Mandate of Palestine drafted two years earlier at the San Remo Conference. The Mandate that they accepted, under article 4, obliged them "to secure the cooperation of all willing Jews" and "to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National home". However, in the same year, the 1922 White Paper written by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill declared that Palestine should not be "as Jewish as England is English". This was allegedly to prevent partitioning the land into two (Arab and Jewish). Although the Churchill´s White Paper stated that the Mandate "is not susceptible of change" the British sliced 76% of the land, east of the Jordan River, and gave it Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia). That land was renamed Trans-Jordan. Not even a year had passed and Great Britain was in violation of Article 5 of its Mandate, which stated "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power." From this point on, Jewish immigration to newly partitioned Trans-Jordan was forbidden whilst a blind eye was turned to Arab immigration to the west [of the Jordan River], in complete violation of article 2, which demanded "safeguarding the civil rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion".

It was July 1937, Arab and Jewish relations were as bloody as they ever were. The Peel Commission considered a partitioning of the remaining western Palestine. The British government refused on the basis that it should protect the integrity of the land (west of the Jordan River of course, not the exclusively Arabic Trans-Jordan).

It was 1939, the British were just about to enter World War II. Britain called for the Saint James Conference, a conference to "settle" the bloody disputes between Arabs and Jews. Mufti al- Husseini´s* Arab delegation refused to meet Chaim Weizmann’s Jewish delegation, which he did not "recognize". These discussions lead nowhere. After rejecting, two years earlier, the idea of a Jewish partition in Palestine recommended by the Peel Commission, and after excluding Jews from 76% of the land rightfully theirs as Jews and as citizen of the Mandate, the British decided to impose a solution; it was called the MacDonald´s White Paper. This paper limited legitimate Jewish immigration to 75,000 over a period of five years. In order to get Arab support against Nazi Germany, the British Government left millions of Jews at the hand of the Nazis, condemning them to die in the most horrific circumstances, which we now know, and forbidding them to go to the land promised to them by the League of Nations 17 years earlier. The League of Nations slammed the British stating that "the policy set out in the [MacDonald] White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate."

During their years as a mandatory power, Great Britain sliced the Jewish National Home and did what they could to dilute Jewish presence in the Holy Land. In 1947 the British proposed the land be split once again and gave birth to UNGAR Resolution 181. They knew that the General Assembly [that passed this resolution] had no power, because General Assembly resolutions are under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which is not "imperative" and only "give advices", as the Syrian representative said when he rejected the partition plan, but it was nevertheless accepted by David Ben-Gurion. At the end of that year, the Americans declared an embargo on arm sales to the region "hoping it would avoid bloodshed", but the Jordanians, Egyptians, Iraqis and Syrians where fully armed by the British and the French. Britain had a knack of leaving behind countless munitions and arms in the Arab lands they mandated. Even though the partition was accepted by the General Assembly, the Nations of the World created an environment where the Jewish State would be "born dead".

History decided otherwise. The infant Jewish State managed to import arms from Eastern Europe and, against all the odds, defeated her enemies. Britain´s plan to split the land in three was never accomplished. Trans-Jordan was renamed Jordan when it was granted "independence" in 1946, mirroring British policy, to allow citizenship to any citizen of the Mandate excluding Jews [as codified in their Constitution].

It was 1998, Tony Blair becoming UK Prime Minister a year before he decided to cut his own "White Paper". Robin Cook was then Foreign Minister and, in his own words "with the full backing of his government and the European Union", he went to meet the Palestinian delegation in eastern Jerusalem. According to him, it was to "restart the peace process" that he went to the "controversial" site of Har Homa, angering then-Prime Minister Netanyahu´s government. This was a clear statement of Britain´s intentions to impose "borders" for a future "viable State of Palestine", in complete disregard of UN Resolution 242 and 338.

It was 2002 and Tony Blair became UK Prime Minister for the second time the year before. He decided that it was time for Britain to finish "the job" of breaking off the Land of Israel. 70 years ago, it was in order to avoid Arab riots and to gain Arab support against Hitler, today it is to avoid the "clash of civilization" and get Arab Muslim support against terrorism. In the full sense of the term, British parliament, left-right-and-center, stated many times that "what we are doing is to prevent the radicalization of law- abiding Muslims in this country", probably not afraid of the reactions of the Jews, who are unlikely to hijack their airplanes and plant bombs in their cities. Once again, the government of Her Majesty is ready to sell out the Jews to preserve its own interest. During 2002, Tony Blair decided to invite Bashar Assad - dictator of Syria, ruthless occupier of Lebanon and head of a country that has the "head offices" of virtually every Islamic terrorist groups on the planet, and that cooperates and actively finances the Hezbollah terror group, which keeps on launching barbaric attacks on the north of Israel - to England.

It was early 2003, and Tony Blair decided to hold a "conference" to give a new lifeline to Arafat who was previously “set aside” by US President George W. Bush because he was a "leader compromised by terror". After the massacre of twin homicidal bombers in Tel Aviv, which killed almost 30 people and injured countless more, Israel decided to ban the travel of the PLO delegation to London. Despite the fact that the al-Aqsa Brigade, the PLO’s own kamikaze branch, carried out the bombing, Britain decided to go ahead with the conference via video link, claiming that "we need to move toward peace and reject any form of extremism". Yet, it was the heads of the terror group he invited who massacred Jews less than a fortnight before. The aim of the conference was allegedly to "reform" the PLO, but no demand mad at that conference called on the PLO to remove from its charter the clause calling for the "liquidation" of "the Zionist entity" - in other words the destruction of Israel.

It was March 2003 when Tony Blair finally managed to lobby Bush with the new "White Paper" - the "Road Map". He managed to persuade US President Bush to publish the document drafted by "the Quartet". Bush´s words were "we will publish it, hope that the new PA prime minister has real authority and wait for feedback"; to which Blair replied "I agree, the road map will be implemented and we will not move from it". It looks to me that he has a strange definition of what it is to "agree".

"White Papers" have always been Britain´s "answer" in dealing with the "Jewish problem" in their old Mandate. The policy is simple: cuddling Muslim extremists at the expense of Jewish lives to secure their own interest. In a recent speech, Foreign Minister Jack Straw, backed later that day by Tony Blair, accentuated this sense of unbalance by saying that "we need to show the Arab world that there is a even handed approach with Iraq and Israel...Come the end of the war we will push hard on Israel to implement [the UN Resolutions]." To understand the British position, one need only recall the speech by then-Ambassador to the UN for Israel, Abba Eban, on 23 March 1955, which led to UNSCR 106 condemning Israel´s raid on Egypt´s Gaza. Replace the references to “Egypt” with “PLO” and you will have the full picture today.

Eban said: “At the root of these tensions lie a theory and practice of belligerency. Egypt considers and proclaims that there is ‘a state of war’. In the name of that ‘state of war’, Egypt asserts a ‘right’ to perform hostile acts of its choice against Israel. On the other hand, Egypt claims immunity from any hostile response emanating from Israel. This is the doctrine of unilateral belligerency, and it has no parallel or precedent in the jurisprudence of nations. It is another principle of the Egyptian position that decisions of the Security Council relating to Israel have no binding force upon Egypt. On the other hand, the Security Council´s authority is today invoked to protect Egypt against any reaction that its active prosecution of the ‘state of war’ may elicit.

“It would be strictly and scientifically accurate to describe the essence of the Egyptian position in two sentences: ‘Egypt may behave towards Israel as though there were war. Israel must behave towards Egypt as though there were peace.’”

* Mufti al-Husseini was allegedly the great-uncle of Yasser Arafat. He was a frequent guest and friend of Hitler and a leading figure for Bosnian Muslims in the SS. (INN 04/18/03) Tony Blair´s White Paper (INN-ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS OPINION) Yoram Halberstam 04/18/03)

 

[ajwps]

http://www.lawrenceofarabia.info/

AJ---brush up on your history-- you will find the discussions regarding the partioning of Palestine interesting !

"In this situation, Clayton argued, Britain would have to maintain a costly army of occupation in Palestine and, 'by definitely alienating Arab sentiment,'9 would also incur very unfavourable consequences for British interests and influence in the Arabian Peninsula and even Mesopotamia. The ultimate fact remains clear to this very day. Israel won their land back fair and square. No amount of contrived history can change the current ownership of the country of Israel.

This led to a conclusion which few British politicians at that time would have found palatable: if Britain did not take both Palestine and Syria, she should take neither of them: 'If France must have Syria it would be preferable that America, or some Power other than Great Britain or France, be given the Mandate for Palestine.' Clayton continued: 'The alternative is to offer to France such inducement as will lead her to renounce her claims in Syria, and to give to some other Power the mandate for both Syria and Palestine. It is only thus that a compromise might be arrived at, between Arab aspirations for a united and autonomous Syria and Zionist demands for a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine . . . In these circumstances the Power entrusted with the Mandate can only be America or Great Britain.'10

As the weeks passed, it became increasingly clear that Clayton was right. Both the British and American Delegations could foresee the additional difficulties which would face the Zionist programme in Palestine if the Arabs were alienated in Syria. Yet there was one immovable factor which prevented a satisfactory solution: namely the attitude of France. "

You and Bill say Britain could not afford a costly occupation of just one of their colonies around the world in 1946 and 1947? Why did Britain have to worry about the "alienation of Arab sentiment,'9 would also incur very unfavourable consequences for British interests and influence in the Arabian Peninsula and even Mesopotamia." The site you posted in the fabled Arabist Lawrence of Arabia. Fiction is much like this fabled British arabist. The following scenario is probably much closer to the truth than Billy boy's versions. Creating history from a Lawrence of Arabia site is as valid as the history of Cinderella.


http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Grap...TransJordan.asp

In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now and they were determined to get ALL of that remaining 25%. Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron slaughters of 1929 and later the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British, at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became obvious to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.

The year was 1922, the British were empowered by the League of Nations to fulfill the Mandate of Palestine drafted two years earlier at the San Remo Conference. The Mandate that they accepted, under article 4, obliged them "to secure the cooperation of all willing Jews" and "to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National home". However, in the same year, the 1922 White Paper written by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill declared that Palestine should not be "as Jewish as England is English". This was allegedly to prevent partitioning the land into two (Arab and Jewish). Although the Churchill´s White Paper stated that the Mandate "is not susceptible of change" the British sliced 76% of the land, east of the Jordan River, and gave it Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia). That land was renamed Trans-Jordan. Not even a year had passed and Great Britain was in violation of Article 5 of its Mandate, which stated "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power." From this point on, Jewish immigration to newly partitioned Trans-Jordan was forbidden whilst a blind eye was turned to Arab immigration to the west [of the Jordan River], in complete violation of article 2, which demanded "safeguarding the civil rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion".

It was July 1937, Arab and Jewish relations were as bloody as they ever were. The Peel Commission considered a partitioning of the remaining western Palestine. The British government refused on the basis that it should protect the integrity of the land (west of the Jordan River of course, not the exclusively Arabic Trans-Jordan).

It was 1939, the British were just about to enter World War II. Britain called for the Saint James Conference, a conference to "settle" the bloody disputes between Arabs and Jews. Mufti al- Husseini´s* Arab delegation refused to meet Chaim Weizmann’s Jewish delegation, which he did not "recognize". These discussions lead nowhere. After rejecting, two years earlier, the idea of a Jewish partition in Palestine recommended by the Peel Commission, and after excluding Jews from 76% of the land rightfully theirs as Jews and as citizen of the Mandate, the British decided to impose a solution; it was called the MacDonald´s White Paper. This paper limited legitimate Jewish immigration to 75,000 over a period of five years. In order to get Arab support against Nazi Germany, the British Government left millions of Jews at the hand of the Nazis, condemning them to die in the most horrific circumstances, which we now know, and forbidding them to go to the land promised to them by the League of Nations 17 years earlier. The League of Nations slammed the British stating that "the policy set out in the [MacDonald] White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate."

During their years as a mandatory power, Great Britain sliced the Jewish National Home and did what they could to dilute Jewish presence in the Holy Land. In 1947 the British proposed the land be split once again and gave birth to UNGAR Resolution 181. They knew that the General Assembly [that passed this resolution] had no power, because General Assembly resolutions are under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which is not "imperative" and only "give advices", as the Syrian representative said when he rejected the partition plan, but it was nevertheless accepted by David Ben-Gurion. At the end of that year, the Americans declared an embargo on arm sales to the region "hoping it would avoid bloodshed", but the Jordanians, Egyptians, Iraqis and Syrians where fully armed by the British and the French. Britain had a knack of leaving behind countless munitions and arms in the Arab lands they mandated. Even though the partition was accepted by the General Assembly, the Nations of the World created an environment where the Jewish State would be "born dead".

History decided otherwise. The infant Jewish State managed to import arms from Eastern Europe and, against all the odds, defeated her enemies. Britain´s plan to split the land in three was never accomplished. Trans-Jordan was renamed Jordan when it was granted "independence" in 1946, mirroring British policy, to allow citizenship to any citizen of the Mandate excluding Jews [as codified in their Constitution].

It was 1998, Tony Blair becoming UK Prime Minister a year before he decided to cut his own "White Paper". Robin Cook was then Foreign Minister and, in his own words "with the full backing of his government and the European Union", he went to meet the Palestinian delegation in eastern Jerusalem. According to him, it was to "restart the peace process" that he went to the "controversial" site of Har Homa, angering then-Prime Minister Netanyahu´s government. This was a clear statement of Britain´s intentions to impose "borders" for a future "viable State of Palestine", in complete disregard of UN Resolution 242 and 338.

It was 2002 and Tony Blair became UK Prime Minister for the second time the year before. He decided that it was time for Britain to finish "the job" of breaking off the Land of Israel. 70 years ago, it was in order to avoid Arab riots and to gain Arab support against Hitler, today it is to avoid the "clash of civilization" and get Arab Muslim support against terrorism. In the full sense of the term, British parliament, left-right-and-center, stated many times that "what we are doing is to prevent the radicalization of law- abiding Muslims in this country", probably not afraid of the reactions of the Jews, who are unlikely to hijack their airplanes and plant bombs in their cities. Once again, the government of Her Majesty is ready to sell out the Jews to preserve its own interest. During 2002, Tony Blair decided to invite Bashar Assad - dictator of Syria, ruthless occupier of Lebanon and head of a country that has the "head offices" of virtually every Islamic terrorist groups on the planet, and that cooperates and actively finances the Hezbollah terror group, which keeps on launching barbaric attacks on the north of Israel - to England.

It was early 2003, and Tony Blair decided to hold a "conference" to give a new lifeline to Arafat who was previously “set aside” by US President George W. Bush because he was a "leader compromised by terror". After the massacre of twin homicidal bombers in Tel Aviv, which killed almost 30 people and injured countless more, Israel decided to ban the travel of the PLO delegation to London. Despite the fact that the al-Aqsa Brigade, the PLO’s own kamikaze branch, carried out the bombing, Britain decided to go ahead with the conference via video link, claiming that "we need to move toward peace and reject any form of extremism". Yet, it was the heads of the terror group he invited who massacred Jews less than a fortnight before. The aim of the conference was allegedly to "reform" the PLO, but no demand mad at that conference called on the PLO to remove from its charter the clause calling for the "liquidation" of "the Zionist entity" - in other words the destruction of Israel.

It was March 2003 when Tony Blair finally managed to lobby Bush with the new "White Paper" - the "Road Map". He managed to persuade US President Bush to publish the document drafted by "the Quartet". Bush´s words were "we will publish it, hope that the new PA prime minister has real authority and wait for feedback"; to which Blair replied "I agree, the road map will be implemented and we will not move from it". It looks to me that he has a strange definition of what it is to "agree".

"White Papers" have always been Britain´s "answer" in dealing with the "Jewish problem" in their old Mandate. The policy is simple: cuddling Muslim extremists at the expense of Jewish lives to secure their own interest. In a recent speech, Foreign Minister Jack Straw, backed later that day by Tony Blair, accentuated this sense of unbalance by saying that "we need to show the Arab world that there is a even handed approach with Iraq and Israel...Come the end of the war we will push hard on Israel to implement [the UN Resolutions]." To understand the British position, one need only recall the speech by then-Ambassador to the UN for Israel, Abba Eban, on 23 March 1955, which led to UNSCR 106 condemning Israel´s raid on Egypt´s Gaza. Replace the references to “Egypt” with “PLO” and you will have the full picture today.

Eban said: “At the root of these tensions lie a theory and practice of belligerency. Egypt considers and proclaims that there is ‘a state of war’. In the name of that ‘state of war’, Egypt asserts a ‘right’ to perform hostile acts of its choice against Israel. On the other hand, Egypt claims immunity from any hostile response emanating from Israel. This is the doctrine of unilateral belligerency, and it has no parallel or precedent in the jurisprudence of nations. It is another principle of the Egyptian position that decisions of the Security Council relating to Israel have no binding force upon Egypt. On the other hand, the Security Council´s authority is today invoked to protect Egypt against any reaction that its active prosecution of the ‘state of war’ may elicit.

“It would be strictly and scientifically accurate to describe the essence of the Egyptian position in two sentences: ‘Egypt may behave towards Israel as though there were war. Israel must behave towards Egypt as though there were peace.’”

* Mufti al-Husseini was allegedly the great-uncle of Yasser Arafat. He was a frequent guest and friend of Hitler and a leading figure for Bosnian Muslims in the SS. (INN 04/18/03) Tony Blair´s White Paper (INN-ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS OPINION) Yoram Halberstam 04/18/03)

 

[dilloduck]

Where was the quote from? Oh an Israeli source . Surprise ! Why did the Zionists call all this land "thiers"? Just because the newly formed League of Nations said so? Prior to 1948,Israel by no means gain this land by conquering it.

 

[BillBryson]

Bill says nothing about the cost of occupying the Israeli/Palestianian region. And the name's Mike as I said before Bill Bryson is a famous writter...

 

[dilloduck]

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTERS.


LABOUR (MAPAI) PRIME MINISTER, D. BEN-GURION.

Qualifications: War Criminal. Like Hitler, gave the orders that others carried out.

Ben-Gurion and the Haganah became convinced that they would have to drive the British out if they were ever going to get their state. That required unity within the ranks of Zionism and they proposed a joint military campaign to the Irgun and Stern Gang who, until the autumn of 1945, they had solemnly proclaimed to be terrorists, fascists and madmen. And Begin, who, during the Saison, had put up wall posters comparing them to "Quisling and Laval", eagerly accepted. -- Quote from Haber, Menachem Begin, p.146.

Ben-Gurion was head of the Jewish Agency. After the adoption of the united front against the British, Ben-Gurion directed the terrorist "war" from the shadows. At this time, it was he who gave the "green light" for nearly all Jewish terrorist activity. The public relations disaster caused by the King David Hotel bombing, bought the detente with the Irgun and Stern Gang to an end (the Jewish Agency denounced the attack, claiming that the Irgun had violated its specifications as to when the bomb should be set). After directing the 1948 war to conquer Palestine and drive out its inhabitants, he became Prime Minister. An ideas man. It was his idea to create a civil war in Lebanon in order to establish a Maronite government that would align itself with Israel. Although it was difficult to ignite this civil war, their continual efforts over the years were eventually successful (and hundreds of thousands died). A truly evil man.

LABOUR (MAPAI) PRIME MINISTER, M. SHARRETT.

Qualifications: Close associate of most the war criminals and terrorists mentioned. Believed in the aims of the war criminals, however, differed on the means of establishing those aims. For example, he tried to prevent the Qibia (Kibya) attack (ordered by D. Ben-Gurion and carried out by A. Sharon) fearing that such ruthless attacks (in this case a massacre) might alienate Western opinion.

LABOUR (MAPAI) PRIME MINISTER, L. ESHKOL.

Qualifications: Although, not personally a terrorist, assassin or war criminal Eshkol organized the 1967 war which resulted in the largest expansion of the Jewish state ever.

LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, G. MEIR.

Qualifications: Singularly unsuited for the job of Prime Minister of Israel. Before becoming Prime Minister, was neither a known terrorist nor war criminal. However, in Feb. 1973, as Prime Minister, Golda Meir authorized the shooting down a Libyan civilian airliner over the Sinai by Israeli jet fighters, killing all 107 passengers and its French crew. So it seems she was more suited to the job than was initially apparent.

LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, Y. RABIN.

Qualifications: War Criminal. In 1948 (on instruction from Ben Gurion) ethnically cleansed some 70,000 Palestinians from Lydda and Ramleh. This included the massacre of several hundred resident civilians (to get them moving). In 1967 Rabin ordered the ethnic cleansing of some 5,000 from the villages of Emwas, Beit Nuba and Yalou and the dynamiting and bulldozing of their homes.

LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, M. BEGIN.

Qualifications: Killer. Terrorist. War Criminal. Leader of the terrorist gang Irgun. Responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre, the bombing of the King David Hotel, etc, etc,...

LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, Y. SHAMIR.

Qualifications: Killer. Terrorist. War Criminal. Operations commander of the terrorist Stern Gang. Together with Stern proposed a war-time alliance with Adolf Hitler and the establishment of a totalitarian Jewish state. Responsible (with Began) for the Deir Yassin massacre. The organiser of two infamous assassinations: the killing of Lord Moyne, the British Minister Resident for the Middle East, on 6 November 1944; and the slaying of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN's special Mediator on Palestine, on 17 September 1948.

LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, S. PERES.

Qualifications: Plays "good cop". Close associate of all the war criminals and terrorists mentioned. Believes in the aims of the war criminals, just differs on the means. This war criminal was responsible for ordering the shelling and bombing of civilians. What Moshe Sharett had to say about Shimon Peres: "I have stated that I totally and utterly reject (Shimon) Peres and consider his rise to prominence a malignant, immoral disgrace. I will rend my clothes in mourning for the State if I see him become a minister in the Israeli government".

LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, B. NETANYAHU.

Qualifications: Bungler thief/con-man. One of the more moral Israeli prime ministers. This war criminal was responsible for ordering the shelling and bombing of civilians (by Israeli military forces) in Lebanon.

LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, E. BARAK.

Qualifications: Assassin. In Beirut 1973, Barak (while dressed as a woman) assassinated the Palestinian leader Kamal Edwan, together with his wife and seven year old daughter. Other members of Barak's death squad, killed Abu Youssif al-Najar, the poet Kamal Nassar and their families.

LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, A. SHARON.

Qualifications: Killer. Terrorist. War Criminal. Presided over the massacres of some 2-3,000 civilians at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Beirut. Founded Unit 101 (a notorious death squad within the Israeli Defense Force). For many years, commanded cross-border Unit 101 raids, for example, the 1953 massacre at Qibia (Kibya) where civilians were blown up inside their houses (and shot dead if they tried to flee).

http://members.fortunecity.com/911/palestine/war-criminals.htm

 

[ajwps]

Where was the quote from and why did the Zionists call all this land "thiers (Sp?)"?Just because the newly formed League of Nations said so? Prior to 1948,Israel by no means gain this land by conquering it.

Israel prior to 1948 were the owners of the land since Joshua destroyed the now extinct Canaanites, Hittites and others no longer on this planet.

You must have forgotten this fact.

Why does America call this land theirs as it was the indigenous Indian's prior to Chris Columbus?

The fact remains Israel is the land of the Jewish people today. Like it or not, that is a FACT......

 

[dilloduck]

You stated in an earlier post that whoever conquered a land owned it. This land was conquered by turks prior to 1948. Was it thiers at that time?

 

[ajwps]

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTERS. LABOUR (MAPAI) PRIME MINISTER, D. BEN-GURION. Qualifications: War Criminal. Like Hitler, gave the orders that others carried out. Ben-Gurion and the Haganah became convinced that they would have to drive the British out if they were ever going to get their state. That required unity within the ranks of Zionism and they proposed a joint military campaign to the Irgun and Stern Gang who, until the autumn of 1945, they had solemnly proclaimed to be terrorists, fascists and madmen. And Begin, who, during the Saison, had put up wall posters comparing them to "Quisling and Laval", eagerly accepted. -- Quote from Haber, Menachem Begin, p.146. Ben-Gurion was head of the Jewish Agency. After the adoption of the united front against the British, Ben-Gurion directed the terrorist "war" from the shadows. At this time, it was he who gave the "green light" for nearly all Jewish terrorist activity. The public relations disaster caused by the King David Hotel bombing, bought the detente with the Irgun and Stern Gang to an end (the Jewish Agency denounced the attack, claiming that the Irgun had violated its specifications as to when the bomb should be set). After directing the 1948 war to conquer Palestine and drive out its inhabitants, he became Prime Minister. An ideas man. It was his idea to create a civil war in Lebanon in order to establish a Maronite government that would align itself with Israel. Although it was difficult to ignite this civil war, their continual efforts over the years were eventually successful (and hundreds of thousands died). A truly evil man.
LABOUR (MAPAI) PRIME MINISTER, M. SHARRETT. Qualifications: Close associate of most the war criminals and terrorists mentioned. Believed in the aims of the war criminals, however, differed on the means of establishing those aims. For example, he tried to prevent the Qibia (Kibya) attack (ordered by D. Ben-Gurion and carried out by A. Sharon) fearing that such ruthless attacks (in this case a massacre) might alienate Western opinion.
LABOUR (MAPAI) PRIME MINISTER, L. ESHKOL. Qualifications: Although, not personally a terrorist, assassin or war criminal Eshkol organized the 1967 war which resulted in the largest expansion of the Jewish state ever. LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, G. MEIR. Qualifications: Singularly unsuited for the job of Prime Minister of Israel. Before becoming Prime Minister, was neither a known terrorist nor war criminal. However, in Feb. 1973, as Prime Minister, Golda Meir authorized the shooting down a Libyan civilian airliner over the Sinai by Israeli jet fighters, killing all 107 passengers and its French crew. So it seems she was more suited to the job than was initially apparent. LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, Y. RABIN. Qualifications: War Criminal. In 1948 (on instruction from Ben Gurion) ethnically cleansed some 70,000 Palestinians from Lydda and Ramleh. This included the massacre of several hundred resident civilians (to get them moving). In 1967 Rabin ordered the ethnic cleansing of some 5,000 from the villages of Emwas, Beit Nuba and Yalou and the dynamiting and bulldozing of their homes. LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, M. BEGIN. Qualifications: Killer. Terrorist. War Criminal. Leader of the terrorist gang Irgun. Responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre, the bombing of the King David Hotel, etc, etc,... LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, Y. SHAMIR. Qualifications: Killer. Terrorist. War Criminal. Operations commander of the terrorist Stern Gang. Together with Stern proposed a war-time alliance with Adolf Hitler and the establishment of a totalitarian Jewish state. Responsible (with Began) for the Deir Yassin massacre. The organiser of two infamous assassinations: the killing of Lord Moyne, the British Minister Resident for the Middle East, on 6 November 1944; and the slaying of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN's special Mediator on Palestine, on 17 September 1948. LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, S. PERES. Qualifications: Plays "good cop". Close associate of all the war criminals and terrorists mentioned. Believes in the aims of the war criminals, just differs on the means. This war criminal was responsible for ordering the shelling and bombing of civilians. What Moshe Sharett had to say about Shimon Peres: "I have stated that I totally and utterly reject (Shimon) Peres and consider his rise to prominence a malignant, immoral disgrace. I will rend my clothes in mourning for the State if I see him become a minister in the Israeli government". LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, B. NETANYAHU. Qualifications: Bungler thief/con-man. One of the more moral Israeli prime ministers. This war criminal was responsible for ordering the shelling and bombing of civilians (by Israeli military forces) in Lebanon. LABOUR PRIME MINISTER, E. BARAK.
Qualifications: Assassin. In Beirut 1973, Barak (while dressed as a woman) assassinated the Palestinian leader Kamal Edwan, together with his wife and seven year old daughter. Other members of Barak's death squad, killed Abu Youssif al-Najar, the poet Kamal Nassar and their families. LIKUD PRIME MINISTER, A. SHARON. Qualifications: Killer. Terrorist. War Criminal. Presided over the massacres of some 2-3,000 civilians at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Beirut. Founded Unit 101 (a notorious death squad within the Israeli Defense Force). For many years, commanded cross-border Unit 101 raids, for example, the 1953 massacre at Qibia (Kibya) where civilians were blown up inside their houses (and shot dead if they tried to flee).
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/palestine/war-criminals.htm

I love it.... Your facts are based on somebody's homemade web site. How funny you are.

Just a fortunecity web site created out of pure fiction. Give me an hour or so and I can make one say anything I want as well.

You got to be a comedian.

 

[ajwps]

Bill says nothing about the cost of occupying the Israeli/Palestianian region. And the name's Mike as I said before Bill Bryson is a famous writter...

Bill, Mike or just plain Mohammad, what's in a name?

You and your compadre Dilloduck are spouting facts made out of fiction. You guys are a laugh riot.