Jerusalem Isn't the Capital of the Jews

[Indeependent]

Um no. Jerusalem as I recall was the capitol dating back maybe to about 1000BCE. It remained the capitol until after the Roman era and well into the Byzantine. I'm not sure if the Ottomans considered it a capitol, they barely ever even used the term palestine, instead considering the area southern Syria. There is also the issue of a north and south kingdom within Israel proper. however from what I recall the only Reason Jerusalem wasn't declared the capitol of modern day Israel is because the Arabs attack at the time of declaration in may of 48 prevented the fledgling state from access to the city. Leaving them no choice but to compromise and for the time being.

Once again its somewhat disingenuous to claim Jerusalem isn't the capitol simply because the Arab block at the UN ( a decidedly bias organization ) has prevented recognition of it as such.

The capital of Palaestina Prima was Caesarea Maritima, near where today's Tel Aviv and Haifa are located.

Jerusalem was not included in the land of the partition assigned to the Zionists. Jerusalem was to be an international zone.

Yep...and since your revisionist version of history omits whatever land the Jews occupied being invaded by 5 Arabs nations, this conversation is over.

 

[Indeependent]

In that case, I guess Washington, DC is not the Capital of The US.
In fact, following your logic, no nation today has a Capital.
Glad we straightened that out.

Is that based simply on zionut logic or is it something less retarded?

Israel has declared the whole of Jerusalem the capital of Israel...

Not one embassy exists in Jerusalem, not one country, other than the zionist Israel, accepts Jerusalem the capital of Israel....

That is fact not some made up extremist logic!

You can thank me later for straightening that one out for you ;-)

Let me know if I understand you correctly...
A nation's stance on an issue relies on other nations agreeing with that position.
If so, most of the positions of the US are nothing more than vapor.

It is the status of Jerusalem under international law. The UNSC, including the U.S., does not recognize Israel's claim on Jerusalem.

And we all know how many Jews around the world care about that.
Yes, yes, we all know how the Lefty Jews feel...until Israel gets lobbed by rockets and all of a sudden are cheering Israel kicking the crap out of the perpetrators.

Just facts.

Arti-facts...as in artificial.
You have problems with reality.

 

[Humanity]

In that case, I guess Washington, DC is not the Capital of The US.
In fact, following your logic, no nation today has a Capital.
Glad we straightened that out.

Is that based simply on zionut logic or is it something less retarded?

Israel has declared the whole of Jerusalem the capital of Israel...

Not one embassy exists in Jerusalem, not one country, other than the zionist Israel, accepts Jerusalem the capital of Israel....

That is fact not some made up extremist logic!

You can thank me later for straightening that one out for you ;-)

Let me know if I understand you correctly...
A nation's stance on an issue relies on other nations agreeing with that position.
If so, most of the positions of the US are nothing more than vapor.

No.

A nation's standing relies on working within customary international law... That's of course, if the nation in question, wishes to be considered 'democratic' and work within the international community....

Of course, there are many nations that do not work within customary international law... However, you will find that, generally speaking, they do not pretend to be civilised, democratic nations and will never be fully included within what is considered the 'civilised, international community'...

Let's be honest, every nation can make their own rules and decisions... That's the benefit of being a nation... What that doesn't do is endear that nation to the rest of the civilised world, nor does it mean that the nation meets customary international law...

 

[montelatici]

Um no. Jerusalem as I recall was the capitol dating back maybe to about 1000BCE. It remained the capitol until after the Roman era and well into the Byzantine. I'm not sure if the Ottomans considered it a capitol, they barely ever even used the term palestine, instead considering the area southern Syria. There is also the issue of a north and south kingdom within Israel proper. however from what I recall the only Reason Jerusalem wasn't declared the capitol of modern day Israel is because the Arabs attack at the time of declaration in may of 48 prevented the fledgling state from access to the city. Leaving them no choice but to compromise and for the time being.

Once again its somewhat disingenuous to claim Jerusalem isn't the capitol simply because the Arab block at the UN ( a decidedly bias organization ) has prevented recognition of it as such.

The capital of Palaestina Prima was Caesarea Maritima, near where today's Tel Aviv and Haifa are located.

Jerusalem was not included in the land of the partition assigned to the Zionists. Jerusalem was to be an international zone.

Yep...and since your revisionist version of history omits whatever land the Jews occupied being invaded by 5 Arabs nations, this conversation is over.

How can the colonizer be "invaded" by the targets of colonization? Don't you think that is an illogical concept?

 

[Humanity]

Is that based simply on zionut logic or is it something less retarded?

Israel has declared the whole of Jerusalem the capital of Israel...

Not one embassy exists in Jerusalem, not one country, other than the zionist Israel, accepts Jerusalem the capital of Israel....

That is fact not some made up extremist logic!

You can thank me later for straightening that one out for you ;-)

Let me know if I understand you correctly...
A nation's stance on an issue relies on other nations agreeing with that position.
If so, most of the positions of the US are nothing more than vapor.

It is the status of Jerusalem under international law. The UNSC, including the U.S., does not recognize Israel's claim on Jerusalem.

And we all know how many Jews around the world care about that.
Yes, yes, we all know how the Lefty Jews feel...until Israel gets lobbed by rockets and all of a sudden are cheering Israel kicking the crap out of the perpetrators.

Just facts.

Arti-facts...as in artificial.
You have problems with reality.

The "reality" is that Jerusalem only became "Jewish" after it was captured by king david....

Pretty much like today...

There is no UNIFIED Jerusalem, except by the illegal 'capture' by the zionists!

 

[montelatici]

Um no. Jerusalem as I recall was the capitol dating back maybe to about 1000BCE. It remained the capitol until after the Roman era and well into the Byzantine. I'm not sure if the Ottomans considered it a capitol, they barely ever even used the term palestine, instead considering the area southern Syria. There is also the issue of a north and south kingdom within Israel proper. however from what I recall the only Reason Jerusalem wasn't declared the capitol of modern day Israel is because the Arabs attack at the time of declaration in may of 48 prevented the fledgling state from access to the city. Leaving them no choice but to compromise and for the time being.

Once again its somewhat disingenuous to claim Jerusalem isn't the capitol simply because the Arab block at the UN ( a decidedly bias organization ) has prevented recognition of it as such.

The capital of Palaestina Prima was Caesarea Maritima, near where today's Tel Aviv and Haifa are located.

Jerusalem was not included in the land of the partition assigned to the Zionists. Jerusalem was to be an international zone.

Yep...and since your revisionist version of history omits whatever land the Jews occupied being invaded by 5 Arabs nations, this conversation is over.

The Arab League intervened in an attempt to save the Palestinians from eviction and mass murder, as the British observed. Luckily we have declassified official documents that make your Hasbara attempts at revisionism ridiculous. All you have is Zionist propaganda. That facts are available to all now.

"British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'.....In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show....

As early as October 1946, two years before partition, UK officials warned London that Jewish opinion would oppose partition "unless the Jewish share were so enlarged as to make the scheme wholly unacceptable to Arabs".

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[Boston1]

Is that based simply on zionut logic or is it something less retarded?

Israel has declared the whole of Jerusalem the capital of Israel...

Not one embassy exists in Jerusalem, not one country, other than the zionist Israel, accepts Jerusalem the capital of Israel....

That is fact not some made up extremist logic!

You can thank me later for straightening that one out for you ;-)

Let me know if I understand you correctly...
A nation's stance on an issue relies on other nations agreeing with that position.
If so, most of the positions of the US are nothing more than vapor.

It is the status of Jerusalem under international law. The UNSC, including the U.S., does not recognize Israel's claim on Jerusalem.

And we all know how many Jews around the world care about that.
Yes, yes, we all know how the Lefty Jews feel...until Israel gets lobbed by rockets and all of a sudden are cheering Israel kicking the crap out of the perpetrators.

Just facts.

Arti-facts...as in artificial.
You have problems with reality.

I'm going to guess you are talking with Montie, I put him on time out since he refuses to admit when he is demonstrably wrong. My take is if we are going to have a productive conversation, we are all going to have to face facts.

 

[montelatici]

Well I suppose the Hasbara recruit has decided that he couldn't face the facts. That source documentation is a terrible thing for Hasbara trolls.

 

[Humanity]

Let me know if I understand you correctly...
A nation's stance on an issue relies on other nations agreeing with that position.
If so, most of the positions of the US are nothing more than vapor.

It is the status of Jerusalem under international law. The UNSC, including the U.S., does not recognize Israel's claim on Jerusalem.

And we all know how many Jews around the world care about that.
Yes, yes, we all know how the Lefty Jews feel...until Israel gets lobbed by rockets and all of a sudden are cheering Israel kicking the crap out of the perpetrators.

Just facts.

Arti-facts...as in artificial.
You have problems with reality.

I'm going to guess you are talking with Montie, I put him on time out since he refuses to admit when he is demonstrably wrong. My take is if we are going to have a productive conversation, we are all going to have to face facts.

You are right, unless there is a recognition of fact then there can never be a proper debate...

Acceptance of fact, whether it is liked or not, is a good basis for having a debate, not on what is past, but what the future COULD hold...

 

[Boston1]

It is the status of Jerusalem under international law. The UNSC, including the U.S., does not recognize Israel's claim on Jerusalem.

And we all know how many Jews around the world care about that.
Yes, yes, we all know how the Lefty Jews feel...until Israel gets lobbed by rockets and all of a sudden are cheering Israel kicking the crap out of the perpetrators.

Just facts.

Arti-facts...as in artificial.
You have problems with reality.

I'm going to guess you are talking with Montie, I put him on time out since he refuses to admit when he is demonstrably wrong. My take is if we are going to have a productive conversation, we are all going to have to face facts.

You are right, unless there is a recognition of fact then there can never be a proper debate...

Acceptance of fact, whether it is liked or not, is a good basis for having a debate, not on what is past, but what the future COULD hold...

So rather than lay blame I'd say all we really need do is study the history of events to determine the most advantagious course of action for the future.

It seems reasonable to conclude by a review of the history that Jordan is one palestinian state that could offer refuge to any palestinians not willing to live under Israeli governorship. Gaza might be another.

Its also clear in history that the disputed territories were never palestinian. The suggestion was made a few times but the palestiinians themselves rejected the idea in preference to all of mandated area and no Israel.

Given that palestinians presently control roughly 80+% of the original mandated area and that Israel is forced to maintain defensive borders it would seem reasonable to leave the land issue aside until peace can be established and focus on securing peace first, and then working on the land issue.

What palestinians refuse to live in peace could be deported to other palestinian areas and those that can life peacefully might earn their way back into polite society through a show of peaceful intentions over some period of years.

Eventually once peace has been established then maybe some agreement can be made over the anexation of the disputed territories

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

In the period prior to any major event or crisis, there will have been predictions of all manner and signs commensurate to the event. I have seen all sorts of such reports. Some right-on, some very close and good approximations and some are wrong and drift progressively worse. In the intelligence business, some of us often looked at these analysts and, unable to follow their logic to a exceptionally accurate prediction/estimate --- chalked it up to the "Rasputin Effect;" dating back to about WWI. It is a tag that is used to describe certain precognitive abilities. In the case of the predictability in the aftermath of certain events, to include the adoption of the Majority Recommendation by the Special Committee on Palestine (NOV 47) and the Arab League Military Action as a post-Action on Self-determination (MAY 48), making such a prediction was not all that remarkable. Despite being attacked by five principle Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon) with a combined military resource and advantage over that of Israel, the Israelis were able to gain the offensive and advance along most of length of the forward edge of battle (FEBA) on which the Arab armies attempted to exploit. The fact that some military and diplomatic analyst were able to predict this aggressive Arab behavior and the successful defense of the Israelis is nothing exceptional; and implies nothing special.

Well I suppose the Hasbara recruit has decided that he couldn't face the facts. That source documentation is a terrible thing for Hasbara trolls.

(COMMENT)

Your source documentation has absolutely no effect on the argument. So what, that the conflict was predicted. The attitude of the Arab Higher Committee made that abundantly clear. And the Four Principle Arab League participants even gave advanced notice despite the S/RES/46 (1948) S/723, which precluded entry into Palestine by any external.

Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately, without prejudice to their rights, claims, or positions, and as a contribution to the well-being and permanent interests of Palestine, the following measures:

(a) Cease all activities of a military or paramilitary nature, as well as acts of violence, terrorism and sabotage;

(b) Refrain from bringing and from assisting and encouraging the entry into Palestine of armed bands and fighting personnel, groups and individuals, whatever their origin;
​

The aggressive action on the part of the Arab League was NOT an "isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes" as you site above. In fact, after the Arab Mobilization and entry into Palestine against the direction of the Security Council, HM King Abdullah, sent a short cable citing possible atrocities as the reason for entry. While Lebanon and Syria made no successful advances, the Jordanians captured the West Bank and the Egyptians captured the Gaza Strip; which appeared to be their original intention in territorial expansion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Of course the facts have a bearing. Why do you think the British reports were classified. They were classified because the contradicted the statements of the pro-Zionist UNSC. The Jews, as the report states, were the aggressors, and that notwithstanding, the Arabs were still willing to find a peaceful solution.

All the declassified intelligence demonstrates that the UNSC and the supporters of the Zionist colonization lied and that all the actions of the UN were designed to dispossess the Palestinians.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

UK officials warned London that Jewish opinion would oppose partition "unless the Jewish share were so enlarged as to make the scheme wholly unacceptable to Arabs".

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I think you need to read it again.

Of course the facts have a bearing. Why do you think the British reports were classified. They were classified because the contradicted the statements of the pro-Zionist UNSC. The Jews, as the report states, were the aggressors, and that notwithstanding, the Arabs were still willing to find a peaceful solution.

All the declassified intelligence demonstrates that the UNSC and the supporters of the Zionist colonization lied and that all the actions of the UN were designed to dispossess the Palestinians.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

UK officials warned London that Jewish opinion would oppose partition "unless the Jewish share were so enlarged as to make the scheme wholly unacceptable to Arabs".

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

(COMMENT)

The Article certainly does not lead me to believe that the Mandatory (British Government) said anything like Israel was the Aggressor.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Israel is the survivor. Its the Arab states and their colonialism views that have led to the problems we see today ;--)

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I think you need to read it again.

Of course the facts have a bearing. Why do you think the British reports were classified. They were classified because the contradicted the statements of the pro-Zionist UNSC. The Jews, as the report states, were the aggressors, and that notwithstanding, the Arabs were still willing to find a peaceful solution.

All the declassified intelligence demonstrates that the UNSC and the supporters of the Zionist colonization lied and that all the actions of the UN were designed to dispossess the Palestinians.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

UK officials warned London that Jewish opinion would oppose partition "unless the Jewish share were so enlarged as to make the scheme wholly unacceptable to Arabs".

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

(COMMENT)

The Article certainly does not lead me to believe that the Mandatory (British Government) said anything like Israel was the Aggressor.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's exactly what the British said, sport.

 

[montelatici]

Israel is the survivor. Its the Arab states and their colonialism views that have led to the problems we see today ;--)

The Zionists are the colonists as they self-described themselves back in 1899. That's the cause of the problem.

"Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times

An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times depicts how the Conference sought to “colonize Palestine” and discussed the purchasing of land with English Zionists.

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin

 

[Roudy]

This is hilarious. Since when did Muslims get to decide if a city can or can't be the capital of a country? Jerusalem has been the religious, spiritual, cultural, and ancestral capital of the Jewish people for the last 4000 years and will continue to stay so. And there are hundreds of thousands of artifacts and archeological sites that say so.

 

[Humanity]

And we all know how many Jews around the world care about that.
Yes, yes, we all know how the Lefty Jews feel...until Israel gets lobbed by rockets and all of a sudden are cheering Israel kicking the crap out of the perpetrators.

Just facts.

Arti-facts...as in artificial.
You have problems with reality.

I'm going to guess you are talking with Montie, I put him on time out since he refuses to admit when he is demonstrably wrong. My take is if we are going to have a productive conversation, we are all going to have to face facts.

You are right, unless there is a recognition of fact then there can never be a proper debate...

Acceptance of fact, whether it is liked or not, is a good basis for having a debate, not on what is past, but what the future COULD hold...

So rather than lay blame I'd say all we really need do is study the history of events to determine the most advantagious course of action for the future.

It seems reasonable to conclude by a review of the history that Jordan is one palestinian state that could offer refuge to any palestinians not willing to live under Israeli governorship. Gaza might be another.

Its also clear in history that the disputed territories were never palestinian. The suggestion was made a few times but the palestiinians themselves rejected the idea in preference to all of mandated area and no Israel.

Given that palestinians presently control roughly 80+% of the original mandated area and that Israel is forced to maintain defensive borders it would seem reasonable to leave the land issue aside until peace can be established and focus on securing peace first, and then working on the land issue.

What palestinians refuse to live in peace could be deported to other palestinian areas and those that can life peacefully might earn their way back into polite society through a show of peaceful intentions over some period of years.

Eventually once peace has been established then maybe some agreement can be made over the anexation of the disputed territories

Not laying "blame" is a naive comment...

The facts are now, customary international law applies now...

Israel is the ONLY country in the world to believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel... No other country or organisation recognises this...

Israel has illegal settlements...

Israel occupies/blockades Gaza

Peace and then maybe some agreement over illegal annexation? That's just silly!

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Did you actually READ these intelligence reports???

How do YOU know it is exactly what it said?

montelatici, et al,

Well, I think you need to read it again.

Of course the facts have a bearing. Why do you think the British reports were classified. They were classified because the contradicted the statements of the pro-Zionist UNSC. The Jews, as the report states, were the aggressors, and that notwithstanding, the Arabs were still willing to find a peaceful solution.

All the declassified intelligence demonstrates that the UNSC and the supporters of the Zionist colonization lied and that all the actions of the UN were designed to dispossess the Palestinians.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

UK officials warned London that Jewish opinion would oppose partition "unless the Jewish share were so enlarged as to make the scheme wholly unacceptable to Arabs".

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

(COMMENT)

The Article certainly does not lead me to believe that the Mandatory (British Government) said anything like Israel was the Aggressor.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's exactly what the British said, sport.

(COMMENT)

This information comes from a 26 April 2013 Article published by Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian.

You will notice that many many news outlets replayed this story - but they all point back to a signal source (The Guardian) which did not actually publish this "declassified" document.

• British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in ...
  www.theguardian.com › World › Israel
  British officials predicted war – and Arab ... the founding of the state of Israel would lead to war and defeat for ... the partition of Palestine in 1948, ...

• British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in ...
  www.israpundit.org/archives/54364
  British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat ... withdraw its forces from Palestinemore than 60 years ago that ... British officials looked on as Jewish ...

• News World news Israel British officials predicted war ...
  worldobserveronline.com/2013/04/27/news-world-news-israel-british...
  News World news Israel British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat ... partition ofPalestine in 1948, ... 1948 British officials were reporting that “the ...

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League ... Prior to the war, Arab forces had been trained by British and ... Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab ...
  
  British Officials Predicted War And Arab Defeat In ...

• theseason.yuku.com › TheSeason.Org › Watchman Watch - Daily News
  British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948. Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of ...

• 1948 Palestine war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  1948 Palestine war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  The 1948 Palestine war, ... still fully under British rule. The 1948 Arab–Israeli War after 15 ... State in Palestine following their defeat in the 1948 war. ...

• British predicted Arab defeat 60+ years ago - Democratic ...
  www.democraticunderground.com › … › General Discussion (Forum)
  British predicted Arab defeat 60 ... In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, ... By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the ...

• British Predicted Arab-Israeli War - Military History ...
  www.ww2f.com › Miscellaneous › Military History
  British Predicted Arab-Israeli War ... and the founding of the state of Israel would lead towar and defeat for the ... to the partition of Palestine in 1948, ...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[dani67]

new york is the capital of the jews.
jewish are king of usa.they ruling usa.
king of media.king of bussiness.king of politic.king of everything
jews are your boss