What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
35,859
Reaction score
5,836
Points
1,240
The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle reported on December 12, 1947:



The original JTA story was dated December 9.

The UN Palestine Commission was created as a result of the Partition resolution of November 30, so the policy of "no Jews, no Arabs, no Britons" must have only existed for a week or so.

Even so, this is remarkable. The UN at the time met in Lake Success, in Long Island, NY, and there would have been very few Arabs or Britons available for the commission; the only practical effect of this rule would be to ban Jews.

Meaning that, for a short time, the UN banned American Jews from membership of a high profile commission, because they were Jews.



 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
35,859
Reaction score
5,836
Points
1,240
I decided to do a quick search of headlines said that Arabs threatened Jews.

April 17, 1920: Arabs threaten to massacre all Jews of Palestine (which included many non-Zionists at the time.)




March 14, 1925: Arabs threaten to attack Jews if they honor Balfour when he visits.





August 11, 1925: Arabs threaten to massacre all Jews in Palestine again (even though the headline says "of Zion movement."



November 23, 1929: Arabs threaten force if Jews continue to worship at the Western Wall.





May 13, 1936: Arabs threaten Jews in Arab countries if they don't get their demands met in Palestine.




June 26, 1936: Bedouin in Transjordan threaten to march across the river to aid their brethren in the "great Arab revolt."


June 30, 1936: Algerian Arabs threaten Algerian Jews.




October 10, 1938: Arab leaders send a telegram to Chaim Weizmann threatening the lives of all Jews in the "East" if Zionists don't accede to their demands, saying it would be the worst calamity in Jewish history.
Derby_Evening_Telegraph_1938_10_10_page_1.jpg




May 30, 1946: Rulers of Arab states warn Palestinian Jews of plans to have Jews immigrate from DP camps to Palestine. One leader says that if 100,000 Jews enter Palestine after almost being slaughtered in Europe, then the Arabs would slaughter all 100,000 of them.






 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
35,859
Reaction score
5,836
Points
1,240
Guest post from Paul M.





John and Leila



The most effective army Israel faced in its 1948 war of independence was the Arab Legion of Transjordan. There’s a reason for that: It was not just armed and trained by Britain, it was led by British officers as well, commanded by Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb, affectionately known by the Ottoman honorific Glubb Pasha.

Glubb was a career soldier, a much-decorated British officer from 1915 until 1956, through two world wars and the assault on the new Jewish state. He was much-honored too, with an alphabet behind his name: KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ & KPM.

If, in the fighting world, you wanted to find Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb’s diametric opposite, you might be tempted to choose Leila Khaled, member of the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, serial airplane hijacker, pin-up for terrorism groupies everywhere.

And, surprisingly, you might be wrong. They’re less different than you would imagine.

In 1973 Leila Khaled wrote her autobiography, called “My People Shall Live.” (I expect there will be a second volume someday, “Your People Should Die,” but I digress.) Who supplied the foreword? John Bagot Glubb. I had always assumed Lt. General Glubb was simply a good soldier, following orders to serve his country by serving his country’s client, but it seems it was more personal than that.

The first thing to strike you about Glubb’s foreword is how naive it is. He simply takes her words at face value. Everything else written on Palestine is “prejudiced, if not pure propaganda,” full of “half-truths,” “distortions” and “intentional deception.” Khaled, by contrast, is “refreshing” because her position is so clear. The things she has to say are “simple facts.” Perhaps we should give him credit for at least acknowledging that she’s not impartial but there’s almost nothing to show that he has any opinion of his own on the morality of her refreshingly clear position or its consequences.

He does, though, eventually find a flaw. Her politics are “oversimplified” to the point of paranoia and her rejection of anyone who doesn’t embrace violence makes it hard for her sympathizers to help her. As you read this, you can’t help but feel his personal sense of unfair treatment. Perhaps it pulled at the quarter-century-old scar of his dismissal by King Abdullah.

What begins by seeming like amorality, a disinterest in Khaled’s choices, veers into something else soon enough. Before the end of the first page Glubb presents the conclusion of his moral thinking. Violence begets violence, but Palestinian violence is their “only means of recovering their country and their freedom.” Wait, wasn’t that what the Jews were doing?. He quotes Khaled,”As a Palestinian, I had to believe in the gun as an embodiment of my humanity,”without comment except to note that she’s a bit down on anyone who thinks otherwise. Even so, he wants us to know that she cried when John Kennedy was shot. When he turns to the Jews, it’s different: Jewish violence is inherited from the Nazis.

Now we know where to place him. We’ve heard that one before.

Her contempt for non-violence and political difference notwithstanding, Glubb simply takes Khaled at her word when she says Jews and Arabs will be equals in the democratic Palestinian state she and her friends are going to create. The real problem is the Jews won’t allow it. They “desire to have an all-Jewish state.” Like the one we see today, presumably.

Glubb ends by solemnly informing us that “It is easy for us, who have never been the victims of foreign conquest ... to denounce with vehemence the crimes of the evicted Palestinians.” That’s some chutzpah from a son and servant of the empire on which the sun never set. It’s world-class chutzpah when we remember that Transjordan’s purpose in invading on May 15th 1948 was not to free the Palestinian Arabs—who could have had their freedom for the asking but chose war instead—but to annex the land to itself. Abdullah had said as much to Jews and Arabs alike(1).

In his own memoirs, Glubb wrote that he came to love the Arabs(2). That must have been British understatement, because what shines through this foreword is not just love but infatuation. This is the Glubb Pasha who led his army into the Old City of Jerusalem and who had ultimate responsibility for the emptying, looting & burning of the Jewish Quarter. Some people (not me, obviously) can say much in a few words. Glubb was accidentally one of those. It’s hard not to wonder how many others among the British military and functionaries, in Mandatory Palestine and back in London, felt the way he did.

1) Howard Sachar, “A History of Israel” 2007, p.321–322

2) John Bagot Glubb, “A Soldier with the Arabs” 1957, p.5



 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
69,771
Reaction score
3,514
Points
1,815
you might be tempted to choose Leila Khaled, member of the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, serial airplane hijacker, pin-up for terrorism groupies everywhere.
It was her policy to not kill anyone and she never did.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
69,771
Reaction score
3,514
Points
1,815
Just another Islamic terrorist.
Ghassan Kanafani, Leila Khaled, Khalida Jarrar, Khaled Barakat, all part of Israel's terrorist smear campaign.

Just more of Israel's bullshit.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
69,771
Reaction score
3,514
Points
1,815
Flailing your Pom Poms for islamic terrorists.

Typical.

Ghassan Kanafani and the era of revolutionary Palestinian media | The Listening Post (Feature)​


 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
45,953
Reaction score
32,707
Points
3,565
This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.
Are you “fer” or “agin” the creation of Israel?
 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
35,859
Reaction score
5,836
Points
1,240
Today, Nov. 29, 2022, is the 75th anniversary of the 1947 UN Partition Plan – UN General Assembly resolution 181 - which divided the geographical area to the west of the Jordan River, into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. In its essence, the Partition Plan was a fundamental breach of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which placed that entire area under the governance of Great Britain, for the sole purpose of creating a Jewish state on all of the land.

The 1922 Mandate for Palestine had already taken the entire geographical area then referred to as “Palestine” and divided it in two: The eastern part of Palestine - the Arab country - was placed under the rule of the Hashemite family and changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The western part of Palestine was to become the Jewish state.

Despite the breach of the Mandate, the Jewish leadership of the day – represented by David Ben Gurion - accepted the plan. The Arab leadership and countries, on the other hand, rejected the plan and immediately started planning how to eradicate the Jewish state before it even came into existence.

75 years later, speaking at the UN, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to accept the plan and even demand its implementation:

“Therefore, I present today to this UN organization, the title of international legitimacy in this world, with a formal request to implement General Assembly resolution 181, which formed the basis for the two-state solution in 1947…”
[WAFA, English edition, Official PA news agency, Sept. 23, 2022]​
In making this demand, Abbas ignores a number of fundamental realities.

First, Abbas is demanding the implementation of a plan that has been defunct for 75 years. Living up to their promises, even before the British Mandate came to an end on May 14, 1948, the Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state.

Palestine-declare-born.jpg


[Boston Evening Globe, May 1, 1948]​

While Israel managed to survive and expand in a war in which 6.000 Israeli men, women, and children were killed, a full 1% of the population most of the areas allocated for the Arab state - Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip - were occupied by Jordan (which was not yet recognized by the UN as a state) and Egypt, respectively.

In its original charter from 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now headed by Abbas, disavowed its connection to the areas provisionally allocated for the Arab state openly declaring:

“This Organization [The PLO] does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area”.
Indeed, while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (which it renamed “The West Bank”), from 1948 to 1967, they and the other Arab countries refrained from creating what could have been the “Palestinian” Arab state.

Israel’s War of Independence formally ended with the signature of a series of Armistice Agreements (from Nov. 1948 through April 1949) with the Arab countries. In parallel, the UN established the Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

In the discussions of the Conciliation Commission, the Arab countries demanded that Israel commit national demographic suicide and agree to flood itself with hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees, before they would express any willingness to accept Israel’s very existence.

Israel on the other hand, demanded that the Arab countries first accept Israel’s existence and right to exist. Interestingly, according to the Oct. 23, 1950, report of the Commission, during the talks Israel offered to turn the Armistice lines with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria into borders. Israel also offered to turn the Armistice line with Egypt into a border, with the exception of the Gaza Strip, which it offered to incorporate into Israel and give all the Arabs living there Israeli citizenship:

“The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, the Government of Israel would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees…”
[General progress report and supplementary report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, Oct. 23, 1950]​
Steadfast in their refusal to accept Israel’s existence and right to exist as a national homeland for the Jewish people, the Arab countries rejected Israel’s offers.

The second reality Abbas ignores is that he is claiming the implementation of the Partition Plan for the creation of the Palestinian state. While Abbas and many Palestinian supporters refer to Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip as “occupied Palestinian territories,” neither the UN Partition Plan nor UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 refer to the areas allocated for the Arab state as “Palestinian territories.” The term “occupied Palestinian territories” was certainly not used from 1948 – 1967 and its first reference in UN documents appeared in the late 1990’s.

The third reality Abbas ignores, is that resolutions of the UN General Assembly - such as the Partition Plan - are not legally binding and do not have the force to recognize a new state. As Palestinian Media Watch noted before Abbas made his demand to implement the Partition Plan, such a move would contravene international law and would necessitate a positive recommendation of all 5 of the permanent members of the UN Security Council that would be followed by the approval of two-thirds of the UNGA.

In the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, the League of Nations formally recognized, in the name of the entire international community, “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." [emphasis added]

While the 1947 UN Partition Plan breached the legally binding Mandate, in its time, it had the potential to initiate a process that would have divided the area west of the Jordan River into two states. That option was eternally lost when it was wholly rejected by the Arab states and the Arab leadership. Abbas vainly clinging to the Partition Plan is equivalent to a passenger who bought a ticket on the Titanic, and is now demanding that the Titanic take him across the Atlantic Ocean.




 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
35,859
Reaction score
5,836
Points
1,240
When the warrior poet Avraham “Yair” Stern founder and leader of Lohamei Herut Israel (Lehi, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) who believed that the British had to be forced out with assassinations and bombs and would never leave voluntarily, was killed after being captured and handcuffed by British detectives on Feb. 12, 1942, no Jew could celebrate his death.
But the leaders of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine, already then led by David Ben-Gurion, viewed Stern’s death as a gain for the national cause rather than a loss—and not only because the poet and his followers were reckless political dilettantes: Some fantasized alliances with Mussolini, even the Nazis, as well as Arab nationalists in a common anti-British cause.
At a time of maximum danger—Rommel seemed to be on the verge of conquering Egypt, with Palestine next—Ben-Gurion and his allies doggedly pursued cooperation with the British in spite of bitter disappointments. Perhaps the worst of these was the May 1939 White Paper which limited the immigration of Jews to 75,000 over five years, sentencing countless European Jews to death at the hands of the Nazis. Yet Ben-Gurion believed, and rightly so, that the British were the least-bad allies the Jews could have.
Nor did Ben-Gurion have much choice. The Americans had refused to enter the war even after the Germans had conquered most of Europe. They still refused to act when the Germans seemed on the verge of defeating Russia, which would soon mean Britain’s defeat, too. On Dec. 2, 1941, German tanks were 14.7 miles from Moscow’s Red Square. America was only at war when Stern died in 1942 because the Japanese had attacked them.
It was unimaginable that the Americans would intervene on behalf of the Jews in the distant Middle East—indeed the U.S. only lifted its total weapons embargo on Israel in August 1962!—to allow the sale of defensive antiaircraft missiles, seven years after the Soviets had agreed to deliver bombers to Nasser’s Egypt (part of a huge Soviet weapons gift package misrepresented as “Czech” at the insistence of the CIA to avert hostility from their own man Nasser: That always-wrong agency was betting on Nasser’s mighty Arab nationalism rather than on seemingly puny Israel).
When Avraham Stern was killed, the communists still gave all their loyalty to Stalin. According to Ben-Gurion and the majority of Jewish leaders in Palestine, Churchill was still the best bet the Jews could have, even after the exposure of his crass duplicity toward the Yishuv. Having vehemently condemned the May 1939 White Paper to please his Jewish benefactors while out of office and short of ready cash, Churchill refused to change the policy once he became prime minister—thus denying escape from death to millions, and incidentally preventing my father, mother, two brothers, and myself from leaving Arad, Romania, to reach safety by a comfortable Orient Express ride to Istanbul and thence Haifa. A 5-inch-by-2-inch Palestine entry slip was enough to obtain Bulgarian and Turkish transit visas, but the British refused to issue them, even in 1944—by which point detailed eyewitness accounts and impeccable documentation of the operation of every part of the Nazi killing machine had reached London and Washington.
In spite of all that, on the evidence available at the time, Ben-Gurion was still mostly right and Avraham Stern was still mostly wrong. The British did eventually, and very reluctantly, agree to the U.N.’s termination of their mandatory rule on May 15, 1948, thus allowing the Jews to fight for their state. The qualifier is necessary because a factor in the British decision was the terrorist attacks inspired by Stern, including the July 22, 1946, bombing of the British headquarters in the King David Hotel whose 91 killed set a deadliest-attack record that lasted for decades.

It is only in more recent years that documents have emerged which prove that the British—meaning the then immensely authoritative Imperial General Staff whose eminence increased even more once Churchill was voted out of office on July 5, 1945—were determined to remain in Palestine, contrary to their representations to the Jewish leaders and the U.N. In fact, they had worked out an operational plan to do exactly that: They would equip the Egyptian army of their obedient liege King Farouk, and the Iraqi army of their obedient liege King Faisal II with field artillery, tanks, and combat aircraft, and they would send armored cars, field artillery, and excellent British officers to command the Arab Legion of their liege King Abdullah of Jordan. The Jews would be allowed no weapons at all—not even revolvers. Faced with the irresistible advance of the Arab armies, they themselves would plead for British protection, thereby ensuring the prolongation of British rule.
The General Staff documents reveal systematic strategic logic at work with no trace of antisemitism. British staff planners accepted that India, Burma, and Ceylon would soon be lost, but asserted that the Persian Gulf had to be kept because its oil revenues were essential to fund Britain’s reconstruction (aside from much housing stock lost to Nazi bombers, the machinery in British factories was worn out by wartime production).
Britain’s postwar recovery, the General Staff planners believed, would require continued control of a chain of air bases from Cyprus and the British-controlled Canal Zone to Iraq and Bahrain via the Negev, the southern desert that constituted the largest part of the U.N.-drawn map of the future Israel. The Jewish state therefore could not be allowed to become independent on May 15, 1948, except for a narrow coastal strip above the Negev, where a few hundred thousand Jews might live under British protection.
The Labour government that followed Churchill’s wartime coalition was fully engaged in building a land fit for heroes and had no time or inclination to interfere with the Imperial General Staff plan—and if they had intervened it would scarcely have changed anything. Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee (Churchill’s “modest man with a lot to be modest about”), happened to be a very quiet but coldly determined and absolute antisemite as well as an anti-Zionist. This fact was little known at the time partly because of all the attention focused on the Foreign Office, which was led by the ex-trade-unionist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who was not a serious antisemite at all but only a loudmouth.
Bevin provided cover for both Attlee and the Imperial General Staff planners with his antisemitic outbursts. But the outburst most often cited against Bevin, of June 12, 1946—“There has been agitation in the United States … for 100,000 Jews to be put in Palestine [for] the purest of motives. They did not want too many Jews in New York”—actually originated wih James F. Byrnes, the U.S. secretary of state. Byrnes’ own policy—ferociously and very effectively enforced—was likewise to deny any weapons at all to the Jews, thereby furthering British plans.
Byrnes’ policy persisted unchanged under his certifiably nonantisemitic successor George Marshall (who had pressed for opening the gates to Jewish migrants into the U.S.) even after Israel’s independence on May 15, 1948, regardless of the inherent right of any sovereign state to defend itself. Had weapons not arrived by precarious DC-3 flights from the Czech Republic via Yugoslavia with the consent of Josef Stalin, who was out to embarrass the British Empire, the Jewish state would have been defeated, with the survivors rescued only if British rule persisted.
As it happened, the Jews turned out to be much better fighters than anyone had anticipated, but their 1949 victory on all fronts was only a setback for the Imperial General Staff, whose unquestioned authority did not wane until the 1956 Suez debacle.

Two bundles of heretofore overlooked documents prove that Avraham Stern was right in not trusting British declarations that they would end the Mandate and allow the Jews to establish a state, even within the shrunken borders envisioned by the U.N.
First, there are the “Operation Cordage” documents, which envisaged a terrorist attack on Israel that would provoke Israeli retaliation against the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Israeli response would allow Britain to activate its commitment to defend the Hashemite Kingdom under the 1946 Treaty of London. This would provide the excuse for the British to launch all-out air attacks by the Royal Air Force from its Cyprus base and by the Fleet Air Arm from carriers, in order to destroy all Israeli air force and army bases, headquarters, and depots. (At the time, the British Air Force could do that and more.) As soon as Cordage was executed, the disarmed Israelis would be forced to beg for British protection, because they would be so weak that even the small Lebanese army could invade, along with the much stronger Syrians, Iraqis, and still then British-officered Jordanians.

f0adc64988a42ab24b8e1e538c90349f98635036-1490x2200.jpg


035b18e92f734adffaca505f488c37b149aa6168-1386x2135.jpg




The other set of documents describes the U.S.-U.K. Plan Alpha worked out in 1955 by Francis Russell of the U.S. State Department and the leading Arabist of the British Foreign Office, Evelyn Shuckburgh (who would suffer acute stomach pains whenever forced to concede a very rare audience to Israel’s ambassador). Presented by Prime Minister Anthony Eden in his November 1955 Guildhall speech, Alpha would detach the Negev—yes always the Negev—from Israel to give it to Egypt—which was still then, if not for long, “British Egypt,” complete with army and air force Canal-side bases, garrisoned by 70,000 British troops.

845cc9d41a9ce67886fd769531d1150ce472f36c-1451x2200.jpg

It was only Nasser’s betrayal of his CIA would-be handlers to seize control of the Suez Canal, and the subsequent 1956 Suez War—Israel’s Sinai campaign—that turned the tables. The British attacked Egypt instead, resulting in Eden’s resignation, lifelong sorrow for Shuckburgh, and the start of the wars that would lead to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and present cooperation, thereby realizing Stern’s hope that Arab and Jewish nationalists could be allies.
So who was right?



The Cordage documents attached were provided by the historian and preeminent broadcaster Dr. Isaac Noy, z.l., May 2022. Anat Stern corrected errors in an earlier draft.



 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
35,859
Reaction score
5,836
Points
1,240
Division-of-the-British-Mandate-696x1020.jpg
Map: The division of the Mandate for Palestine

Editor’s Note: Today is November 29, the 75th anniversary of the 1947 United Nations vote approving the Partition Plan for Palestine. JewishPress.com has published many articles about that sea-change event, but the one that stands out as the most relevant from today’s perspective was authored by Ari Fuld HY”D, detailing some of the key shortcomings of this resolution, the price of which he paid and we continue to endure. We present it again below.

This is the kind of information that most people simply don’t know and those that do, are too dishonest to discuss it. It is important for you to read and then share it out. It’s time to reclaim the narrative for the sake of truth!


Jordan is a State that was created in 1946 (two years before Israel). The area was known as Trans-Jordan (the other side of the Jordan River) and was 70%+ of what was British Mandated Palestine.

The Hashemite clan came in from Mecca and occupied the area of Trans-Jordan. Although the area of Trans-Jordan was already promised to the Jews by Sir Balfour as part of the Jewish homeland, no one said a word about the illegal occupation by the Hashemite clan.

The Hashemites have no historical, national or religious ties to the land they are currently occupying. In 1946 the League of Nations accepted the illegal occupation by the Hashemites and recognized a new State called Jordan which was declared on 70% of what was British Mandated Palestine.

Israel became a member of the UN in May 1949 while Jordan was only recognized in the UN on December 14, 1955!

In November 1947 the UN passed resolution 181, which is also known as the partition plan. One Jewish country and one Arab country on what was at the time the British Mandate of Palestine.

As a Jew who was already robbed of 70% of the Land of Israel, I find the name partition offensive. My indigenous land was already partitioned and there already was an Arab country on 77% of what was British Palestine.

So the UN passed a resolution that the remaining 30% of land that was not robbed from the Jewish people be split up again and offered to the Arab League. There was no excuse for the UN to make such a resolution and yet the Jews at the time accepted the resolution as we are hungry for life.

The Arabs refused the partition plan as they would not accept any Jewish presence or ruling in the Land of Israel. In response to the partition plan, they attacked the young Jewish country with the goal of destroying it and pushing the Jews into the sea. With God’s help and many very brave Jewish soldiers, Israel won the war.

The map after 1948 was a mess for the Jewish people. Jordan occupied Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria and kept Jews out of all the areas. They built a wall in Jerusalem and any Jew who attempted to reach the Old City would have been shot dead. Countless synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians and Jewish cemeteries were desecrated on Mount of Olives.

The infamous “green line” is not from 1967! It is the armistice line from 1948. When the Arabs realized they failed at their attempt to destroy the Jewish people they stopped fighting. The color of the marker that filled in the line where the Arabs stopped their attempt to destroy us was…GREEN!

Jordan ruled over Judea and Samaria, Egypt ruled over Gaza and Syria ruled over the Golan Heights. For those that do not understand the importance of the sentence above, it means that all the lands that the Arabs call “occupied” were under Arab control between 1948-1967! Was there peace?

It was Jordan, Egypt, and Syria that built the refugee camps and stuck their own Arab brothers and sisters in them to create a refugee problem in order to bash Israel. If creating a new State called Palestine was the goal and all the Arab countries are in favor of such a State, why didn’t Jordan Egypt and Syria help the “Palestinian” Arabs start a State during those 19 years (1948-1967).

Israel liberated Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan from Arab States occupation and it has nothing to do with an Arab people who call themselves (since 1964) Palestinians. We never occupied an Arab place called Palestine and there never was an Arab place called Palestine before Israel that could have been occupied.

You are probably saying this is enough to completely destroy the anti-Israel propaganda, but it gets much better (or worse).
Today, Jordan is ruled by a king.

Over 75% of Jordan’s population are Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”! So why hasn’t the majority of “Palestinians” taken over?
Because Jordan does not give them full rights!

In fact, Jordan has the largest “Palestinian” refugee camps!

Where is the UN? Where is UNWRA? Where are the SJWs? Where are all the Leftists who care about Human Rights?

Just to sum up, Jordan sits on 77% of British Palestine and has a majority of over 75% of Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”. Why aren’t the Arabs, who so want to create a Palestinian State, not fighting over 77% of the Land where they are a 75% majority? Why are they fighting over a small sliver of 23% where they are the minority? The answer is simple.

This has never been a struggle to build a new state called Palestine, it’s a struggle to destroy the one called ISRAEL.

Now, can we start fighting for truth and stop giving into false diplomacy that is based on lies?



 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top