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

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinian Wafa news agency reports:

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates and the Chief Islamic Justice, Mahmoud Habbash, today condemned the intention of American Zionist groups to hold a ceremony at Mammilla cemetery in West Jerusalem, considering it a desecration of the Islamic graveyard and a flagrant violation of international law and conventions.

They said in two separate statements that the historic cemetery includes the remains of Muslim leaders and residents of Jerusalem who have been buried there for more than a thousand years.

The ceremony is for the Museum of Tolerance.

Iranian media is already trying to turn this into major incitement.

I looked at this issue 11 years ago, and unearth this Palestine Post article from November 22, 1945::

-------

An area of over 450 dunams in the heart of Jerusalem, now forming the Mamilla Cemetery, is to be converted into a business centre. The townplan is being completed under the supervision of the Supreme Moslem Council in conjunction with the Government Town Planning Adviser. A six-storeyed building to house the Supreme Moslem Council and other offices, a four-storeyed hotel, a bank and other buildings suitable for it, a college, a club and a factory are to be the main structures. There will also be a park to be called the Salah ed Din Park, after the Moslem warrior of Crusader times.

...In an interview with "Al-Wihda." the Jerusalem weekly, a member of the Supreme Moslem Council stated that the use of Moslem cemeteries in the public interest had many precedents both in Palestine and elsewhere....

The member added that the Supreme Moslem Council intended to publish a statement containing dispensations by Egyptian, Hejazi and Damascene clerics sanctioning the building programme.

The Supreme Muslim Council said that building on the cemetery was perfectly halal in 1945, and they even received support from Muslim clerics in Egypt and Saudi Arabia to build on top of these supposedly thousand year old graves.

Of course, the Museum of Tolerance was not built on top of a single grave. Court rulings consistently found that the graves had been moved years before.

There are few examples of Palestinian Arab hypocrisy more stark than how they themselves wanted to treat Mamilla Cemetery and their hysterical reactions to how Jews treat it in a far more respectful way.

One final piece of hypocrisy is how the Mufti himself acted when he built his own Palace hotel across the street from the cemetery.

He redirected hotel sewage on the graves.

(full article online)

Palestinians upset over Jews having a ceremony on a former cemetery that Muslims deconsecrated in the 1940s

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Yair Rosenberg points to a 2011 Jewish Telegraphic Agency article that shows one reason the Western world didn't know about the Holocaust.

In JTA's words:

At no time in history were JTA correspondents more needed than during the 12 long years of the Hitler regime. The JTA reported on the persecution and then the annihilation of Europe’s Jews, often providing the first, and sometimes the only, reports on the unfolding Holocaust. And at no time did its correspondents face more peril to their livelihood and lives.

As soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, problems began for the agency. It was, after all, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a country that was determined to deprive all Jews of their rights. The agency faced the Nazi regime’s physical attacks on its operations and rhetorical attacks on its journalistic integrity. “Much of the JTA’s superb reporting from Germany … was labeled Jewish anti-Nazi propaganda,” JTA’s founder and editor, Jacob Landau, explained years later in a report to the JTA board.

The German government was not the agency’s only problem.

“About 1933 …a resistance began to develop in the world press to acceptance of news involving Jews and others from what was considered a partisan (Jewish) source,” Landau wrote.

The New York Times dropped the service in 1937 despite repeated entreaties from JTA editors. The Associated Press followed suit. So many non-Jewish newspapers canceled that the agency felt compelled to form the Overseas News Agency so it could report from Europe under a non-Jewish moniker.

Still, JTA maintained its mission of serving as “the eyes and ears of world Jewry.” To the rest of the press, the destruction of Europe’s Jews was a secondary story, buried deep within newspapers. To the JTA, the extermination campaign was the story. As Germany marched into Austria and then into Czechoslovakia and other European countries, JTA correspondents chronicled the ensuing anti-Semitic legislation, property confiscations, sporadic violence, work formations, round-ups, and deportations.

At the very time that the US and the world needed accurate reports about the impending genocide of Jews in Europe, the major news agencies decided to no longer trust the Jewish news agency that they had used for decades - because it couldn't be unbiased.

That decision is based on antisemitism, saying that Jews cannot accurately report about other Jews.

Who knows how many lives could have been saved if Americans could have been reading about the Holocaust a year or two earlier than they did?

I found an example of the media's skepticism of JTA's objectivity in this January 1940 article about how difficult it was for Western reporters to know what Germany had done to Poland, because the only sources were from Polish, Catholic and Jewish sources.

(full article online)

Another kind of antisemitism: Not believing Jewish media can be objective. It happened in 1937 by @AP and the @NYTimes.

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

At the turn of the last century, every few years, Arabs in Morocco decided to kill their local Jews.

March 7, 1898:


July 29, 1903:




August 9, 1907, articles from Casablanca and Mazagan:

(full article online)

Arabs habitually murdered Jews in Morocco 1898-1907

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Was this family in the middle of fighting the Jews after Israel declared Independence?

If they were, and fought and killed Jews in order to destroy Israel, which was re constructed legally ON the Jewish homeland, then they.....and all the other Arabs who participated in attacking and attempting to destroy Israel and murdering all the Jews.....have no one but themselves to blame for listening to their Arab leaders in attacking, or being told by their leaders to leave until the Jews were destroyed.

The "Nakba" occured because Arabs listened to the Husseini clan and started riots and attacking and murdering Jews and refusing a Jewish sovereign State
ON Jewish land.

78% had already been stolen by the British to give to the Hashemite Arab clan, now they were fighting to steal the rest from the Jews and make them homeless or dead. As dead as the 6 Million Jews in Europe who could have been saved had it not been by Husseini and the British not allowing Jews to return to their homeland.

Shame on you and JVP for your worthless re writing of History.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Israel - Palestine Conflict, explained​

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Israel - Palestine Conflict, explained​

Zach Foster cannot explain the Israel -Palestine conflict because he washes out any and all Jewish history on the land, from it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

In Jude the Obscure, Hardy affirms the Jewish connection to Jerusalem when he details a trip by schoolchildren to see a model of the holy city. “It happened that the children were to be taken to Christminster to see an itinerant model of Jerusalem, to which schools were admitted at a penny a head in the interests of education.”
After walking around the model a few times, the pupils were bored. Realizing that this was the case, their school mistress Sue Bridehead commented, “I fancy we have had enough of Jerusalem,” she said, “considering we are not descended from Jews.”
Jerusalem, it was clear to Hardy, was Jewish indigenous territory. The Jews--and not Christians--were the inheritors of the Holy City. And in 1895, at least, there was no such thing as the West Bank. Places were apparently still known by their actual geographic designations:

“[They] expressed their thoughts so strongly to the meeting that a blackboard was split, three panes of the school-windows were broken, an inkbottle was spilled over a town-councillor’s shirt-front, [and] a church-warden was dealt such a topper with the map of Palestine that his head went right through Samaria . . .”

Samaria! How do you like them apples? No "West Bank." No "Occupied Palestinian Territory," but Samaria: Jewish indigenous territory.

(full article online)

Jude the Obscure: Thomas Hardy Affirms that Jerusalem Belongs to the Jews (Judean Rose)

Who knew? Thomas Hardy was a Zionist.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel, Palestine and the myth of the 'generous peace offers'​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Israel, Palestine and the myth of the 'generous peace offers'​

LOL!

 

[Sixties Fan]

Original documents belonging to Yemenite immigrants to Israel from the 1880s who lived in the Kfar HaShiloach neighborhood of Jerusalem were recently discovered and brought to light. The documents are thrilling testimonies of Jewish life in the neighborhood – known as Silwan in Arabic – situated right outside the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City.

The Jewish presence in Kfar HaShiloach dates back to 1881, when Yemenite Jews came to Jerusalem and established a community, and at its height ran five synagogues and numbered some 160 families.

Encountering Arab violence and attacks for several years, the community was forced to finally abandon the area in 1939, and the synagogues were desecrated by Muslim attackers.

Israel reunited its capital in 1967, and the Jews began to return to the area some 20 years ago, reacquiring one property after another, including some of the synagogues.

The newly discovered documents were part of an estate left by Mazal Cohen, a member of the Tabib family, a Palmach fighter who was a candidate to light a beacon in 2017 during Israel’s 69th Independence Day ceremony. They were handed over by her son Ronen Cohen to Gadi Bashari, chairman of the Kfar HaShiloach Public Council and member of the board of directors of the Zionist Archives.

Cohen recalled that while taking care of his late mother in her last months, he came across “a swollen bag of yellowing documents folded together.”

“Slowly, I separated the pile of documents, which included pictures that shed light on the story of the Tabib family in the Jewish village of Shiloach and the community life there. This revelation connected me and my family to my grandparents and the Yemenite community of Olim, who came among the pioneers of the First Aliyah and settled in the Shiloach village,” he explained.

(full article online)

Uncovered Historical Documents Testify to Vibrant Jewish Life in Eastern Jerusalem Neighborhood | United with Israel

The Jewish presence in Kfar HaShiloach dates back to 1881, which at its height ran five synagogues and numbered some 160 families.

unitedwithisrael.org

 

[rylah]

On This Day: Ottoman defeat in WWI | Battle of Beersheba​

October 31, 2021 marks 104 years since the Battle of Beersheba, a decisive victory in World War I for the British Army, consisting largely of Australian and New Zealand troops, marking an end to centuries of Ottoman rule in the country.

The battle saw the British forces coming off of multiple defeats against the Ottomans, specifically the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, a humiliating loss in the Battle of Kut in modern-day Iraq and then two losses in Gaza.

The commanding general of what had been dubbed the "Egyptian Expeditionary Force," Gen. Sir Archibald Murray, was replaced with Gen. Edmund Allenby, who had been given instructions to recapture Jerusalem by Christmas.

Read more:

On This Day: Ottomans defeated in World War I's Battle of Beersheba

The Battle of Beersheba broke the stalemate in the Middle East, helped fuel the Balfour Declaration and saw Australian troops launch one of history's last great cavalry charges.

www.jpost.com

 

[rylah]

Happy Cyrus Day​

Remembering the Persian king who carried out God's promise to the Jews at the 1st Temple destruction and allowed them to return to Israel.

October 29th has been designated as the international day of Cyrus the Great. It is indeed fascinating that after 2500 years, people still remember this trailblazer King for his actions which were revolutionary during his time.

Cyrus’s fame reached beyond his territory for his tolerance towards the countries and nations he subdued. It is cited time and again that he allowed people in his kingdom freedom of religion, freedom of worship and freedom to do as they please.

Read more -

Happy Cyrus Day

Remembering the Persian king who carried out God's promise to the Jews at the 1st Temple destruction and allowed them to return to Israel.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Zaquot then goes on to list the specific Arabs who sold large tracts of land to the Jews in the years after the Balfour Declaration.

The Sursock family (Michel Sursock and his brothers) sold 400,000 dunams to the Jews.

The Salam family sold 165,000 dunams to the Jews,

The Tians, Qabbanis, Bayhem, Sabbagh, Al-Quwatli, Al-Jaza’iri and Mardini families, most of them from Lebanon, are listed as having sold thousands of dunams to the Jews.

Given that Arabs like this author are steeped in an honor/shame mentality, why would he bring up this topic of shame that is rarely discussed in the Arab world?

Because some of his fellow Arabs behaved in a way he considers honorable.

The author takes it as a given that those who sell lands to Jews should be killed. He brings a story of some of those heroes who murdered land sellers:

Honorable Palestinians were strict in the issue of selling land, and they punished by death anyone who sold his land or worked as a broker to sell land. They exposed them to the public. The Arab press mentions the story of a broker from Jaffa who was shot dead while on his way to his house at night, and he was famous for brokering and selling land to the Jews. In the Muslim cemeteries, they transferred his body to the village of Qalqilya, his original town, and there was a reluctance to bury him in the Muslim cemetery. It was said that he was buried in a Jewish settlement called "Benjamina", and that his grave was exhumed at night and his body was dumped 20 meters away.

What a heartwarming story of Jew-hatred, vengeance and....honor!
Perhaps the current mainstream Arab anger at Lebanon is being manifested by trying to call the entire country traitors for having its richest people sell lands at a handsome profit to Jews in the 1910s-20s.

He doesn't mention that most of the lands sold were considered uncultivable. Last year I noted that maps of swamp areas in 1920s Palestine largely coincided with the areas Jews built up.


The land was not only legally bought by the Jews, but they worked hard to make it livable - which the "honorable Arabs" didn't consider important enough to do.

(full article online)

Arab writer admits Arab "traitors" sold land to the Jews in the 1920s (and he's proud of Arabs that murdered them)

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

The right to self-determination is an inalienable right enjoyed by all peoples indiscriminately. It has been confirmed as such in Art. 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter and in numerous other international documents. The many resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and the establishment of the UN “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” by the Assembly in 1975[1] are clear proof of the general recognition of this right in regard to the people of Palestine.[2] The Palestinians have enjoyed this right – as a natural right – not just since the time after the Second World War, but since a time well before the collapse of the 19th century order in the course of the First World War. As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.[3] According to Article 22 (4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, at the end of World War I and in the course of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian people was seen as a community whose existence as an independent nation could be “provisionally recognized.”[4] The drafters of the Covenant of the League of Nations based their legal notion of the mandate, especially in regard to the territories formerly under Turkish rule, on the assumption of national sovereignty of peoples “not yet able to stand by themselves” (Art. 22 [1]).[5]

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The pro-Arab Palestinian Contingent periodically brings these closely dependent issues up for discussion. And the state these issues as if some external power took aright away from them.

The right to self-determination is an inalienable right enjoyed by all peoples indiscriminately. It has been confirmed as such in Art. 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter and in numerous other international documents.

(COMMENT)

While the "numerous other international documents" are not binding, the UN Charter is a binding agreement between the members. And the UN Charter does NOT mention "self-determination of the people" as an INALIENABLE RIGHT. This is an exaggerated claim by the Arab Palestinians as → inflation (misinformation that leads the reader to believe that there is a violation of some sort) of what the "binding" aspect actually imparts.

​

Article 1 (2)​

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
SOURCE LINK: UN Charter

The references below are examples of the

References
----------------------------------------
A/RES/35/169(A-E). 15 December 1980
A/RES/49/148. 7 February 1995
A/RES/37/43. 3 December 1982

As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.

(COMMENT)

As discussed on numerous occasions, the actual designation for the region claiming to be "a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule" is again, misinformation (intended to deceive) and a mistake in facts.

​

As anyone can plainly see, the designation of "Palestine" is not on the Ottoman Empire Map of administrative divisions. This is, in part, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied (Short Title Palestine) was a British Government delineation "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."

Again, don't let the pro-Arab Palestinians fool up with their nonsense. It is like a child writing a term paper without doing any fact-checking.

According to Article 22 (4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, at the end of World War I and in the course of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian people was seen as a community whose existence as an independent nation could be “provisionally recognized.”

(COMMENT)

Yet again, no fact-checking, and this is definitely an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Article 22 of The League of Nations Covenant (1919) is composed of nine separate and distinct ideas. Not only is Palestine NOT mentioned in Article 22, Palestine was NOT mentioned anywhere in the entire Covenant.

What the writer here is trying to pass off as fact, is probably based on the phrase found in Article 22 (4): ("Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.")

But this doesn't apply to the Arab Palestinians. In the time between the Covenant being written and the Treaty of Lausanne being signed, the Arab Palestinians declined to "be brought into cooperation with the government." (Paragraph 22,
A/AC.14/8. 2 October 1947)

The drafters of the Covenant of the League of Nations based their legal notion of the mandate, especially in regard to the territories formerly under Turkish rule, on the assumption of national sovereignty of peoples “not yet able to stand by themselves” (Art. 22 [1]).

(COMMENT)

In the over 100 years since the League of Nations Covenant was signed, the Arab Palestinians are still very much dependent on donor nations to remain afloat as a government. In that time, the consequence of the poor choices made by the Arab Palestinians had a direct impact on their plight today. You can draw a direct line between the decisions made in the 1920s and the outcomes we see today in the corruption of the Ramallah and Gaza Governments.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

“The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

The Arabs really fucked it up, didn't they?

 

[rylah]

The right to self-determination is an inalienable right enjoyed by all peoples indiscriminately. It has been confirmed as such in Art. 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter and in numerous other international documents. The many resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and the establishment of the UN “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” by the Assembly in 1975[1] are clear proof of the general recognition of this right in regard to the people of Palestine.[2] The Palestinians have enjoyed this right – as a natural right – not just since the time after the Second World War, but since a time well before the collapse of the 19th century order in the course of the First World War. As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.[3] According to Article 22 (4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, at the end of World War I and in the course of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian people was seen as a community whose existence as an independent nation could be “provisionally recognized.”[4] The drafters of the Covenant of the League of Nations based their legal notion of the mandate, especially in regard to the territories formerly under Turkish rule, on the assumption of national sovereignty of peoples “not yet able to stand by themselves” (Art. 22 [1]).[5]

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

The Palestinians have enjoyed this right – as a natural right – not just since the time after the Second World War, but since a time well before the collapse of the 19th century order in the course of the First World War. As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.[3]

If Arabs claim to have enjoyed self-determination under the rule of the Ottoman Caliphate -
then their vision of self-determination has never been of independence or sovereignty,
as they had none under that foreign feudal rule.

Then what is their goal really,
independence or Arab-Muslim supremacy?

 

[rylah]

“The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

It's your classic colonialist argument - because you change the inhabitants and claim they're sovereign,
rather than a specific nation with the historic and legal title.

Question rather - how do you decolonize a country
arguing to remain another colony of Arab - Muslim imperialism?