The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Challenger]

Arab Muslims didn't exist when the name of Judea was changed by Hadrian to Palaestina.

Never said they did. "Judeans" changed their name to "Palestinians" and when the Romans finally left, the same people eventually converted to Islam, got it now?

 

[Phoenall]

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims --

Wrong. The Palestinians included at the time, two groups; (1) the indigenous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, most of whom had adopted and adapted to Arabic culture and (2) Jewish European Zionist colonisers who came to disposess the first group.

I find it absolutely astonishing that you can create and walk through the intellectually twisted hoop which says that Roman Christian and Arab Muslim invaders and colonizers gained rightful possession of the territory while the original inhabitants, returning to their homeland, even if you count them also as invaders and colonizers just exactly like the Roman Christians and the Arab Muslims, have no rights.

It is intellectually dishonest. Or incredibly stupid.

The only one walking through intellectually twisted hoops is you. Where have I said anything of the sort? Palestine has known the tread of many different "conquerors" in it's long history. Such conquerors form a "social veneer", a ruling elite. The lower orders are always there, to be ruled/exploited. These are the original inhabitants and over time they adapt and adopt, to a greater or lesser extent, the language, religion and customs of their rulers. There is no evidence in the historical record of any conqueror displacing or exterminating the whole population of this area. There was no "diaspora" forced on the whole population. Judaism and Christianity were both proselytising monotheistic religions keenly competing with each other for followers; missionaries from both religions abounded throughout the Roman Empire until the 4th-5th centuries when Christianity won out and set about systematically persecuting all other competing religions.

The indigenous inhabitants have more rights to their ancestral homeland than any converts or descendents of converts.

I have said before and I'll say it again, I have no objection to any Jewish person from anywhwere in the world living in Palestine, period. I do, however, strongly object to a cynical politico-religious group of European colonisers; Zionists, co-opting the religion of Judaism in order to conquer, colonise and disposess the indigenous people of the place.

So you admit that the Jews have more rights to Palestine than the converts or the descendants of islamonazi converts.

You lose either way don't you. If they are arab then they are recent invaders. If they are converts then they fall into your criteria

 

[Phoenall]

Arab Muslims didn't exist when the name of Judea was changed by Hadrian to Palaestina.

Never said they did. "Judeans" changed their name to "Palestinians" and when the Romans finally left, the same people eventually converted to Islam, got it now?

So they are the converts that you say have no rights to the land, nice one rat boy you just blew big holes in your argument.



But what about the rights of the indigenous that were still Jews and never left Palestine. The evidence for this is in the Roman histories and the Ottoman histories that show the Jews had never left Palestine and stayed right up until 1948 when they declared independence

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting assertion, here's an interesting article about that from the "My Jewish Learning" website on this topic, I read the whole article butthis bit encapsulates Jewish thought throughout for most of history; spiritual redemption...

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere. You are just plain wrong.

(Wow. What is in the water this week? Genocides where no one is dying and no one is killing, people who are both obese and starving to death; magical tunnels thru which people are killed and kidnapped but don't exist, and now this where it never occurred to any of the Jewish people to want to actually return to Eretz Israel until 1912. The world has gone mad.)

Now you are arguing against yourself; in one post you list all the "cultural qualities" that make Jewish people "unique", now you say these "qualities" are irrelevant.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying those qualities are irrelevant. I am claiming their relevancy. What I'm trying to get you to do is to come up with your own set of criteria or standard for deciding whether or not a people are a people and therefore have rights to a national self-determination. But you are entirely incapable of doing so. Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people.

If the Jewish people were in fact an ethnic group, you might conceivably have a point.

I do have a point. What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination" and then working backwards from there to try to justify your blatant bias. Its like saying "black people have no rights" and then justifying that claim. What you should be doing is working from the beginning: Do all peoples have rights to national self-determination? Or only some? If only some, which criteria forms the standard?

The standard for self determination is the people of the place. It is the inhabitants of a territory who have that right.

The UN Charter also implicitly refers to the principle of self-determination in the part concerning colonies and other dependent territories. Art. 73 UN Charter affirms that

[m]embers of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

7 Furthermore, Art. 76 (b) UN Charter provides that one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system is to promote the ‘progressive development’ of the inhabitants of the trust territories towards ‘self-government or independence’, taking into account, inter alia, ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (see also United Nations Trusteeship System).

Oxford Public International Law: Self​

The Palestinians were the legal inhabitants of Palestine and were Palestinian citizens.

And again the underlying statement n your post is that the Jews are not to be included in this and should be denied all access to international laws. The Jews being 23% of the population of Palestine where granted 23 % of the land, the muslims being 77% of the population where granted 73% of the land. But you only see the Jewish part of Palestine as being Palestine don't you, when in reality it also included what is now Jordan and parts of Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon.

Nonsense, the native Jews became Palestinian citizens just like everyone else. There was no discrimination.

 

[Phoenall]

Interesting assertion, here's an interesting article about that from the "My Jewish Learning" website on this topic, I read the whole article butthis bit encapsulates Jewish thought throughout for most of history; spiritual redemption...

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere. You are just plain wrong.

(Wow. What is in the water this week? Genocides where no one is dying and no one is killing, people who are both obese and starving to death; magical tunnels thru which people are killed and kidnapped but don't exist, and now this where it never occurred to any of the Jewish people to want to actually return to Eretz Israel until 1912. The world has gone mad.)

Now you are arguing against yourself; in one post you list all the "cultural qualities" that make Jewish people "unique", now you say these "qualities" are irrelevant.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying those qualities are irrelevant. I am claiming their relevancy. What I'm trying to get you to do is to come up with your own set of criteria or standard for deciding whether or not a people are a people and therefore have rights to a national self-determination. But you are entirely incapable of doing so. Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people.

If the Jewish people were in fact an ethnic group, you might conceivably have a point.

I do have a point. What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination" and then working backwards from there to try to justify your blatant bias. Its like saying "black people have no rights" and then justifying that claim. What you should be doing is working from the beginning: Do all peoples have rights to national self-determination? Or only some? If only some, which criteria forms the standard?

The standard for self determination is the people of the place. It is the inhabitants of a territory who have that right.

The UN Charter also implicitly refers to the principle of self-determination in the part concerning colonies and other dependent territories. Art. 73 UN Charter affirms that

[m]embers of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

7 Furthermore, Art. 76 (b) UN Charter provides that one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system is to promote the ‘progressive development’ of the inhabitants of the trust territories towards ‘self-government or independence’, taking into account, inter alia, ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (see also United Nations Trusteeship System).

Oxford Public International Law: Self​

The Palestinians were the legal inhabitants of Palestine and were Palestinian citizens.

And again the underlying statement n your post is that the Jews are not to be included in this and should be denied all access to international laws. The Jews being 23% of the population of Palestine where granted 23 % of the land, the muslims being 77% of the population where granted 73% of the land. But you only see the Jewish part of Palestine as being Palestine don't you, when in reality it also included what is now Jordan and parts of Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon.

Nonsense, the native Jews became Palestinian citizens just like everyone else. There was no discrimination.

Read the mandate again and see where the arab muslims are mentioned as being the ones to get citizenship. I do highlight this fact every time I post the Mandate of Palestine, so why haven't you picked up on this yet.


And does your claim include the Jewish migrants who where invited to close settle and colonise the land ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting assertion, here's an interesting article about that from the "My Jewish Learning" website on this topic, I read the whole article butthis bit encapsulates Jewish thought throughout for most of history; spiritual redemption...

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere. You are just plain wrong.

(Wow. What is in the water this week? Genocides where no one is dying and no one is killing, people who are both obese and starving to death; magical tunnels thru which people are killed and kidnapped but don't exist, and now this where it never occurred to any of the Jewish people to want to actually return to Eretz Israel until 1912. The world has gone mad.)

Now you are arguing against yourself; in one post you list all the "cultural qualities" that make Jewish people "unique", now you say these "qualities" are irrelevant.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying those qualities are irrelevant. I am claiming their relevancy. What I'm trying to get you to do is to come up with your own set of criteria or standard for deciding whether or not a people are a people and therefore have rights to a national self-determination. But you are entirely incapable of doing so. Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people.

If the Jewish people were in fact an ethnic group, you might conceivably have a point.

I do have a point. What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination" and then working backwards from there to try to justify your blatant bias. Its like saying "black people have no rights" and then justifying that claim. What you should be doing is working from the beginning: Do all peoples have rights to national self-determination? Or only some? If only some, which criteria forms the standard?

The standard for self determination is the people of the place. It is the inhabitants of a territory who have that right.

The UN Charter also implicitly refers to the principle of self-determination in the part concerning colonies and other dependent territories. Art. 73 UN Charter affirms that

[m]embers of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

7 Furthermore, Art. 76 (b) UN Charter provides that one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system is to promote the ‘progressive development’ of the inhabitants of the trust territories towards ‘self-government or independence’, taking into account, inter alia, ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (see also United Nations Trusteeship System).

Oxford Public International Law: Self​

The Palestinians were the legal inhabitants of Palestine and were Palestinian citizens.

And again the underlying statement n your post is that the Jews are not to be included in this and should be denied all access to international laws. The Jews being 23% of the population of Palestine where granted 23 % of the land, the muslims being 77% of the population where granted 73% of the land. But you only see the Jewish part of Palestine as being Palestine don't you, when in reality it also included what is now Jordan and parts of Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon.

Nonsense, the native Jews became Palestinian citizens just like everyone else. There was no discrimination.

Read the mandate again and see where the arab muslims are mentioned as being the ones to get citizenship. I do highlight this fact every time I post the Mandate of Palestine, so why haven't you picked up on this yet.


And does your claim include the Jewish migrants who where invited to close settle and colonise the land ?

The natives were not mentioned because they already got citizenship.

 

[Shusha]

I have said before and I'll say it again, I have no objection to any Jewish person from anywhwere in the world living in Palestine, period. I do, however, strongly object to a cynical politico-religious group of European colonisers; Zionists, co-opting the religion of Judaism in order to conquer, colonise and disposess the indigenous people of the place.

You are such a hypocrite. So, Roman Christians and Arab Muslims can conquer, invade and colonize the indigenous people and this actually transfers the rights from the indigenous peoples to the invaders (or the mix of indigenous and invaders). But when the Jewish people conquer, invade and colonize (actually return from exile) they have no rights.

Christianizing and Romanizing and Islamizing and Arabizing is fine, but the territory must not be Judaized!

 

[Shusha]

Challenger

Out of curiosity, how can you tell if a person is a "Jewish person" or a "cynical, politico-religious Zionist who has co-opted the religion of Judaism"?

The first being permitted to live in Israel and the second not?

 

[Boston1]

Arab Muslims didn't exist when the name of Judea was changed by Hadrian to Palaestina.

Never said they did. "Judeans" changed their name to "Palestinians" and when the Romans finally left, the same people eventually converted to Islam, got it now?

LMAO man you are struggling with this one.

The Romans left in about 400 CE. Islam didn't hit the scene until about the 7th century and expanded into Judea in waves starting around the 9th century with the largest wave by far in the early to mid 20th century.

Compare that to ancient Jerusalem

Quote

1st century Jerusalem[edit]

The population of Jerusalem in the time of Josephus has been estimated to be around 80,000.[4] The total population of Pharisees, the forerunners of modern Rabbinic Judaism, was around 6,000 ("exakischilioi"), according to Josephus.[5]

During the First Jewish–Roman War(66–73 CE), the population of Jerusalem was estimated at 600,000 persons by Roman historian Tacitus, while Josephus, estimated that there were as many as 1,100,000, who were killed in the war.[6] Josephus also wrote that 97,000 were sold as slaves. After the Roman victory over the Jews, as many as 115,880 dead bodies were carried out through one gate between the months of Nisan and Tammuz.[7]

Arguing that the numbers given in historical sources were usually grossly exaggerated, Hillel Geva estimated from the archaeological evidence that the actual population of Jerusalem before its 70 CE destruction was at most 20,000.[8]

End Quote

So its fairly easy to see that the Arabs swarmed in droves to Israel mainly in the early to mid 20th century

Also there is NO mention of Muslims population at all in Judea until the Ottoman period.

Since you rely on WIKI so heavily I'll lower myself again

Demographic history of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Quote

Muslim "relative majority"[edit]

Henry Light, who visited Jerusalem in 1814, reported that Muslims comprised the largest portion of the 12,000 person population, but that Jews made the greatest single sect.[12] In 1818, Robert Richardson estimated the number of Jews to be 10,000, twice the number of Muslims.[13][14] His estimates, however, have been discredited on account of incontinuity with earlier and later estimates.

End Quote

So tell us again how everyone converted ? and how all those Arab Muslims have been there for generations ?

Seems to me that you have a few thousand Arabs who MIGHT have been there for a few generations but the vast majority of the Arab Muslims now in Israel IMMIGRATED there in THE EARLY TO MID 20TH CENTURY

Got it ?

 

[Phoenall]

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere. You are just plain wrong.

(Wow. What is in the water this week? Genocides where no one is dying and no one is killing, people who are both obese and starving to death; magical tunnels thru which people are killed and kidnapped but don't exist, and now this where it never occurred to any of the Jewish people to want to actually return to Eretz Israel until 1912. The world has gone mad.)

You misunderstand me. I am not saying those qualities are irrelevant. I am claiming their relevancy. What I'm trying to get you to do is to come up with your own set of criteria or standard for deciding whether or not a people are a people and therefore have rights to a national self-determination. But you are entirely incapable of doing so. Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people.

I do have a point. What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination" and then working backwards from there to try to justify your blatant bias. Its like saying "black people have no rights" and then justifying that claim. What you should be doing is working from the beginning: Do all peoples have rights to national self-determination? Or only some? If only some, which criteria forms the standard?

The standard for self determination is the people of the place. It is the inhabitants of a territory who have that right.

The UN Charter also implicitly refers to the principle of self-determination in the part concerning colonies and other dependent territories. Art. 73 UN Charter affirms that

[m]embers of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

7 Furthermore, Art. 76 (b) UN Charter provides that one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system is to promote the ‘progressive development’ of the inhabitants of the trust territories towards ‘self-government or independence’, taking into account, inter alia, ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (see also United Nations Trusteeship System).

Oxford Public International Law: Self​

The Palestinians were the legal inhabitants of Palestine and were Palestinian citizens.

And again the underlying statement n your post is that the Jews are not to be included in this and should be denied all access to international laws. The Jews being 23% of the population of Palestine where granted 23 % of the land, the muslims being 77% of the population where granted 73% of the land. But you only see the Jewish part of Palestine as being Palestine don't you, when in reality it also included what is now Jordan and parts of Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon.

Nonsense, the native Jews became Palestinian citizens just like everyone else. There was no discrimination.

Read the mandate again and see where the arab muslims are mentioned as being the ones to get citizenship. I do highlight this fact every time I post the Mandate of Palestine, so why haven't you picked up on this yet.


And does your claim include the Jewish migrants who where invited to close settle and colonise the land ?

The natives were not mentioned because they already got citizenship.

Citizenship of Syria perhaps, but not Palestine as there was no nation of that name.

You just cant accept it can you, that the arab muslims where being punished for their part in the war and as the losers they face losing it all. That is why they are not mentioned by any name in the Mandate of Palestine, and why they get nothing out of any of the mandates.

 

[Challenger]

I have said before and I'll say it again, I have no objection to any Jewish person from anywhwere in the world living in Palestine, period. I do, however, strongly object to a cynical politico-religious group of European colonisers; Zionists, co-opting the religion of Judaism in order to conquer, colonise and disposess the indigenous people of the place.

You are such a hypocrite. So, Roman Christians and Arab Muslims can conquer, invade and colonize the indigenous people and this actually transfers the rights from the indigenous peoples to the invaders (or the mix of indigenous and invaders). But when the Jewish people conquer, invade and colonize (actually return from exile) they have no rights.

Christianizing and Romanizing and Islamizing and Arabizing is fine, but the territory must not be Judaized!

For someone who constantly bitches about "name calling" on this forum, you seem to be remarkably prolific at it, but then again, that's a standard Hasbara troll tactic.

You need to put things into the proper perspective, two points:
First, again you confuse ethicity with religion, Romans didn't colonise the region, the indigenous population was, in the main, left to their own devices. Rome was interested in tax revenue. Romans eventually adopted Christianity as the official religion of their empire; it was up to individuals whether to convert or not; again no colonisation. The same applies to the Muslim conquest. In both cases the native indigenous population gradually adapted to the new situation and adopted the languages and customs of the conquerors, but I've been through all this before several times and I'm getting bored repeating myself.

As for Jewish exile, that is the biggest myth of them all. Both during the Roman Empire and the later Caliphate and even during the Ottoman era there were no restrictions placed on the movements of people within these empires. The only place put "off limits" to followers of Judaism, from time to time, was the city of Jerusalem; usually after a rebellion or period of religious bigotry (i.e.) in the Crusader Kingdom period.

The second, and perhaps more important point, is the simple fact that from the Great War and especially during the "new World order" after WW2, acquiring territory by conquest or colonisation was beginning to be seen as illegal/immoral/unethical. European Zionists had the bad luck to want to colonise Palestine when eveyone else was turning their backs on colonialism and colonialist adventures; hence the "Mandate System" was invented to get around the fact that Britain and France were just carving up the place creating new colonies..oops no, erm...Mandates (phew that was close, don't think anyone noticed)

 

[Challenger]

Arab Muslims didn't exist when the name of Judea was changed by Hadrian to Palaestina.

Never said they did. "Judeans" changed their name to "Palestinians" and when the Romans finally left, the same people eventually converted to Islam, got it now?

LMAO man you are struggling with this one.

The Romans left in about 400 CE. Islam didn't hit the scene until about the 7th century and expanded into Judea in waves starting around the 9th century with the largest wave by far in the early to mid 20th century.

Compare that to ancient Jerusalem

Quote

1st century Jerusalem[edit]

The population of Jerusalem in the time of Josephus has been estimated to be around 80,000.[4] The total population of Pharisees, the forerunners of modern Rabbinic Judaism, was around 6,000 ("exakischilioi"), according to Josephus.[5]

During the First Jewish–Roman War(66–73 CE), the population of Jerusalem was estimated at 600,000 persons by Roman historian Tacitus, while Josephus, estimated that there were as many as 1,100,000, who were killed in the war.[6] Josephus also wrote that 97,000 were sold as slaves. After the Roman victory over the Jews, as many as 115,880 dead bodies were carried out through one gate between the months of Nisan and Tammuz.[7]

Arguing that the numbers given in historical sources were usually grossly exaggerated, Hillel Geva estimated from the archaeological evidence that the actual population of Jerusalem before its 70 CE destruction was at most 20,000.[8]

End Quote

So its fairly easy to see that the Arabs swarmed in droves to Israel mainly in the early to mid 20th century

Also there is NO mention of Muslims population at all in Judea until the Ottoman period.

Since you rely on WIKI so heavily I'll lower myself again

Demographic history of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Quote

Muslim "relative majority"[edit]

Henry Light, who visited Jerusalem in 1814, reported that Muslims comprised the largest portion of the 12,000 person population, but that Jews made the greatest single sect.[12] In 1818, Robert Richardson estimated the number of Jews to be 10,000, twice the number of Muslims.[13][14] His estimates, however, have been discredited on account of incontinuity with earlier and later estimates.

End Quote

So tell us again how everyone converted ? and how all those Arab Muslims have been there for generations ?

Seems to me that you have a few thousand Arabs who MIGHT have been there for a few generations but the vast majority of the Arab Muslims now in Israel IMMIGRATED there in THE EARLY TO MID 20TH CENTURY

Got it ?

You got a link to the graph and the data it is based on? The rest of your post is drivel, but as you keep publishing that graph at every opportunity, it piqued my interest.

 

[Boston1]

History according to a rodent, yikes.

Not very bright, if you have to ask others to do your homework for you.

Its not like I haven't provided this link about ten times already

Redirect Notice

Lots of data concerning this issue

This link is pleasantly neutral

Redirect Notice

But the data is the same.

Let the denial begin

 

[Challenger]

History according to a rodent, yikes.

Not very bright, if you have to ask others to do your homework for you.

Its not like I haven't provided this link about ten times already

Redirect Notice

Lots of data concerning this issue

This link is pleasantly neutral

Redirect Notice

But the data is the same.

Let the denial begin

Thank you. I'll read through your blog when I get a moment.

 

[Phoenall]

I have said before and I'll say it again, I have no objection to any Jewish person from anywhwere in the world living in Palestine, period. I do, however, strongly object to a cynical politico-religious group of European colonisers; Zionists, co-opting the religion of Judaism in order to conquer, colonise and disposess the indigenous people of the place.

You are such a hypocrite. So, Roman Christians and Arab Muslims can conquer, invade and colonize the indigenous people and this actually transfers the rights from the indigenous peoples to the invaders (or the mix of indigenous and invaders). But when the Jewish people conquer, invade and colonize (actually return from exile) they have no rights.

Christianizing and Romanizing and Islamizing and Arabizing is fine, but the territory must not be Judaized!

For someone who constantly bitches about "name calling" on this forum, you seem to be remarkably prolific at it, but then again, that's a standard Hasbara troll tactic.

You need to put things into the proper perspective, two points:
First, again you confuse ethicity with religion, Romans didn't colonise the region, the indigenous population was, in the main, left to their own devices. Rome was interested in tax revenue. Romans eventually adopted Christianity as the official religion of their empire; it was up to individuals whether to convert or not; again no colonisation. The same applies to the Muslim conquest. In both cases the native indigenous population gradually adapted to the new situation and adopted the languages and customs of the conquerors, but I've been through all this before several times and I'm getting bored repeating myself.

As for Jewish exile, that is the biggest myth of them all. Both during the Roman Empire and the later Caliphate and even during the Ottoman era there were no restrictions placed on the movements of people within these empires. The only place put "off limits" to followers of Judaism, from time to time, was the city of Jerusalem; usually after a rebellion or period of religious bigotry (i.e.) in the Crusader Kingdom period.

The second, and perhaps more important point, is the simple fact that from the Great War and especially during the "new World order" after WW2, acquiring territory by conquest or colonisation was beginning to be seen as illegal/immoral/unethical. European Zionists had the bad luck to want to colonise Palestine when eveyone else was turning their backs on colonialism and colonialist adventures; hence the "Mandate System" was invented to get around the fact that Britain and France were just carving up the place creating new colonies..oops no, erm...Mandates (phew that was close, don't think anyone noticed)

Then do explain why the British and the French had no power in the M.E. and the LoN was handing out parcels of land as promised to Saudi minor royalty. So much so that 99.9% of the M.E. under the mandate system was handed to Saudi princes and populated by the arab muslims that lived in the area. So when did these colonies become real and then die outside of your fantasy world ?

 

[Challenger]

Then do explain why the British and the French had no power in the M.E. and the LoN was handing out parcels of land as promised to Saudi minor royalty. So much so that 99.9% of the M.E. under the mandate system was handed to Saudi princes and populated by the arab muslims that lived in the area. So when did these colonies become real and then die outside of your fantasy world ?

Most of the time you spout drivel that doesn't merit any form of response other than perhaps a contemptuous derisive snort, but this is so bad, it's beyond laughable. Do everyone here a favour and read a decent history book.

If you do, amongst the things you'll find out is that the League of Nations was "controlled" by Britain and France, the two great imperial "super powers" of the time, from the outset. In effect, they decided between them who got what mandate and the Council and Assembly "rubber stamped" their decisions. The fact that Germany, USSR and America were not members at the time (and America never joined) exacerbated the problem.

Here's a few pointers for you or anyone else interested in the history:

Peacemakers Six Months that Changed The World: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War: Amazon.co.uk: Margaret MacMillan: 9780719562372: Books

The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Amazon.co.uk: Jonathan Schneer: 9781408809709: Books

A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East: Amazon.co.uk: James Barr: 9781847394576: Books


Another thing you'd learn is that it was the banu Hashem not the banu Saud that got most of the area, i.e. Iraq, Jordan, Arabia, as clients states of Britain. That is, until the Hashemite King of Arabia became a bit too independantly minded for British tastes, then they switched their support to the Saudis

The Arabs: A History - Second Edition: Amazon.co.uk: Eugene Rogan: 9780718196783: Books

 

[Phoenall]

Then do explain why the British and the French had no power in the M.E. and the LoN was handing out parcels of land as promised to Saudi minor royalty. So much so that 99.9% of the M.E. under the mandate system was handed to Saudi princes and populated by the arab muslims that lived in the area. So when did these colonies become real and then die outside of your fantasy world ?

Most of the time you spout drivel that doesn't merit any form of response other than perhaps a contemptuous derisive snort, but this is so bad, it's beyond laughable. Do everyone here a favour and read a decent history book.

If you do, amongst the things you'll find out is that the League of Nations was "controlled" by Britain and France, the two great imperial "super powers" of the time, from the outset. In effect, they decided between them who got what mandate and the Council and Assembly "rubber stamped" their decisions. The fact that Germany, USSR and America were not members at the time (and America never joined) exacerbated the problem.

Here's a few pointers for you or anyone else interested in the history:

Peacemakers Six Months that Changed The World: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War: Amazon.co.uk: Margaret MacMillan: 9780719562372: Books

The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Amazon.co.uk: Jonathan Schneer: 9781408809709: Books

A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East: Amazon.co.uk: James Barr: 9781847394576: Books


Another thing you'd learn is that it was the banu Hashem not the banu Saud that got most of the area, i.e. Iraq, Jordan, Arabia, as clients states of Britain. That is, until the Hashemite King of Arabia became a bit too independantly minded for British tastes, then they switched their support to the Saudis

The Arabs: A History - Second Edition: Amazon.co.uk: Eugene Rogan: 9780718196783: Books

In other words you don't have an intelligent answer to the glaringly obvious mistake that you are making. Slipping in adverts for books does not help either as these are just one persons views on the subject.

Now do explain how if Britain was one of the superpowers it had no real authority in Palestine and had to go cap in hand to the LoN if it wanted to do anything. Maybe you should read a contemporary history book that tells the truth, one that will tell you about the Russian mandate ( that's a new for you isn't it )to the north of the Mesopotamian mandate. The facts are the British and French found themselves powerless to ride roughshod over the M.E. as you claim as the other LoN countries would not let them. The council did not rubber stamp their decisions at all, and stopped many of them in their tracks. For starters calling a halt to Jewish migration was denied until the UN had a firm control in 1945.



Keep trying one day you might get it right and stop posting islamonazi/neo Marxist propaganda and LIES

 

[Challenger]

Let the denial begin

Thank you. I'll read through your blog when I get a moment.

Okay, so having read through the blog, to be clear, can you confirm you are using this and other graphs to assert that there was an extraordinary increase in the Muslim population of Palestine at the start of the 20th Century and that this was due to Arab immigration?

 

[Boston1]

Let the denial begin

Thank you. I'll read through your blog when I get a moment.

Okay, so having read through the blog, to be clear, can you confirm you are using this and other graphs to assert that there was an extraordinary increase in the Muslim population of Palestine at the start of the 20th Century and that this was due to Arab immigration?

I'm not basing my views of just one blog. Or blogs at all. I referenced ONE graph from ONE blog in a litany of data points I've cited from numerous sources. No conclusions can be drawn from any single source. Hell I didn't even agree with half the stuff in the one source I thought you'd find interesting, which is why I thought you'd find it interesting.

I've provided multiple sources to show the radical increase in Arab population within the second Arab colonial period.

 

[Phoenall]

Let the denial begin

Thank you. I'll read through your blog when I get a moment.

Okay, so having read through the blog, to be clear, can you confirm you are using this and other graphs to assert that there was an extraordinary increase in the Muslim population of Palestine at the start of the 20th Century and that this was due to Arab immigration?

Are you basing your assumptions of a 20% increase in population figures on the possibility of there being innumerable multiple births over and above the best case scenario for the civilised world, never mind the third world where the figures would have been less than 1% at that time