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

[NathanCross]

The rise of Communism in Europe was heavily assisted by Jewish intellectuals and revolutionary leaders. That's a cold, hard fact. Jews are notorious for having a conservative culture, but liberal politics, due to their religious ethics. They're also clannish, arrogant toward Gentiles, and eager to subvert White Christian culture and society. While they humorously accept the grovelling of and money from Protestant Christians, they who worship the Bible and therein glorify the Old Testament, they despise the Catholic Church, their arch-enemy of old.

 

[NathanCross]

If Zionism were colonial it would have ended long ago | Opinion

Jews indeed "colonize", indirectly, by seizing control of international finance, the Western media, and the entertainment and publishing industries. In Palestine, they continuously squeeze out Arabs with their constant land-grabbing. That said, the Arabs are uncivilized, head-chopping Muslims, so who cares? Complicated scenario..... I support the Jews in Israel. I oppose the Bolshevik-Jews in the West.

Repeating classic antisemitic canards from the 1920's is hardly a way to show support for Jews anywhere.

I recommend the book, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, by Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg. This Jewish scholar explains the problem best.

Are you recommending the book as support of anti-semitisim?!

Give up the labels. Read it for the truth. And remember -- the author is Jewish, and a high-powered intellectual.

 

[P F Tinmore]

''UN-CUT FOR PALESTINE'' with George Galloway.

 

[Sixties Fan]

''UN-CUT FOR PALESTINE'' with George Galloway.

An "expert"

 

[Shusha]

''UN-CUT FOR PALESTINE'' with George Galloway.

"The Jewish people had no wish to immigrate."

Pah-leeze. That is a lie Team Palestine tells itself to justify their mistreatment of the Jewish people.

 

[Sixties Fan]

One way to answer is this: For the 400 years before World War I, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, so it was owned by the Turks, not by the Arabs, let alone by the Arabs of Palestine. Palestine is an old but imprecise geographical term. It remained imprecise because there was never a country called Palestine. Even when—long ago— it was under Arab rule, Palestine was never ruled by its own Arab inhabitants.

So it’s not accurate to say that Palestine was a country, nor to say it was Arab land. Neither the Jews nor the British stole it from the Arabs. The original Zionists came to Palestine without the backing of any imperialist or colonialist power. They bought the land on which they settled. And before Britain invaded Palestine in World War I, the Ottoman Turks had joined Germany and attacked Allied forces.
--------

In other words, colonialism didn’t bring Britain to Palestine. Britain didn’t seize Palestine from an unoffending native population. It conquered the land not from the Arabs, but from Turkey, which (as noted) had joined Britain’s enemies in the war. The Arabs in Palestine fought for Turkey against Britain. The land was enemy territory.

Supporting Zionism appealed to Lloyd George, Balfour and other officials not just on strategic grounds, but also for moral reasons. They sympathized with the Jewish national cause. Zionism was an answer to the historical Jewish question, a way to remedy some of the harm shamefully done to the Jewish people over history. And it would give Jews an opportunity to normalize their place in the world, by building up a national center and a refuge, a country in their ancient homeland where they could become the majority and enjoy self-determination as a people

When those officials were young men, George Eliot, in her influential 1876 novel Daniel Deronda, foresaw the creation of a movement to create a “new Jewish polity.” The Jews then, she wrote, in the voice of a Jewish character, “shall have an organic centre” and “the outraged Jew shall have a defense in the court of nations, as the outraged Englishman or American. And the world will gain as Israel gains.” That character continued, “[L]et there be another great migration, another choosing of Israel to be a nationality whose members may still stretch to the ends of the earth, even as the sons of England and Germany, whom enterprise carries afar, but who still have a national hearth and a tribunal of national opinion. . . . Who says that the history and literature of our race are dead? Are they not as living as the history and literature of Greece and Rome, which have inspired revolutions . . .? These were an inheritance dug from the tomb. Ours is an inheritance that has never ceased to quiver in millions of human frames.” Lloyd George, Balfour, Winston Churchill and other British leaders in the Great War era echoed the lyrical pro-Jewish sympathy of Eliot’s best-selling novel.

The Balfour Declaration, like Israel’s recent Jewish nation-state law, distinguished between a people’s national rights and the civil and religious rights of individuals. After endorsing “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” the Balfour Declaration said, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

(full article online)

Farmers and Fighters: The Making of the Land

 

[NathanCross]

Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.

So much garbage.

Jews were defending themselves from endless riots and attacks from 1920 on, when JEWS and not Arabs were being systematically cleansed out of ALL of Gaza - 1920, ALL of TransJordan - 1925, All of Hebron - 1929, and then in 1948 from ALL of Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (pay attention to the word Jewish, not Armenian, German or the fourth Quarter. No one from the other three Quarters of Jerusalem were attacked and then expelled ) AND from ALL of Judea and Samaria.

The UN partition was NOT about clearing Arabs from Jewish Land. You do not seem to be aware, or care that a huge number of Arabs stayed in Independent Israel, because the Jewish leaders did not attack them and demand expulsion, but actually asked to stay, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, or anywhere else.

The Palestinian Arabs who were expelled during the war started by the Arab League were the ones attacking Jews and wanting them dead.

What country would not expel those who wish their population to be dead and their country destroyed?

There are Millions of Arabs living in Israel because they did not raise arms agains the Jews but chose to be a part of the new country.

Go tell your conspiracy theories somewhere where no one will catch up with all the lies you seem to enjoy telling.

 

[Shusha]

Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.

I agree with everything Sixties has already said. Just want to emphasize your use of language and how it is used to claim false things as true.

• "Terrorism", by definition, is not conducted against military targets. The correct term for military force used against military targets is "war". As in: Israeli warfare, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people and defeated all opponents.
• You specifically detail the British, but are deliberately vague about "all opponents". The other opponents were also specific. Why did you apply a vague term rather than a specific one, if not to hide who the other opponents were?
• You use the term "military targets" but fail to explain what these targets were. Why do you leave this part out, if not to hide the nature of those military targets?
• "Ethnic-cleansing" is a common charge against Israel, but can be proven patently false on two grounds. The first is the nature of an ethnic conflict where two peoples are vying for the same territory and the other the obvious fact that there are plenty of Arabs in Israel. On the other hand, virtually no Jews remain in ANY territories or nations controlled by Arabs. (And that's ALL Arabs, not just the ones actually in the conflict.)
• You tie "clear Arabs from Jewish lands" to the partition as though it was the partition which was the event which caused Jewish military action. You deliberately leave out (hide) the true cause of the conflict -- which was the attacking Arab armies.
• Then you use language which deliberately holds the Jewish people and Jewish State (and only the Jews) accountable for the continued conflict and excuse continued Arab belligerence.

 

[NathanCross]

Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.

So much garbage.

Jews were defending themselves from endless riots and attacks from 1920 on, when JEWS and not Arabs were being systematically cleansed out of ALL of Gaza - 1920, ALL of TransJordan - 1925, All of Hebron - 1929, and then in 1948 from ALL of Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (pay attention to the word Jewish, not Armenian, German or the fourth Quarter. No one from the other three Quarters of Jerusalem were attacked and then expelled ) AND from ALL of Judea and Samaria.

The UN partition was NOT about clearing Arabs from Jewish Land. You do not seem to be aware, or care that a huge number of Arabs stayed in Independent Israel, because the Jewish leaders did not attack them and demand expulsion, but actually asked to stay, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, or anywhere else.

The Palestinian Arabs who were expelled during the war started by the Arab League were the ones attacking Jews and wanting them dead.

What country would not expel those who wish their population to be dead and their country destroyed?

There are Millions of Arabs living in Israel because they did not raise arms agains the Jews but chose to be a part of the new country.

Go tell your conspiracy theories somewhere where no one will catch up with all the lies you seem to enjoy telling.

I'm sure much of what you've said here is correct, and I want to believe you. I'm not an expert. I'm merely paraphrasing the analysis of author, Charles Townshend, in his book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction.

 

[NathanCross]

Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.

I agree with everything Sixties has already said. Just want to emphasize your use of language and how it is used to claim false things as true.

• "Terrorism", by definition, is not conducted against military targets. The correct term for military force used against military targets is "war". As in: Israeli warfare, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people and defeated all opponents.
• You specifically detail the British, but are deliberately vague about "all opponents". The other opponents were also specific. Why did you apply a vague term rather than a specific one, if not to hide who the other opponents were?
• You use the term "military targets" but fail to explain what these targets were. Why do you leave this part out, if not to hide the nature of those military targets?
• "Ethnic-cleansing" is a common charge against Israel, but can be proven patently false on two grounds. The first is the nature of an ethnic conflict where two peoples are vying for the same territory and the other the obvious fact that there are plenty of Arabs in Israel. On the other hand, virtually no Jews remain in ANY territories or nations controlled by Arabs. (And that's ALL Arabs, not just the ones actually in the conflict.)
• You tie "clear Arabs from Jewish lands" to the partition as though it was the partition which was the event which caused Jewish military action. You deliberately leave out (hide) the true cause of the conflict -- which was the attacking Arab armies.
• Then you use language which deliberately holds the Jewish people and Jewish State (and only the Jews) accountable for the continued conflict and excuse continued Arab belligerence.

You're addicted to defining one's terms and parsing words. If the moral defense of Israel depends on such nonsense, she's in big trouble. Define that -- "big trouble".

P.S., Yes, Israelis engaged in TERRORISM, prior to 1948. Define the Stern Gang, Irgun, and Freedom Fighters for Israel. DEFINE THEM, PROFESSOR.

 

[Shusha]

Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.

I agree with everything Sixties has already said. Just want to emphasize your use of language and how it is used to claim false things as true.

• "Terrorism", by definition, is not conducted against military targets. The correct term for military force used against military targets is "war". As in: Israeli warfare, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people and defeated all opponents.
• You specifically detail the British, but are deliberately vague about "all opponents". The other opponents were also specific. Why did you apply a vague term rather than a specific one, if not to hide who the other opponents were?
• You use the term "military targets" but fail to explain what these targets were. Why do you leave this part out, if not to hide the nature of those military targets?
• "Ethnic-cleansing" is a common charge against Israel, but can be proven patently false on two grounds. The first is the nature of an ethnic conflict where two peoples are vying for the same territory and the other the obvious fact that there are plenty of Arabs in Israel. On the other hand, virtually no Jews remain in ANY territories or nations controlled by Arabs. (And that's ALL Arabs, not just the ones actually in the conflict.)
• You tie "clear Arabs from Jewish lands" to the partition as though it was the partition which was the event which caused Jewish military action. You deliberately leave out (hide) the true cause of the conflict -- which was the attacking Arab armies.
• Then you use language which deliberately holds the Jewish people and Jewish State (and only the Jews) accountable for the continued conflict and excuse continued Arab belligerence.

You're addicted to defining one's terms and parsing words. If the moral defense of Israel depends on such nonsense, she's in big trouble. Define that -- "big trouble".

P.S., Yes, Israelis engaged in TERRORISM, prior to 1948. Define the Stern Gang, Irgun, and Freedom Fighters for Israel. DEFINE THEM, PROFESSOR.

Its what I do. I'm a writer. And I know things.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.

So much garbage.

Jews were defending themselves from endless riots and attacks from 1920 on, when JEWS and not Arabs were being systematically cleansed out of ALL of Gaza - 1920, ALL of TransJordan - 1925, All of Hebron - 1929, and then in 1948 from ALL of Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (pay attention to the word Jewish, not Armenian, German or the fourth Quarter. No one from the other three Quarters of Jerusalem were attacked and then expelled ) AND from ALL of Judea and Samaria.

The UN partition was NOT about clearing Arabs from Jewish Land. You do not seem to be aware, or care that a huge number of Arabs stayed in Independent Israel, because the Jewish leaders did not attack them and demand expulsion, but actually asked to stay, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, or anywhere else.

The Palestinian Arabs who were expelled during the war started by the Arab League were the ones attacking Jews and wanting them dead.

What country would not expel those who wish their population to be dead and their country destroyed?

There are Millions of Arabs living in Israel because they did not raise arms agains the Jews but chose to be a part of the new country.

Go tell your conspiracy theories somewhere where no one will catch up with all the lies you seem to enjoy telling.

I'm sure much of what you've said here is correct, and I want to believe you. I'm not an expert. I'm merely paraphrasing the analysis of author, Charles Townshend, in his book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction.

No, you are most definitely Not An Expert.

You are focused on one author and book, and one author and book Only to attempt to make your position.

There is no such thing as "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". Some moron came up with that, or it wasn't what someone meant.

In the case of the Jews and their homeland, the Jews have ALWAYS been the freedom fighters against the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, Muslims, Crusaders, the Turks and the British.

Why? Because it is their ancient homeland, where they came from, defended many times and continued to live on for at least the past 4000 years.

To call any other group in that land as Freedom fighters is an illusion.

Why? Because any and all of those groups were invaders to the land the Jews made theirs (because that is where they came from), just as the British and other European countries were invaders to the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, etc, or the way some Kurdish tribe first invaded the Land of Israel, or later on some Arab tribes did as well, and later on the Turks. Not only many parts of Asia, but all of North Africa and Europe.

So, are all of these invaders of the last 2000 years also freedom fighters? Against the indigenous people of the region they invaded to begin with?

How can that be?

There are clear definitions as to who is a freedom fighter and who is an invader or even a terrorist and the reasons why those words and definitions exist.

You seem to like to blur the whole thing and make the Arab Palestinians the Freedom Fighters, and the Jewish Palestinians the invaders and terrorists.

The same goes for the British, where you do not know, or care,
what their role was in the Mandate for Palestine, and how they willingly failed miserably towards that goal.

Or why the Mandate for Palestine was the only one the British did not care at all to live up to the word they had given in order to accomplish re-creating the Jewish sovereignty over the Ancient Jewish Homeland.

You wish to believe that the Arabs and the British were the victims of Jews who had no rights to the land? Is that it?

So be it.

Believe what you wish, because regardless of any and all you will continue to believe.... the Jewish people (and many non Jews) do know the truth of what happened in the past century, and they very much know Who is Who in the whole story.

You have nothing better than that sentence you have repeated on other posts before? Which we have dismantled before as well?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Do try to bring people who actually know what they are talking about and not simply repeating the same old, lets delegitimize the Jews at any cost, blah, blah.....

You enjoy and insist in bringing this worthless people as "proof" of one thing or another about Israel and the Jews.

And you, like others, refuse to fact check anything they say.

This guy did:


Jacob F Suslovich
1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
September 5, 2017
Format: Paperback
This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel

 

[rylah]

Do try to bring people who actually know what they are talking about and not simply repeating the same old, lets delegitimize the Jews at any cost, blah, blah.....

You enjoy and insist in bringing this worthless people as "proof" of one thing or another about Israel and the Jews.

And you, like others, refuse to fact check anything they say.

This guy did:


Jacob F Suslovich
1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
September 5, 2017
Format: Paperback
This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel

The guy basically tries to define any ethnic self determination to racism. Such demagoguery makes all other nation states non-legit, which leaves us only with the US and the Russian Federation.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ rylah, et al,

First, we all must allow Tom Suarez (a theorist on ‘Zionist terrorism’) his due and freedom to express his ideas (whether we agree with them or not).

Within his core premise, Tom Suarez states in effect that →

1) The International Community does not want the conflict to end on the artificially constructed narrative that replaces the truth. HE uses the phrase "an ethnic nationalist settler movement" called Zionism. And Zionism wants to create an ethnically pure state on another's sovereign territory (other peoples land).

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• AND •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
​

2) The International Community wants to project the "illusion" that the two sides are negotiating (sending an image of a Peace Processes). That the conflict is basically a false image because the scales are tilted in favor of the Israelis. That the conditions are unfair because the Israelis have the support of a Super Power, the greater economic pull, the more sophisticated weapons, and the greater political clout → and the Arab Palestinians have nothing.
​

The guy [Tom Suarez] basically tries to define any ethnic self-determination to racism. Such demagoguery makes all other nation states non-legit, which leaves us only with the US and the Russian Federation.

(COMMENT)

Tom Suarez said NOTHING new. HE was basically attempting to discredit Israel as "The Jewish State." And HE does it in a way that makes it seem that The Jewish State is NOT the established Jewish State, → and should not be established.

Both sides campaign and wage a propaganda war against the other. One of the passages that Tom Saurez makes is that HE claims the Jews are keeping the Arab Palestinians in "Internment Camps." How absurd! There is no Arab Palestinian Population involved in the conflict that is NOT in an Arab State, or that borders and Arab State. Tom Saurez does not mention this. WHY! Because it would reveal that the Arab world is a party to the containment of the Arab Palestinian people.

HE is what HE is... HE is out to make a buck and this is how HE does it...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Rehmani]

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.

I will say when people were living peacefully side by side in holy land for 900 years, then why that peace destroyed by the elite forces.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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.

I will say when people were living peacefully side by side in holy land for 900 years, then why that peace destroyed by the elite forces.

Why are you so ignorant as to how life was like in the Holy Land for the 900 you are referring to?

Why do you not know that Jews were being always attacked at one time or another by one Muslim group or another, all of their properties stolen, the women raped, many murdered, their homes destroyed?

There is no place on the planet where there was "peace" between the conquerors and those they had subjugated.

Arabs and Turks had conquered the area since the 7th century and they did not always treat the indigenous Jews well. Mostly badly.
Pogroms (massacres) happened every now and then against the Jews.

Please live in the reality of what has happened in any part of the world, and not what some people wish that others believe about it.

 

[Rehmani]

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.

I will say when people were living peacefully side by side in holy land for 900 years, then why that peace destroyed by the elite forces.

Why are you so ignorant as to how life was like in the Holy Land for the 900 you are referring to?

Why do you not know that Jews were being always attacked at one time or another by one Muslim group or another, all of their properties stolen, the women raped, many murdered, their homes destroyed?

There is no place on the planet where there was "peace" between the conquerors and those they had subjugated.

Arabs and Turks had conquered the area since the 7th century and they did not always treat the indigenous Jews well. Mostly badly.
Pogroms (massacres) happened every now and then against the Jews.

Please live in the reality of what has happened in any part of the world, and not what some people wish that others believe about it.

Sorry sir/madam you should know that there was no jew left in holy land after the Jesus PBUH crucified by the jews and mostly jews refuge in Persian empire. It is only become possible for jews to reside in Jerusalem again when Salahuddin Ayouby (Salatin) took the control of Holy Land and he pardon to all christian and accommodate to jews as well and because his action only peace lasted in Holy Land for 900 years.