Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ben Masada

The Pope Has a Problem in Rome

85 posts in this topic

THE POPE HAS A PROBLEM IN ROME

The fact that we, the Jews, have ended our dispersion, returned to our biblical homeland, and built there a modern, and vital Jewish State - a Third Jewish Commonwealth - it is extremely relevant to Christianity. However, while some evangelical Christians celebrate our return to Israel as the necessary first stage in their concept for the coming of the Messiah, others, particularly the Vatican, see it as a theological dilemma with implications for their own interpretation of the Scriptures.

They figure that, if for all these years, it was thought that the Jews were wandering as their punishment for rejecting Jesus; if for all these years it was believed that the Jews were just a prelude to Christianity and then

supposed to be reduced to a footnote, what in the world are they doing back in Israel fying F-15 fighter jets over the skies of Jerusalem?

It is no accident that the Vatican has never recognized the State of Israel; and it was also no accident that when the Archbishop of New York, John Cardinal O'Connor, visited Israel in January 1987, the Vatican refused to allow him to meet Isreli President chaim Herzog in his office. If Herzog is really at home in Jerusalem, then the Pope has a problem in Rome.

As the Christian theologian Paul van buren once put it, "Modern Israel is both unsettling and exciting for the Christian world. It is unsettling because it was not supposed to happen this way as we read the story. The very existence of Israel as a modern State is slightly mind-blowing. This was not in the script.

You thought you had some understanding of the Jews and where they were, and now they are not there. If you reflect on it all, it becomes even more unsettling, because maybe you have to go back and rethink your own story a little bit. At the same time, it is exciting, because with Israel back on the scene again, the whole story suddenly becomes modern.

For anyone with a biblical faith, the existence of this State, with Jerusalem as its capital, reawakens the whole possibility that this is not all in the past. Something about this is happening now. It is a problem we have to think about now. Maybe God is not as dead as we thought. I think this rings a note in the subconscious of even the most secular Christian."

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE POPE HAS A PROBLEM IN ROME

The fact that we, the Jews, have ended our dispersion, returned to our biblical homeland, and built there a modern, and vital Jewish State - a Third Jewish Commonwealth - it is extremely relevant to Christianity. However, while some evangelical Christians celebrate our return to Israel as the necessary first stage in their concept for the coming of the Messiah, others, particularly the Vatican, see it as a theological dilemma with implications for their own interpretation of the Scriptures.

They figure that, if for all these years, it was thought that the Jews were wandering as their punishment for rejecting Jesus; if for all these years it was believed that the Jews were just a prelude to Christianity and then

supposed to be reduced to a footnote, what in the world are they doing back in Israel fying F-15 fighter jets over the skies of Jerusalem?

It is no accident that the Vatican has never recognized the State of Israel; and it was also no accident that when the Archbishop of New York, John Cardinal O'Connor, visited Israel in January 1987, the Vatican refused to allow him to meet Isreli President chaim Herzog in his office. If Herzog is really at home in Jerusalem, then the Pope has a problem in Rome.

As the Christian theologian Paul van buren once put it, "Modern Israel is both unsettling and exciting for the Christian world. It is unsettling because it was not supposed to happen this way as we read the story. The very existence of Israel as a modern State is slightly mind-blowing. This was not in the script.

You thought you had some understanding of the Jews and where they were, and now they are not there. If you reflect on it all, it becomes even more unsettling, because maybe you have to go back and rethink your own story a little bit. At the same time, it is exciting, because with Israel back on the scene again, the whole story suddenly becomes modern.

For anyone with a biblical faith, the existence of this State, with Jerusalem as its capital, reawakens the whole possibility that this is not all in the past. Something about this is happening now. It is a problem we have to think about now. Maybe God is not as dead as we thought. I think this rings a note in the subconscious of even the most secular Christian."

Ben

didnt see in the news that the jews now hold all of the holy land, what happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern Judiasm seems unsettling for the Muslim world as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never considered the creation of Israel as being contrary to Scripture. I just never read fiction.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Holy See (the Vatican), which has UN observer status, is the only non-UN member state with which Israel has diplomatic relations and the only non-UN member state recognised by Israel. It appears they get along the best they can :unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bunkum all of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't all be in the past until the Palestinians realize they aren't getting their land back from Israel and they leave each other alone and get on with their lives.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't all be in the past until the Palestinians realize they aren't getting their land back from Israel and they leave each other alone and get on with their lives.

that will never happen

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stock-vector-box-with-popcorn-and-movie-tickets-58643155.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE POPE HAS A PROBLEM IN ROME

The fact that we, the Jews, have ended our dispersion, returned to our biblical homeland, and built there a modern, and vital Jewish State - a Third Jewish Commonwealth - it is extremely relevant to Christianity. However, while some evangelical Christians celebrate our return to Israel as the necessary first stage in their concept for the coming of the Messiah, others, particularly the Vatican, see it as a theological dilemma with implications for their own interpretation of the Scriptures.

They figure that, if for all these years, it was thought that the Jews were wandering as their punishment for rejecting Jesus; if for all these years it was believed that the Jews were just a prelude to Christianity and then

supposed to be reduced to a footnote, what in the world are they doing back in Israel fying F-15 fighter jets over the skies of Jerusalem?

It is no accident that the Vatican has never recognized the State of Israel; and it was also no accident that when the Archbishop of New York, John Cardinal O'Connor, visited Israel in January 1987, the Vatican refused to allow him to meet Isreli President chaim Herzog in his office. If Herzog is really at home in Jerusalem, then the Pope has a problem in Rome.

As the Christian theologian Paul van buren once put it, "Modern Israel is both unsettling and exciting for the Christian world. It is unsettling because it was not supposed to happen this way as we read the story. The very existence of Israel as a modern State is slightly mind-blowing. This was not in the script.

You thought you had some understanding of the Jews and where they were, and now they are not there. If you reflect on it all, it becomes even more unsettling, because maybe you have to go back and rethink your own story a little bit. At the same time, it is exciting, because with Israel back on the scene again, the whole story suddenly becomes modern.

For anyone with a biblical faith, the existence of this State, with Jerusalem as its capital, reawakens the whole possibility that this is not all in the past. Something about this is happening now. It is a problem we have to think about now. Maybe God is not as dead as we thought. I think this rings a note in the subconscious of even the most secular Christian."

Ben

Interesting. It doesn't really unsettle me.

The book of Daniel was likely written slightly before the Maccabean Revolt. The Jews that wrote obviously thought that the Messiah would deliver the Jewish nation and that the obedient thing for the Jews to do until then would be to suffer with dignity. It was the author's belief that the Jewish nation should not take up arms. It didn't happen that way.

And later the Pharisees and Sadducees came about. They had their Civil War at 100 CE. Around this time, the book of Susanna, obviously written by a Sadducee, began circulating. The end result? The Sadducees won the high priesthood.

A bit later, the Pharisees appealed to Pompey to lead the Romans into Jerusalem, dethrone their king, kick the Sadducees out of the high priesthood, and install the Pharisees. Pompey desecrated the Most Holy Place, to which the Pharisees said was a curse from God for the toleration of the Sadducees in the high priesthood. Pompey installed Herod's father as king and placed a heavy tax on the Jewish Nation for that war. Judea had become a Roman province. Around this time, the book of Enoch was circulating. Evidently, the reader anticipated that the Messiah would crush the Romans and liberate the Jewish people. Instead, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the Jews in 70 CE.

What happened to the Messianic prophecies? You know, all the ones that the Jews say Jesus never fulfilled? Why are they still waiting on the Messiah? Why has their deliverance been so long overdue? If anything, the Jews had reason to be unsettled. Things did not go how they planned.

As a Jew, what is your response to these questions? I look forward to your answers.

Blue

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didnt see in the news that the jews now hold all of the holy land, what happened?

It happens that they got strong. Haven't you heard that "the winner takes all?" The other day my son told me that he doesn't like to hear that the Jews must have the title to the holy land because God has granted it to them. The truth, he said, is that the land belongs to the stronger. Whenever the Arabs get stronger and take the holy land, then it will belong to them. But first, they must fight for it. That's survival of the fittest. Then, I said: Do you know something? You are damn right.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern Judiasm seems unsettling for the Muslim world as well.

In what sense is modern Judaism unsettling, would you enlighten me with?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never considered the creation of Israel as being contrary to Scripture. I just never read fiction.

Since you never read fiction, you must not know that Arabs started dwelling in the Land of Israel in the later part of the 7th Century. Tha's how some of them became known as Palestinians, after the name the Romans changed to from Land of Israel. The Jewish People have been dwelling the half crescent for about 4,000 years. What happened in 1948 was not creation of Israel but the formation of the third Commonwealth to celebrate the return of the Jews after the last exile.

Ben

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Holy See (the Vatican), which has UN observer status, is the only non-UN member state with which Israel has diplomatic relations and the only non-UN member state recognised by Israel. It appears they get along the best they can :unsure2:

Yes, I had missed that part and I could not fix my mistake. But it was only almost 50 years of Israeli statehood that the Vatican decided to recongnize Israel in December the 30th, 1993. Now, to say that the Vatican is the ONLY UN member with which Israel has diplomatic relations is laughable. You must be joking.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I had missed that part and I could not fix my mistake. But it was only almost 50 years of Israeli statehood that the Vatican decided to recongnize Israel in December the 30th, 1993. Now, to say that the Vatican is the ONLY UN member with which Israel has diplomatic relations is laughable. You must be joking.

Ben

Ben,

Re-read my post:

The Holy See (the Vatican), which has UN observer status, is the only non-UN member state with which Israel has diplomatic relations and the only non-UN member state recognised by Israel. It appears they get along the best they can.

NON being the 'operative' word!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern Judiasm seems unsettling for the Muslim world as well.

Both faiths require it to be recreated for the Messiah to come.

Even funnier is that in the Bible New Babylon needs to be damaged then utterly destroyed before Christ arrives. Do you think that refers to Baghdad? No it doesnt as New Babylon is shockingly one of the town lands making up New York City. 9/11 was the damage and soon New York will be utterly destroyed.

In the Bible the Anti-Chist will be the leader of a revised Hoy Roman Empire. The EU fits that description however first it needs to become a nation. Is that the true cause of the economic problems being experieced?

In the Quran the start of the end will come when the armies of the Anti-Christ attack Syria. The peoples that originated from ancient South Russia, which are Iranians but could include Russians too, will lead an attack against Israel wiping it off the face of the Earth and will engage the forces of the Anti-Christ. This is the point that the destruction of New York will come probably by nuclear warfare.

Anyway the Quran says that Iran (and possible Russia) will get massacred by the Anti-Christ but will hold his armies off from destroying Syria long enough for Christ to arrive. The 12th Inman will be revealed to be the Syrian leader, he will ally with Christ and both will destroy the Anti-Christ.

I first wrote this here before the problems in Syria started.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you never read fiction, you must not know that Arabs started dwelling in the Land of Israel in the later part of the 7th Century. Tha's how some of them became known as Palestinians, after the name the Romans changed to from Land of Israel. The Jewish People have been dwelling the half crescent for about 4,000 years. What happened in 1948 was not creation of Israel but the formation of the third Commonwealth to celebrate the return of the Jews after the last exile.

Ben

Ben, you’re preaching to the choir. I was in Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan many years ago and saw the plight of the Palestinians and heard the story of how they were forced out of their homes and had their businesses confiscated for no reason other than international sympathy for the Jews. I have since been a strong advocate for the establishment of a nation for Palestinians, if nothing else as a form of repatriation.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't all be in the past until the Palestinians realize they aren't getting their land back from Israel and they leave each other alone and get on with their lives.

That's quite wise, were not for the statement, "Palestinians realize they aren't getting their land back from Israel." Arabs started occupying the Half Crescent in the late 7th Century and, only after a few generations they started being known as Palestinians because of the change in name to that area had been made by the Roman Emperor Hadrian. If time is enough to gain the title to real state, the Jews had been living at that place for over 3,000 years. But according to the survival of the fittest, to the stronger belongs the title. Let them get stronger and they will get the land back.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. It doesn't really unsettle me.

The book of Daniel was likely written slightly before the Maccabean Revolt. The Jews that wrote obviously thought that the Messiah would deliver the Jewish nation and that the obedient thing for the Jews to do until then would be to suffer with dignity. It was the author's belief that the Jewish nation should not take up arms. It didn't happen that way.

And later the Pharisees and Sadducees came about. They had their Civil War at 100 CE. Around this time, the book of Susanna, obviously written by a Sadducee, began circulating. The end result? The Sadducees won the high priesthood.

A bit later, the Pharisees appealed to Pompey to lead the Romans into Jerusalem, dethrone their king, kick the Sadducees out of the high priesthood, and install the Pharisees. Pompey desecrated the Most Holy Place, to which the Pharisees said was a curse from God for the toleration of the Sadducees in the high priesthood. Pompey installed Herod's father as king and placed a heavy tax on the Jewish Nation for that war. Judea had become a Roman province. Around this time, the book of Enoch was circulating. Evidently, the reader anticipated that the Messiah would crush the Romans and liberate the Jewish people. Instead, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the Jews in 70 CE.

What happened to the Messianic prophecies? You know, all the ones that the Jews say Jesus never fulfilled? Why are they still waiting on the Messiah? Why has their deliverance been so long overdue? If anything, the Jews had reason to be unsettled. Things did not go how they planned.

As a Jew, what is your response to these questions? I look forward to your answers.

Blue

My answer is based on the part of the learnt Jews who are on the growth from superstition into reality. The prophecies about a coming Messiah is not of an individual but of the collective in the People of Israel, aka, the Jewish People. An individual is born, lives his span of life, and eventually dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37. What is part of the Jewish dream, as the Messiah is concerned, is of a messianic era when the Jewish place and role in the world is acknowledged by al nations.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben,

Re-read my post:

The Holy See (the Vatican), which has UN observer status, is the only non-UN member state with which Israel has diplomatic relations and the only non-UN member state recognised by Israel. It appears they get along the best they can.

NON being the 'operative' word!

Yes, you are right. "Non-UN member State..." I apologize.

Edited by Ben Masada
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, you’re preaching to the choir. I was in Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan many years ago and saw the plight of the Palestinians and heard the story of how they were forced out of their homes and had their businesses confiscated for no reason other than international sympathy for the Jews. I have since been a strong advocate for the establishment of a nation for Palestinians, if nothing else as a form of repatriation.

Oh! So, you were in Israel, weren't you? I live in Israel for over 20 years and I have almost eyewitnessed what happens here. The Palestinian plight was created by their own Arab brothers who persuaded them to vacate the area and settle temporarily in refugee camps while they - several Arab countries - with their many times superior armies could push the Jews into the sea, so that the Palestinians, at their return, could take possession of the Jewish homes and lands. Big mistake!!! The Arabs with their armies got crushed. But they still succeeded to keep the Gaza strip and Samaria with East Jerusalem. Did they give those areas to the Palestinians? Of course not! Jordan and Egypt kept the hold of them. Good brotherhood! They kept the Palestinians in their camps to exploit the hypocritical feelings of the world. Then, the acts of terrorism started, whith Palestinians invading Jewish homes and shooting children in their own beds at night. Busses being exploded by them with massive deaths became the order of the day. Here, very close to me, a discoteque was bombed with 39 death casualties. I went there in Tel-Aviv right next day to see the human damage. What do you want us to do, to sit duck and get killed? The Holocaust is long gone. We have discovered a new method of survival: To fight force with superior force, especially in response to those who understand only force. Let this kind of life happen in America or any other country. I bet you will find only natural for them to defend themselves. But, it seems to me, Jews are not supposed to defend themselves but to die like Jesus. You might as well rethink those options.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh! So, you were in Israel, weren't you? I live in Israel for over 20 years and I have almost eyewitnessed what happens here. The Palestinian plight was created by their own Arab brothers who persuaded them to vacate the area and settle temporarily in refugee camps while they - several Arab countries - with their many times superior armies could push the Jews into the sea, so that the Palestinians, at their return, could take possession of the Jewish homes and lands. Big mistake!!! The Arabs with their armies got crushed. But they still succeeded to keep the Gaza strip and Samaria with East Jerusalem. Did they give those areas to the Palestinians? Of course not! Jordan and Egypt kept the hold of them. Good brotherhood! They kept the Palestinians in their camps to exploit the hypocritical feelings of the world. Then, the acts of terrorism started, whith Palestinians invading Jewish homes and shooting children in their own beds at night. Busses being exploded by them with massive deaths became the order of the day. Here, very close to me, a discoteque was bombed with 39 death casualties. I went there in Tel-Aviv right next day to see the human damage. What do you want us to do, to sit duck and get killed? The Holocaust is long gone. We have discovered a new method of survival: To fight force with superior force, especially in response to those who understand only force. Let this kind of life happen in America or any other country. I bet you will find only natural for them to defend themselves. But, it seems to me, Jews are not supposed to defend themselves but to die like Jesus. You might as well rethink those options.

Ben

I understand your posture, Ben, and also witnessed the Jewish side of the story. My reference was to the 1948 occupation and it wasn’t all done by the abandonment of the Arabs. Is the Deir Yassin massacre going to be so easily forgotten? That was when the Palestinians took flight for fear of the same happening to them. It wasn’t all about the betrayals of their brothers, it was also about the forced occupation of their homes and lands. Once gone, can we forget the Absentee Property Laws that were truly corrupt in nature and prevented them from ever returning?

I agree with you that you must defend yourselves but I also maintain that an agreement could have been reached generations ago to prevent the current condition. The realm of hatred existing in your region is passed from generation to generation like a legacy. As late as 2009 Palestinians were being evicted with Jewish families waiting outside to take possession of their homes. Just as you justly claim the right to self defense, Islamic thought gives them the right to vengeance. I may not agree with that, but I was in Israel and neighboring nations long enough to be objective.

Yes, the six day war was a crushing blow to the Palestinians and their dream of returning to the life they knew was forever lost. But it should not be forgotten that the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights were all Israel territory after the war and no effort was made to negotiate to give Palestinians a home and to end the conflict. Instead Begin encouraged Israelis to colonize the West Bank and take long term possession of it. As long ago as 1977 Israel agreed to work toward the establishment of a Palestinian nation. Where is it? How long is this conflict going to continue? How many must die before future generations can learn something about peace?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your posture, Ben, and also witnessed the Jewish side of the story. My reference was to the 1948 occupation and it wasn’t all done by the abandonment of the Arabs. Is the Deir Yassin massacre going to be so easily forgotten? That was when the Palestinians took flight for fear of the same happening to them. It wasn’t all about the betrayals of their brothers, it was also about the forced occupation of their homes and lands. Once gone, can we forget the Absentee Property Laws that were truly corrupt in nature and prevented them from ever returning?

In 1948 we were at war, a war of aggression started by the Arabs. It is only natural that massacres happen in war. Numerous massacres were caused by America to the native Indians in the formation of the American State, let alone what they did in Vietnam. We were not at war in 1929. How do you explain the massacre of Jews in Hebron caused by the Palestinians? It is easy to see evil in others, especially Jews, but not in those whom we find salutary to side with.

There was never a forced occupation of Palestinian homes and lands without their provocation by way of repeated acts of terrorism. One must survive. We can't endure if we do not fight for life. In 1948 we asked them not to leave that we could coexist together. They would not listen. They could not live with Jews. The Jews had to be out of the Middle East. We accepted the White Paper decision to divide the Land with the Palestinians. They rejected. What do you want us to do a miracle? We are here to stay. Let they get stronger and take the Land by force if they can.

I agree with you that you must defend yourselves but I also maintain that an agreement could have been reached generations ago to prevent the current condition. The realm of hatred existing in your region is passed from generation to generation like a legacy. As late as 2009 Palestinians were being evicted with Jewish families waiting outside to take possession of their homes. Just as you justly claim the right to self defense, Islamic thought gives them the right to vengeance. I may not agree with that, but I was in Israel and neighboring nations long enough to be objective.

As I told you above, we agreed to even divide the land with them, but they didn't agree. Their only condition was of a Middle East cleared of Jews. That's a no no. The land is ours and they were the occupiers we found here with our return to the Land of Israel. And this realm of hatred is promoted rather by Palestinians and Arabs in general than by Jews. We agreed with a solution to live together. They discarded all possibilities, let them suit themselves. Now, it is too late. If they so irrationally insist on what they want, let them fight for it now.

Yes, the six day war was a crushing blow to the Palestinians and their dream of returning to the life they knew was forever lost. But it should not be forgotten that the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights were all Israel territory after the war and no effort was made to negotiate to give Palestinians a home and to end the conflict. Instead Begin encouraged Israelis to colonize the West Bank and take long term possession of it. As long ago as 1977 Israel agreed to work toward the establishment of a Palestinian nation. Where is it? How long is this conflict going to continue? How many must die before future generations can learn something about peace?

How come America did not return Texas, New Mexico, and California to the Mexicans after the war? Perhaps because they were not Jews? How come Russia did not return the islands they took from Japan after the war of 1906? Perhaps because they were not Jews? But the land that we liberated after wars of aggression we must return to prove our Jewish nature. That's typical! Besides, when those lands were in the hands of the Arabs, why didn't they settle it as a state for the Palestinians? Oh, I know why: They were not Jews but Arabs. Did you get the game? We did agree to work towards a Palestinian nation in 1977. They rejected again. We changed our minds. Let the conflict continue until they get strong enough and take what they want by force, which is the whole Land of Israel.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer is based on the part of the learnt Jews who are on the growth from superstition into reality. The prophecies about a coming Messiah is not of an individual but of the collective in the People of Israel, aka, the Jewish People. An individual is born, lives his span of life, and eventually dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37. What is part of the Jewish dream, as the Messiah is concerned, is of a messianic era when the Jewish place and role in the world is acknowledged by al nations.

Ben

This reminds me of a passage in the New Testament ... who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 2 Thessalonians 2:4

You preach a dangerous and heretical message IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1948 we were at war, a war of aggression started by the Arabs. It is only natural that massacres happen in war. Numerous massacres were caused by America to the native Indians in the formation of the American State, let alone what they did in Vietnam. We were not at war in 1929. How do you explain the massacre of Jews in Hebron caused by the Palestinians? It is easy to see evil in others, especially Jews, but not in those whom we find salutary to side with.

There was never a forced occupation of Palestinian homes and lands without their provocation by way of repeated acts of terrorism. One must survive. We can't endure if we do not fight for life. In 1948 we asked them not to leave that we could coexist together. They would not listen. They could not live with Jews. The Jews had to be out of the Middle East. We accepted the White Paper decision to divide the Land with the Palestinians. They rejected. What do you want us to do a miracle? We are here to stay. Let they get stronger and take the Land by force if they can.

Arab grievances are numerous.

The Arabs were promised independent self-determination when in 1915, the British made declarations to Sharif Hussein of Mecca that as a reward for Arab rebellion against, and help in defeat of, the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Britain would stimulate national independence in the whole Arab-speaking world. It is called the Hussein-MacMahon Agreement. Because of this MacMahon-Hussein Agreement, the Arabs rebelled and attacked Ottoman forces in support of the Allies (led by Sharif Hussein's second son, Feisal, subsequent king of Iraq, and by T. E. Lawrence).

But then, Britain turned around in 1916, entered into a British-French agreement, the Sykes-Picot Agreement,half a year after the Hussein-MacMahon Agreement. By this new agreement the whole Arab world north of the present-day Saudi Arabia was to be divided (after World World I) into French and British zones of control, theoretically in the context of an Arab confederation. Under this agreement, Britain would DIRECTLY control present-day Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, and southern Palestine while France would directly control southern Turkey, Syria, and northern Palestine. However, because of competing Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic interests in Palestine, the Sykes-Picot Agreement devolved into a compromise in which Britain, France, Russia, and Italy would jointly share in a Allied Condominium over Palestine. The Jews under this agreement in Palestine were to have have the same civil, religious, and political rights as other groups. But neither the Zionists or the Palestinian Arabs want that but each wanted its own independent state. The start of Arab grievances.

When the Arab world learned about this European Condominium agreement in the winter of 1917-18 about post-war control of Arab territory which contradicted with the Hussein-MacMahon agreement the response was shock.

But Britain regarded an international sharing regime unacceptable because Britain wanted to have an exclusive and permanent garrison in Palestine after the war in order to protect the Suez Canal and its air routes to India. The Zionist held the answer with a Jewish state imposed upon Palestine. Britain intention was to keep the Palestine boiling pot in order to justify its means. A marriage of Zionist and British interests occurred, and what materialized out of this is the 1917 Balfour Declaration, a second shock to, and betrayal of, the Arabs after the Sykes-Picot Agreement (the Sykes-Picot Agreement was held secret to the Arabs UNTIL after the Turks were defeated in World War I).

Additionally, Balfour stated, "In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country."

To placate the shock of the Arabs, the British and French issued a misleading, mollifying declaration (on November 18th) affirming "the setting up of national governments and administrations that shall derive their authority from the free excercise of the initiative and choice of the indigeneous population."

King Hussein only accepted the Balfour Declaration as a humanitarian gesture towards the Zionists never beleiving it would conflict with the Palestinian Arab self-determination.

Prince Feisal, second son of Sharif Hussein and leader of the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman Turks, even signed a formal agreement on January 4, 1919, that a "Zionist Jews" enclave would be guaranteed in Palestine as long as the Arab tenant farmers would be safeguarded on their plots and assisted in their economic development AND provided that the Arabs obtain their independence.

But Chaim Weizmann backed out. Choosing instead a Jewish state under British imperialism rather than share a common cause with the Arabs. At that point, Feisal terminated any relations with the Zionists and regarded the "Jewish National Home" as a mere subprovince within a larger Arab kingdom.

The following year, 1920 Feisal assumed the kingship of Syria, in conflict with Britain's ally, France. When Feisal's older brother, Abdullah, threatened to defend him against the French, Britain chose to make Abdullah amir of Transjordan east of the Jordan and installed Feisal as a puppet king in Iraq. Palestine was thereby separated from Transjordan by the stroke of Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill's pen.

Meanwhile, Britain desired the need of "force of arms" to justify their presence as a military buffer - all the while with one eye watching the Suez Canal and the other countering French influence in Syria. A Jewish state or "home" offered such a justification.

Enter the League of Nations Mandate System in 1922, a mandate was to facilitate the self government of the territory's inhabitants, a mandate was to be temporary, a mandate was accountable to the League. Each mandate was ranked by their degree of readiness to assume self government, i.e., statehood. All Class "A" territories were Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. All Class "A" territories with the exception of Palestine did, in fact, become states when the mandate powers withdrew.

1. The Arabs outright rejected the mandate system outright. They demanded an independent state with a democratic, parliamentary form of government.

2. Additionally, Britain insisted that the Balfour Declaration be introduced into the text of the mandate. In other words, if the Arabs accepted the mandate they accepted the British imposed constitution of the Balfour Declaration too. But the Arabs opposed the mandate and all its British imposed constitutions including the Balfour Declaration.

3. The Jews would not accept the concept of a democratic self-government in Palestine while 90% of the population was not Jewish. It would only be acceptable upon massive Jewish immigration with removal of Muslim and Christian populations.

4. A Jewish national home meant a state existing for the Jews, as Arabs suspected, and that violated Article 2 of the mandate requirements to -- "safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

A Jewish state simply conflicted with the WHOLE PURPOSE of the mandate system, i.e. the establishment of democratic self-government by an indigeneous population.

But this contradiction would not be the collapse of the mandate. No doubt there was conflict between Arab nationalists and Jewish immigration and land purchases the very thing the British anticipated. The real reason behind the collapse of the mandate would be violence against British authorities first by the Arabs in the 30s then by the Zionist in the 40s, something the British failed to anticipate.

The Zionist knew in order to have their state, it would require people and territory but they had neither in Palestine. If the Jewish state were to come into existance by fiat it would be unable to rule over a vast Muslim and Christian population that together virtually own all the land of Palestine. Thus the mandate ambigiously supported Jewish immigration.

From 1917 to 1935, the Jewish population rose from about 60,000 to over 400,000. 60,000 alone in 1935. To accomodate this influx, the Jewish Agency and the Jewish labor organization ("Histadrut") boycotted Arab labor. Another Arab grievance.

The land purchased by the Jews was not vast (7.6% by 1949) but the land was the most fertile as well as being strategically chosen to comprise the nucleus for a Jewish nation. This resulted in the mounting social problems with the enlarging population of landless Palestinians (30% of the rural population by 1930). Arab nationalists could not stop land sales and mistrust and fear of British authority resulted in the British unable to protect the Arabs from evictions and resulted in failures to make appeals. Another Arab grievance.

More later, I am tired of typing.

As I told you above, we agreed to even divide the land with them, but they didn't agree. Their only condition was of a Middle East cleared of Jews. That's a no no. The land is ours and they were the occupiers we found here with our return to the Land of Israel. And this realm of hatred is promoted rather by Palestinians and Arabs in general than by Jews. We agreed with a solution to live together. They discarded all possibilities, let them suit themselves. Now, it is too late. If they so irrationally insist on what they want, let them fight for it now.

The Palestinians arent occupiers they can be traced back to prehistoric times in the region. The Jews held Jerusalem for around 500 years of which 410 years from the reign of King David to the divided Kingdom of Judea, but the Muslims held Jerusalem for over 1,200 years. The Jews did not return to Israel/Palestine in the 4th Century once the Roman Empire collapsed. Why didnt they return in the 4th Century C.E? ... because they didnt want to or chose not to.

How come America did not return Texas, New Mexico, and California to the Mexicans after the war? Perhaps because they were not Jews? How come Russia did not return the islands they took from Japan after the war of 1906? Perhaps because they were not Jews? But the land that we liberated after wars of aggression we must return to prove our Jewish nature. That's typical! Besides, when those lands were in the hands of the Arabs, why didn't they settle it as a state for the Palestinians? Oh, I know why: They were not Jews but Arabs. Did you get the game? We did agree to work towards a Palestinian nation in 1977. They rejected again. We changed our minds. Let the conflict continue until they get strong enough and take what they want by force, which is the whole Land of Israel.

Ben

Maybe because the Third and Fouth Geneva Conventions were written in 1929 and 1949 respectively. Because the UN wasnt created until 1945.

Gaza was occupied by Egypt from 1948 til 1967, West Bank has been occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. HOWEVER the West Bank has been occupied by Israel since 1967 that 45 years. The longest occupation in the world. The problems lies in Israel and proposals which are never fair such as the Camp David Accords in 2000.

Edited by Ambush Bug
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.