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 1
ExpandMyMind

Assassinated Hamas Leader, Received Draft Of

94 posts in this topic

The Oslo accords sought an equitable Two-State solution. It asked them to agree to the original UN partition plan that created Israel and would result in a free Palestine while at the same time guaranteeing Israel's 1967 borders and security. It allowed for a fair settlement to a conflict that has been ongoing since 1948.

Unfortunately the reality today is that the Zionist do not want to compromise on their goal for a Greater Israel, as a result Hamas will not recognize Israel right to exist.

This post is bang on the target. .. Zionism.... these are the most dangerous religious extremists of them all. They have the weaponry and they have the big bombs. They have become what they hated. They are psychopaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people are drowning and you are describing the water. The point is that if Israel unilaterally disarmed and tried to reach a deal then they would be turned out of the land. That is never going to happen. The reality is that no matter which sideone supports here, someone is going to have to compromise or the wars continue until no hudnas are possible and it's a fight to the death of one people or another. THAT is the reality today, regardless what led us to it.

Bottom line, Israel has never offered the Palestinians a autonomous state EVER! NEVER EVER!

It sickens me how much Israel controls the lives of the Palestinians. If Israel really wanted the Palestinians to enjoy an autonomous state ... why erect settlements in the occupied territories? If not to deny compromise of Eretz Israel.

You reap what you sow.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, Israel has never offered the Palestinians a autonomous state EVER! NEVER EVER!

It sickens me how much Israel controls the lives of the Palestinians. If Israel really wanted the Palestinians to enjoy an autonomous state ... why erect settlements in the occupied territories? If not to deny compromise of Eretz Israel.

You reap what you sow.

On THIS we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there an independent Kosovo before the 90's? Was there an independent Algeria before the 1963? Just because a state didn't exist before doesn't mean a future one is not viable.

But the "Palestinians" weren't looking for their own state before Israel was established. It's only since Israel was established - on former BRITISH territory - that the "Palestinians" suddenly started demanding their own state.

And the term "Palestinian" is a very recent invention. When Israel was established in 1948 the word "Palestinian" hadn't even been coined. Nobody ever used the term "Palestinian". This name was was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The term "Palestinian People" as a description of Arabs in Palestine - Palestine being a geographical area, which also includes Jordan as well as Israel, rather than a politicial entity - appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that during the Roman Empire the region we now call Israel and Palestine was callled Palestine and then under the Persians it was still called Palestine.

Give me the evidence that there has ever been a Palestinian state. Show me a map of it and give me a list of its leaders. I bet you will find it impossible to do so, considering there has NEVER been a Palestinian state.

Israel certainly wasn't created on a Palestinian state. It occupies an area which, between 1920 and 1948, was the British Mandate for Palestine. In turn, the British Mandate for Palestine was carved out of the southern part of Ottoman Syria, which existed for centuries previously. Jordan also formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine just like Israel.

Supporters of the "Palestinians" have it in their heads that there was a country called Palestine which suddenly became occupied by Israel in 1948. This is not true. Palestine has always been merely a geographical term - used to describe the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river and all adjoining lands. And Israel, as I've pointed out, is NOT the only state in the area of land known as Palestine.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the "Palestinians" weren't looking for their own state before Israel was established. It's only since Israel was established - on former BRITISH territory - that the "Palestinians" suddenly started demanding their own state.

And the term "Palestinian" is a very recent invention. When Israel was established in 1948 the word "Palestinian" hadn't even been coined. Nobody ever used the term "Palestinian". This name was was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The term "Palestinian People" as a description of Arabs in Palestine - Palestine being a geographical area, which also includes Jordan as well as Israel, rather than a politicial entity - appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow.

Wow. These British you speak of were handing out 'Palestinian' passports as far back as 1920. The word was not 'coined' as you suggest. They were also referred to as such numerous times in British documents since then, long before the examples you have given.

And I'm not sure why you mention that it was British territory. Britain had no more legitimate of a claim over that land than they did over India. The people of a land are the ones who have a right to call it, and themselves, anything they want. This is defined in the Geneva Convention and Declaration of Human Rights. It is called the right to self determination. This is why Northern Ireland has a right to be called such - because its inhabitants wish it so. If the Scottish suddenly decided they wanted to be called Caledonians, and the country Caledonia, then they would have that right. This is more or less the point that Michael was making, very correctly I might add. A people have the right to decide for themselves.

Also, they were demanding their own state as far back as the 20s (some even before then). This is why the Partition Plan was even created. Do you even know what the Partition Plan was?

The desire for their own country was not born with the PLO. This is ludicrous and horribly inaccurate propaganda.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel certainly wasn't created on a Palestinian state.

But it was created on Palestinian (the indigenous population) land. A land belongs to the indigenous population.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it was created on Palestinian (the indigenous population) land. A land belongs to the indigenous population.

So I assume you are longing for the day when the Americans and Australians abolish their countries and give the territory back to the Native Indians and Aborigines?

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Under occupation by whom?

2. Israel killed one of Hamas's leader after Hamas started firing rockets towards Israel.

3. What I find funny is people like you who say that Hamas was "working towards peace", even though it was Hamas who started the current trouble by firing rockets into Israel.

4. So why did New York Times journalist Steven Erlanger report that "Hamas rocket and weapons caches, including rocket launchers, have been discovered in and under mosques, schools and civilian homes"?

Why did a report published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reveal that Hamas used close to 100 mosques to store weapons and as launch-pads to shoot rockets?The report even contains testimony from a variety Palestinian sources, including a Hamas militant Sabhi Majad Atar, who said he was taught how to shoot rockets from inside a mosque.

Why did Human Right Watch call Hamas to "publicly renounce" the rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and hold those responsible to account? Human Right Watch program director Iain Levine said the attacks by Hamas were "unlawful and unjustifiable, and amount to war crimes", and accused Hamas of putting Palestinians at risk by launching attacks from built-up areas.

Hamas are also rightly criticised for their use of child soldiers whom Hamas indoctrinate and put through military training. Hamas then send these young children "on missions from which they would not risk their own lives."

Basically Hamas are a bunch of cowards who not only hide behind women and children but even get children to do their fighting for them.

5. Hamas security forces are routinely subjecting Palestinian detainees in Gaza to torture and abuse, according to a report by Human Rights Watch, which says three men have been executed on the basis of "confessions" apparently obtained under coercion.

The report cites serious abuses such as arbitrary arrest, denial of access to lawyers and the use of torture during interrogations.

"After five years of Hamas rule in Gaza, its criminal justice system reeks of injustice, routinely violates detainees' rights, and grants immunity to abusive security services," said Joe Stork of HRW. "Hamas should stop the kinds of abuses that Egyptians, Syrians and others in the region have risked their lives to bring to an end."

The report, Abusive System: Criminal Justice in Gaza, calls for urgent reforms, including a moratorium on the death penalty. It cites the case of Abdel Karim Shrair, who, according to family and lawyers, was tortured under interrogation before being executed by firing squad in May 2011 after "confessing" to collaborating with Israel.

Fourteen Palestinians have been executed since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. This week, the European Union condemned death sentences handed down last month to two men in Gaza, one for murder and the second for collaboration.

http://www.guardian....-detainees-gaza

1. Their people - the Palestinians - are under occupation by Israel, obviously.

2. I went on to correct my post. Hamas started firing rockets (one an anti-tank missile that took out an Israeli jeep) after Israel shot a boy playing soccer in the head, from a helicopter. After this, Israel killed 2 more Gazan children and even attacked the funeral of one of them. This is when the Gazans retaliated with the rockets and attack on the jeep. After this, Israel took out the Hamas leader, then things went ape-****. The attacks on the children were just senseless. And they were not the first children to be targeted this year by the IDF.

3. As I have explained, Hamas did not instigate this current round of violence.

4. Provide sources for this information you provided.

5. The detainees you mention were held as traitors and collaborators. This is hardly the same as the context which you portrayed your viewpoint (as though they torture any given Palestinian). Not only this, but they are traitors that are collaborating with the country that they are actively at war with. And you do realise that Israel is one of the only countries in the World to actually legalise the torture of political prisoners.

For the record, I do not condone or support the torture of any person on earth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. These British you speak of were handing out 'Palestinian' passports as far back as 1920. The word was not 'coined' as you suggest.

The word "Palestinian" did exist then, but it was NOT used by anybody to refer to a "Palestinian people." Those passports were NOT the passports of a Palestinian state but of the British Mandate for Palestine. The "Palestinian" on the front of the passports did not refer to "Palestinian" people but was part of the phrase "Palestinian Authority".

And I'm not sure why you mention that it was British territory.

Because it WAS British territory after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire during the Great War.

Britain had no more legitimate of a claim over that land than they did over India.

Britain was just one of MANY empires which ruled over that area of land. Until 1920 the area Israel now occupies was part of Ottoman Syria, which itself was part of the Ottoman Empire. Go back far enough and it was part of the Roman Empire. I don't know why you single out the British Empire.

The people of a land are the ones who have a right to call it, and themselves, anything they want. This is defined in the Geneva Convention.

No, it isn't.

It is called the right to self determination. This is why Northern Ireland has a right to be called such - because its inhabitants wish it so. If the Scottish suddenly decided they wanted to be called Caledonians, and the country Caledonia, then they would have that right. This is more or less the point that Michael was making, very correctly I might add. A people have the right to decide for themselves.

You say you support your right to self-determination. So why do you think that Israelis shouldn't be given the same rights?

Also, they were demanding their own state as far back as the 20s (some even before then). This is why the Partition Plan was even created. Do you even know what the Partition Plan was?

The desire for their own country was not born with the PLO. This is ludicrous and horribly inaccurate propaganda.

The Palestinians had such a "desire" for their own state that they rejected the offer for a Palestinian state at least three times. In 1948 the leaders of the "Palestinians" were more intent on opposing and attacking Israel than accepting the offer of their own state.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Lol.

Last Lazy Gun, now it makes sense. Your entire knowledge of this subject (20th century history of Palestine) is based on nothing more than long debunked propaganda. This is great. You probably won't realise this, but there have been many on these forums before you who have tried to pass off Joan Peter's work (or work based on hers) as fact. It is actually quite embarrassing. :D

Joan Peters career was ended (and her book laughed out of Israeli universities) after it was critiqued by many people, who based their work on actual facts.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=191655&st=0&p=3601756&hl=+joan%20+petersentry3601756

There, above, is a thread that addresses just about all of the important points.

The links in the third post have now changed, you can reach the relevant material from here: http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/from-time-immemorial-the-origins-of-the-arab-jewish-conflict-over-palestine-part-1-of-6/

Enjoy the reading. And please do not post such nonsense again. Though I do enjoy a good chuckle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The word "Palestinian" did exist then, but it was NOT used by anybody to refer to a "Palestinian people." Those passports were NOT the passports of a Palestinian state but of the British Mandate for Palestine. The "Palestinian" on the front of the passports did not refer to "Palestinian" people but was part of the phrase "Palestinian Authority".

2. Because it WAS British territory after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire during the Great War.

Britain was just one of MANY empires which ruled over that area of land. Until 1920 the area Israel now occupies was part of Ottoman Syria, which itself was part of the Ottoman Empire. Go back far enough and it was part of the Roman Empire. I don't know why you single out the British Empire.

3. You say you support your right to self-determination. So why do you think that Israelis shouldn't be given the same rights?

4. The Palestinians had such a "desire" for their own state that they rejected the offer for a Palestinian state at least three times. In 1948 the leaders of the "Palestinians" were more intent on opposing and attacking Israel than accepting the offer of their own state.

1. It was used to refer to the indigenous population.

Here is the Peel Commission: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf

Throughout it you will find many references to 'Palestinians'. As you will find in documents written long before then. Page 5, page 14, page 22,

page 35:

The Admini&ration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting

a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions

framed so as to Facilitate the acauisition of Palestinian citizenshio bv

Jews who take up their permane& residence in Palestine.

Page 39, page 43:

he police were

Palestinian with British officers

Same page, third time mentioned:

And for the well-being and develop-

ment of the Arabs, who constituted the overwhelming majority

of the Palestinian people, there was much that needed doing.

Page 54:

and ten of the twenty-nine British district officers serving in

1920 had been replaced by Palestinians, Arab and Jew

Page 55, Page 56:

And

they refused to co-,oper,ate in ,any form ,of government other

than a n:ational government responsible tlo the Palestinian

p, people.

Many before in between this one:

significantly staged on Palestinian soil

And it goes on and on and on and on and on.

But you just continue to cling to the absurd notion that 'there is no Palestinian'. And keep using quotation marks. It makes me happy.

2. None of the mentioned countries or regimes had any right to call it their territory. They had no 'legitimate' claim to the land. No country that invades another and takes their land has a legitimate claim to it.

3. Actually I do believe Israelis have the same right, which is why I believe Israel has a right to exist. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be a two way street. Which is strange, because it was Zionists who displaced and stole the land of Palestinians, not the other way around. Strange, the double standards at play.

4. Ah, so now you are suddenly changing your stance and admitting that they were seeking their own state (I thought this only came about in the 60s? Lol, oops), albeit a larger state than they were offered. They rejected the offer simply because what they saw was a group of European immigrants taking more than half of their country. No people on this entire planet would have accepted immigrants taking more than half of what was theirs. I'm not sure why pro Zionists seem to think that this is somehow bolstering their argument.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Their people - the Palestinians - are under occupation by Israel, obviously.

"Palestinians" - who have only been called such since the 1960s - are "under occupation" by Jordan, too.

2. I went on to correct my post. Hamas started firing rockets (one an anti-tank missile that took out an Israeli jeep) after Israel shot a boy playing soccer in the head, from a helicopter.

After this, Israel killed 2 more Gazan children and even attacked the funeral of one of them. This is when the Gazans retaliated with the rockets and attack on the jeep.

Until someone provides proof of this silly claim then I refuse to believe it.

If I had to choose between believing Hamas and believing the Israelis I would believe the Israelis.

As I have explained, Hamas did not instigate this current round of violence.

They started it by firing rockets onto Israeli civilian areas. I support the Israelis' right to self-defence.

4. Provide sources for this information you provided.

You're a very gullible individial if you believe that Hamas are a nice, kindly organisation that respects people's human rights and looks down on torture. Hamas are not viewed by countries around the world as a aterrorist organisation for nothing.

The view that Hamas is nothing more than a brutal and barbaric Islamist terror organisation is supported by the fact that, in June 2011, the Independent Commission for Human Rights based in Ramallah published a report whose findings included that the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were subjected in 2010 to an "almost systematic campaign" of human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

In 2012 the Human Rights Watch presented a 43 page long list of human rights violation committed by Hamas. Among actions attributed to Hamas the HRW report mentions beatings with metal clubs and rubber hoses, hanging of alleged collaborationists with Israel, and torture of 102 individuals. According to the report, Hamas also tortured civil society activists and peaceful protesters. Reflecting on the captivity of Gilad Shalit, the HRW report described it as "cruel and inhuman". The report also slams Hamas for harassment of people based on so called morality offenses and for media censorship. In a public statement Joe Stork, the deputy Middle East director of HRW claimed that "after five years of Hamas rule in Gaza, its criminal justice system reeks of injustice, routinely violates detainees' rights and grants impunity to abusive security services".

5. The detainees you mention were held as traitors and collaborators.

So? They were still tortured and only confessed to being "traitors" or "collaborators" through torture.

If it was the British or the Israelis or the Americans torturing prisoners you would be amongst the first people condemning them for the use of torture. Yet you excuse a brutal Islamist terrorist group for doing the same thing.

And you do realise that Israel is one of the only countries in the World to actually legalise the torture of political prisoners.

No, it isn't.

And even if it were true that means that the people of Gaza are being tortured illegally.

Israel and the rest of the international community should work together to put an end to Hamas's brutality.

For the record, I do not condone or support the torture of any person on earth.

Apart from when Hamas do it to the people of Gaza.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Palestinians" - who have only been called such since the 1960s

Haha. It does makes me laugh that you posted this after I provided a load of evidence which shows this to be complete nonsense.

Good day, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Lol.

Last Lazy Gun, now it makes sense. Your entire knowledge of this subject (20th century history of Palestine) is based on nothing more than long debunked propaganda. This is great. You probably won't realise this, but there have been many on these forums before you who have tried to pass off Joan Peter's work (or work based on hers) as fact. It is actually quite embarrassing. :D

Joan Peters career was ended (and her book laughed out of Israeli universities) after it was critiqued by many people, who based their work on actual facts.

http://www.unexplain...s

There, above, is a thread that addresses just about all of the important points.

The links in the third post have now changed, you can reach the relevant material from here: http://capitalismmag...ne-part-1-of-6/

Enjoy the reading. And please do not post such nonsense again. Though I do enjoy a good chuckle.

One of your silly posts on that thread reads:

A few on this forum have tried to claim that the Arab migration to Palestine was so significant, that most of the Palestinians in Palestine during the mandate were not actually Palestinians at all! This myth was given credit, largely due to a book called Time Immemorial written by Joan Peters.

But lets look at the FACTS which, despite the overwhelmingly huge amount of evidence which show that the "Palestinians" are recent newcomers to the area, you choose to ignore.

By debunking the WELL-RESEARCHED claims by Joan Peters you have put yourself amongst nasty people such as Norman G. Finkelstein, The: 1) 'Holocaust denier' or at least trivialize-r, 2) openly praying for defeat at the hands of the Islamic terror group Hezbollah and praising those terrorists as "heroes." 3) demonized an author who exposed Anti-Semitism in Germany pre-Holocaust era. 4) He was even (first) on the damned list of "personalities" (joining neo-Nazis) to be attending the Holocaust so called "revisionists" or open deniers, under the dictator leader of the totalitarian Islamic Republic of Iran, the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Tehran 2006.

The supporters of the "Palestinians" love to bang on about how the Israelis are outsiders who moved from other countries and flooded into Palestine (a geographical area, remember, never a nation state).

What they fail to mention - either through igorance or because it's an inconvenient truth - is that the same can be said of the "Palestinians".

Way back in 1939, testimony given to the US Congress said that 150,000 Arabs moved to the British Mandate for Palestine in just a 17 year period.

Immigrants include: Arab - Egyptians (mainly in the early 1800s), Syrian, Algerian, Sudanese, S. Arabians. Other Muslims from: Bosnia during the 1800s and fascist Nazi Slavic-Muslims after WW2 [this Slavic mix might explain the phenomenon of lighter skinned small group among those calling themselves "Palestinians"].

Basically, today's so called "Palestinians", who, up to the 1960s were referred to as either South Syrians prior to the 1920s, or plain Arabs, or more specifically Palestine Arabs, after the French removed Emir Faisal, from Damascus in 1920 since the late 1960s have adopted this title to be theirs exclusively, comprise a salad mixture of: Syrian Arabs, Saudi Arabs, Sudanese [Afro-]Arabs, Egyptian, Turkish, Kurdish, Bosnian, Algerian and others. Yet, this 'mixture' was never cohesive, nor did it ever before "see" itself as a "nation."

Research shows again and again that the British, whether by pressure of the violent Arabs or due to their own biased tendency, willfully ignored huge Arab immigration.

http://www.freerepub...s/2670895/posts

The fact of the matter is that Palestinians are NOT the Indigenous people of the Holy Land.

The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.

The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.

Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516 – 1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918 – 1948).

Arab penetration into the land of Israel (the ancient name for Palestine) came in four waves. The most recent - and the largest - occurred from 1832 to 1948.

The second part of this most recent wave - from 1917 to 1948, during the last years of being part of Ottoman Syria and then the British Mandate - saw Arabs and Muslims from Arabic and Muslim countries entering ILLEGALLY the country under the Turks and latter the British mandate from the eastern, northern and southern borders looking for jobs created by the Zionist movement and latter by the British Mandate (1918 – 1948).

The Arab population of the south (between Jaffa and the Egyptian border) grew by more than 200% between 1917 – 1940s. About 35,000 Arabs from the Haurain, South Syria came looking for work.

From 1870 to 1948 the Arabic population grew by 270%. Even in Egypt, the Arab country with the highest birth rate, the rate was only 105%, which proves that a significant part of the Arabic population growth came from immigration. By 1921when the British government performed its first census the number of Arabs and Muslims amounted to about 500,000. The 1931 British Census included about 30 different languages spoken by the Muslim population in Palestine. They were illegal immigrant workers from Arabic and Muslim countries. The high rate of children's deaths, law life expectancy and the lack of health services in the country made it impossible to reach 270% as a result of birth rate.

In Short, from about 250,000 around the end of the 19th century, many of them bedouins, the Arabic population grew to about 1,250,000 in 1948. The Palestinian claim that they are the ancient population of the so called Palestine has no ground.

Winston ChurchilL, said in May 22, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine during the British Mandate was so large that their numbers grew in such proportion that even if all Jews immigrated to Palestine they could not reach that number.

Franklin D.Roosevelt, said in May 17, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine since 1921 was much greater that Jewish immigration.

A significant part of the 1948 Palestinian refugees were first or second generation illegal immigrant workers.

http://rslissak.com/...ka-shpak-lissak

The final nail in your coffin that the "Palestinians" are the "native Indians" of that land comes in the fact that a huge amount of Palestinians have surnames which actually are a description of the place where the family came from.

Common Palestinians names include:

al-Iraqi - the Iraqi

al-Massri - the Egyptian

al-Lubani - the Lebanese

al-Mughrabi - the Moroccan

al-Djazair - the Algerian

al-Yamani - the Yemeni

al-Afghani - the Afghan

al-Turki - the Turk

al-Hindi - the Indian

al-Hourani - the Hauranite (from southern Syria)

al-Kurdi - the Kurd

al-Ajami - the Iranian

al-Shami- the Syrian

Khamis - Bahrain

al-Araj- part of Morocco

Halabi - Aleppo, Syria

But. try as I might, I have yet been able to find any "Palestinian" with the surname of al-Filastini (the Palestinian).

So it makes you think: If these Arabs are the native peoples of the area, then why do they have names like "the Iraqi" or "the Egyptian"?

The answer, of course, is simple. The Arabs in Palestine are NOT the native peoples of the area.

Still, the supporters of the "Palestinian" cause will go on denying it till hell freezes over, in face of the huge amount of evidence which shows they are WRONG.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bottom line, Israel has never offered the Palestinians a autonomous state EVER! NEVER EVER!

Correction. Palestinians have never ever been offered an autonomous state. They've always been occupied by another foreign state, from the Romans and the Byzantines through the Ottomans to the British and Jordan and Egypt.

And few if any of those states actually gave a damn about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British actually planned for them to have their own autonomous state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of your silly posts on that thread reads:

A few on this forum have tried to claim that the Arab migration to Palestine was so significant, that most of the Palestinians in Palestine during the mandate were not actually Palestinians at all! This myth was given credit, largely due to a book called Time Immemorial written by Joan Peters.

But lets look at the FACTS which, despite the overwhelmingly huge amount of evidence which show that the "Palestinians" are recent newcomers to the area, you choose to ignore.

By debunking the WELL-RESEARCHED claims by Joan Peters you have put yourself amongst nasty people such as Norman G. Finkelstein, The: 1) 'Holocaust denier' or at least trivialize-r, 2) openly praying for defeat at the hands of the Islamic terror group Hezbollah and praising those terrorists as "heroes." 3) demonized an author who exposed Anti-Semitism in Germany pre-Holocaust era. 4) He was even (first) on the damned list of "personalities" (joining neo-Nazis) to be attending the Holocaust so called "revisionists" or open deniers, under the dictator leader of the totalitarian Islamic Republic of Iran, the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Tehran 2006.

The supporters of the "Palestinians" love to bang on about how the Israelis are outsiders who moved from other countries and flooded into Palestine (a geographical area, remember, never a nation state).

What they fail to mention - either through igorance or because it's an inconvenient truth - is that the same can be said of the "Palestinians".

Way back in 1939, testimony given to the US Congress said that 150,000 Arabs moved to the British Mandate for Palestine in just a 17 year period.

Immigrants include: Arab - Egyptians (mainly in the early 1800s), Syrian, Algerian, Sudanese, S. Arabians. Other Muslims from: Bosnia during the 1800s and fascist Nazi Slavic-Muslims after WW2 [this Slavic mix might explain the phenomenon of lighter skinned small group among those calling themselves "Palestinians"].

Basically, today's so called "Palestinians", who, up to the 1960s were referred to as either South Syrians prior to the 1920s, or plain Arabs, or more specifically Palestine Arabs, after the French removed Emir Faisal, from Damascus in 1920 since the late 1960s have adopted this title to be theirs exclusively, comprise a salad mixture of: Syrian Arabs, Saudi Arabs, Sudanese [Afro-]Arabs, Egyptian, Turkish, Kurdish, Bosnian, Algerian and others. Yet, this 'mixture' was never cohesive, nor did it ever before "see" itself as a "nation."

Research shows again and again that the British, whether by pressure of the violent Arabs or due to their own biased tendency, willfully ignored huge Arab immigration.

http://www.freerepub...s/2670895/posts

The fact of the matter is that Palestinians are NOT the Indigenous people of the Holy Land.

The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.

The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.

Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516 – 1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918 – 1948).

Arab penetration into the land of Israel (the ancient name for Palestine) came in four waves. The most recent - and the largest - occurred from 1832 to 1948.

The second part of this most recent wave - from 1917 to 1948, during the last years of being part of Ottoman Syria and then the British Mandate - saw Arabs and Muslims from Arabic and Muslim countries entering ILLEGALLY the country under the Turks and latter the British mandate from the eastern, northern and southern borders looking for jobs created by the Zionist movement and latter by the British Mandate (1918 – 1948).

The Arab population of the south (between Jaffa and the Egyptian border) grew by more than 200% between 1917 – 1940s. About 35,000 Arabs from the Haurain, South Syria came looking for work.

From 1870 to 1948 the Arabic population grew by 270%. Even in Egypt, the Arab country with the highest birth rate, the rate was only 105%, which proves that a significant part of the Arabic population growth came from immigration. By 1921when the British government performed its first census the number of Arabs and Muslims amounted to about 500,000. The 1931 British Census included about 30 different languages spoken by the Muslim population in Palestine. They were illegal immigrant workers from Arabic and Muslim countries. The high rate of children's deaths, law life expectancy and the lack of health services in the country made it impossible to reach 270% as a result of birth rate.

In Short, from about 250,000 around the end of the 19th century, many of them bedouins, the Arabic population grew to about 1,250,000 in 1948. The Palestinian claim that they are the ancient population of the so called Palestine has no ground.

Winston ChurchilL, said in May 22, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine during the British Mandate was so large that their numbers grew in such proportion that even if all Jews immigrated to Palestine they could not reach that number.

Franklin D.Roosevelt, said in May 17, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine since 1921 was much greater that Jewish immigration.

A significant part of the 1948 Palestinian refugees were first or second generation illegal immigrant workers.

http://rslissak.com/...ka-shpak-lissak

The final nail in your coffin that the "Palestinians" are the "native Indians" of that land comes in the fact that a huge amount of Palestinians have surnames which actually are a description of the place where the family came from.

Common Palestinians names include:

al-Iraqi - the Iraqi

al-Massri - the Egyptian

al-Lubani - the Lebanese

al-Mughrabi - the Moroccan

al-Djazair - the Algerian

al-Yamani - the Yemeni

al-Afghani - the Afghan

al-Turki - the Turk

al-Hindi - the Indian

al-Hourani - the Hauranite (from southern Syria)

al-Kurdi - the Kurd

al-Ajami - the Iranian

al-Shami- the Syrian

Khamis - Bahrain

al-Araj- part of Morocco

Halabi - Aleppo, Syria

But. try as I might, I have yet been able to find any "Palestinian" with the surname of al-Filastini (the Palestinian).

So it makes you think: If these Arabs are the native peoples of the area, then why do they have names like "the Iraqi" or "the Egyptian"?

The answer, of course, is simple. The Arabs in Palestine are NOT the native peoples of the area.

Still, the supporters of the "Palestinian" cause will go on denying it till hell freezes over, in face of the huge amount of evidence which shows they are WRONG.

Wow it's apparent from your avatar that the meds you're on are making you quite fuzzy-headed my friend.

So the Arabs in Palestine are not the native peoples of the area, even though they have centuries of history there.

Here's some real history from Wikipedia on the demographics of ancient Palestine to the modern era:

According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[9] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews.[10] McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.[11]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All temporary ceasefires are 'Hudnas'. It is a foundation to negotiate peace from.

And it wasn't 'Jews' that he wouldn't talk to, it was Israeli leaders and Israeli officials sent to mediate.

I stumbled across that interview and listened again - you were correct and I was wrong. Baskin DID say "Israelis" not Jews. That apparently makes some difference though I fail to see it. I suppose it's a way of trying to separate Jew from Zionist. I don't really understand that since every citizen of Israel certainly benefits from the fruits of their return to the land. If the numbers of Israelis who spit on the idea of Zionism grow enough then the world's problem might be solved for them. But I doubt it.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction. Palestinians have never ever been offered an autonomous state. They've always been occupied by another foreign state, from the Romans and the Byzantines through the Ottomans to the British and Jordan and Egypt.

And few if any of those states actually gave a damn about them.

Now Israel can be added to that list.

Britain and the UN planned to create an autonomous state for the Palestinians. But the British abandoned them without informing them that they were going to be abandoned. But Britain told the Jews.

And the UN partition plan gave away 54-55% of Palestine to the immigrant minority namely the Jews. So the Palestinians declined the partition plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow it's apparent from your avatar that the meds you're on are making you quite fuzzy-headed my friend.

So the Arabs in Palestine are not the native peoples of the area, even though they have centuries of history there.

Here's some real history from Wikipedia on the demographics of ancient Palestine to the modern era:

According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[9] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews.[10] McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.[11]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine

There's no point mate. His theory is based on nonsense. The Ottomans (surprisingly) kept very accurate statistics of the native populations and the British carried out meticulous census in all their overseas territories. The British document I provided has in it one of these census from 1931, completely destroying his theory (it is somewhere in the last 10 pages). All of these statistics show there was an indigenous population of Palestine. Not only this, but it has been demonstrated (in many places, but also in the Peel Commission that I provided) that the immigration was minute and often seasonal: Arabs would migrate to Palestine only to move on to greener pastures due to weather, etc.

The growth of the Palestinian population can be almost completely attributed to their demographics, not immigration. In other words: they generally have big families, and, according to the British, their women were very fertile.

This is all documented record, and not even controversial in the slightest. This is where conspiracy theories like the ones presented by TLLG fall down: when one studies the actual documented record. I honestly believe he didn't know there was a group of people called 'Palestinians' before the 60s. Why? Because he hadn't studied the actual, documented record, instead believing what he has been spoon-fed as gospel.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The British actually planned for them to have their own autonomous state.

I actually managed to find a map of roughly what T.E Lawrence wanted a future Middle East to look like. Divided states for Palestinians, Lebanese, an independent state for the Sinai and an exclave of Armenians in southern Turkey.

Imagine the problems.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Israel can be added to that list.

Britain and the UN planned to create an autonomous state for the Palestinians. But the British abandoned them without informing them that they were going to be abandoned. But Britain told the Jews.

And the UN partition plan gave away 54-55% of Palestine to the immigrant minority namely the Jews. So the Palestinians declined the partition plan.

Do you have something against Jews?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Israel can be added to that list.

Britain and the UN planned to create an autonomous state for the Palestinians. But the British abandoned them without informing them that they were going to be abandoned. But Britain told the Jews.

And the UN partition plan gave away 54-55% of Palestine to the immigrant minority namely the Jews. So the Palestinians declined the partition plan.

Indeed they did, and have continued to decline entertaining any idea of a Jewish State in all the intervening years. The irony is that they will probably wind up accepting less land than they could have had back then had they just agreed to be civil. The bottom line here is that the problem always, always gets back to the intransigence of the Palestinians on borders and right of return. They will only accept a solution that gives them - either immediately or over time - ALL THE LAND. You can wrap it up anyway you like and place a really nice bow on it but that's what it comes down to. And while they have listened to hate filled rhetoric for 6 decades and spilled blood at every opportunity, Israel has created a thriving State in spite of them. Then placed a nuclear umbrella over it. You'd think they'd see the handwriting and just make peace. But hatred clouds clear vision.

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.