Israeli Nazism is the real issue.

[Ahmad]

You see, Ahmad? You've had it drilled into your mind for so long that even the concept is alien to you.

To answer a few of your points: the last Caliph but one deeded Palestine to be a Jewish state in the Treaty of Sevres, much land was purchased from Arabs (especially anti-Zionist Arabs) by Jewish settlers, the Arabs violated the provisions that they were supposed to nurture their own Jewish populations and expelled them and expropriated most of their property instead, Jewish control and settlement of Palestine including the t, just because someone from the U.N. or E.U. says otherwise doesn't change this because their arguments always are specious if not empty.

You've never heard this stuff before, have you, Ahmed? What you have experienced is a fallacious "proof of repetition". It's ultimate justification is the desire cited by many Muslims to see Jews as enemies, not friends.

so the EU, and UN doesnt mean anything to you guys when you are on the wrong side with it?

West Bank legally falls under the League of Nations mandate which set it aside for Jewish settlemen

and may i ask what is this? cuz i dont know.

 

[Solomon2]

so the EU, and UN doesnt mean anything to you guys when you are on the wrong side with it?

It means these personnel (not always the institution itself) are choosing politics over principle.

and may i ask what is this? cuz i dont know.

Here is a pretty good article: British Mandate for Palestine. (The Mandate actually restricts the Jews more than the limits Mehmed VI set in the Treaty of Sèvres. The Brits were not as fair-minded as the Caliph they tried to influence.)

 

[Ahmad]

It means these personnel (not always the institution itself) are choosing politics over principle.

Here is a pretty good article: British Mandate for Palestine. (The Mandate actually restricts the Jews more than the limits Mehmed VI set in the Treaty of Sèvres. The Brits were not as fair-minded as the Caliph they tried to influence.)

Thanks, i googled it myself as well. It is strange that the UN which is much more credible compare to that mandate means nothing to you, but that mandate which was basically drawn by the winners of the war and division of other people's territories and giving to anyone they wanted.

here is one part of it:

Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[3]

the mandate being very wrong, but on the other hand it clearly says about the rights of existing people, which israel is clearly doing the opposite.

 

[A1Kaid]

The problems are Zionism and religious and political extremists on both sides of the conflict. Many Israelis don't support this type of aggressive Zionism which has in fact stirred up hatred between Jews and Muslims who have been living to together in peace for hundreds of years. I believe two-state solution will help the region, and over time things will recover. However, don't only look at "Israeli Nazism" remember it takes two to tango. Or as you guys in Pakistan say "a clap happens with two hands."

We can go back in history and discuss right and wrong ad nauseam, that's not going to help the Palestinians nor the Israelis. We can draw out an official border for Palestine to our East and they may keep West Bank and Gaza and I agree settlements must stop they do us no good only prolonging hatred and adding fuel to the fire.

 

[Solomon2]

the mandate being very wrong, but on the other hand it clearly says about the rights of existing people, which israel is clearly doing the opposite.

You've got it backwards. It is incontestable that Arab governments (starting with the illegal state of Jordan in 1921, long before Israel's independence war of 1947) have violated the Sevres provision by expelling their Jews and seizing Jews' property. There is a good argument that this releases Jews from respecting the same; nevertheless, Jews continued to obtain private property by purchase, not seizure from Arabs, appropriating only "state" (formerly Turkish) lands for themselves.

Your confusion is rooted in how this process was done. The proposal to evict Jews from Palestine via terrorism was first made by the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1899. The Turks rejected this. However, the religious imperative became a tool in the hands of the powerful to accuse other land-owning Muslims of impiety by accusing them of planning to sell their lands to Jews. The "strong" Muslims (usually relatives of the Mufti or Arab-Ottoman officials) would then compel these weak Muslims to sell them their lands, which they in turn they would sell to Jews at a 4000% profit. (Forty times the original purchase price.) So throughout the post-WWI period of Zionist settlement, land purchase and anti-Zionist propaganda went together.

During and after the 1947 war matters became even more garbled:

1) Hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including entire villages, following their own leaders' encouragement or example, abandoned their homes in Jewish Palestine. (Of all the refugees, perhaps only fifty thousand were expelled, those in the Lod area whose leaders, late in the war, reversed their previous pledges of peace to the Zionists, deciding that the compulsion of Arab terror directed against them was more compelling than Jewish threats.)

2) A special agency was created to care for or create Arab refugees and (unlike other refugees worldwide) coddle them in perpetuity. The legal grounding cited for this is the same League of Nations Mandate that establishes Israel, supposedly obligating the Mandate power (first Britain, then the U.N.) to care for the population in its territory.

3) Egypt and Jordan occupied large swaths of Palestine. Gazans were not treated as Egyptian citizens. Jordan annexed the West Bank (only Pakistan recognized this, with murderous results) but established a kind of second-class citizenship for its Arabs.

4) The Arabs remaining after the war was over kept their lands and property. Abandoned property and villages were built upon by Jews, save that the Arabs who fled were allowed to return conditional upon their swearing allegiance to the Jewish State. Israel is 20% Arab today.

Is that proof enough of Israel's good intent and faithfulness in following the will of Caliph Mehmed VI, who was so concerned about Jews not violating the civil rights of Arabs? The Arab states can say nothing about their own good faith in this matter, can they?

(You'll note the absence of Arab civilian casualties in this account? That's because there were very few. Everyone remembers the dozen or so Arab civilians murdered in the confusion of Deir Yassin. Hardly anyone recalls the Arab revenge attack a few days later, the murder of over seventy unarmed Jewish doctors and nurses.)

 

[Hussein]

The problems are Zionism and religious and political extremists on both sides of the conflict. Many Israelis don't support this type of aggressive Zionism which has in fact stirred up hatred between Jews and Muslims who have been living to together in peace for hundreds of years. I believe two-state solution will help the region, and over time things will recover. However, don't only look at "Israeli Nazism" remember it takes two to tango. Or as you guys in Pakistan say "a clap happens with two hands."

We can go back in history and discuss right and wrong ad nauseam, that's not going to help the Palestinians nor the Israelis. We can draw out an official border for Palestine to our East and they may keep West Bank and Gaza and I agree settlements must stop they do us no good only prolonging hatred and adding fuel to the fire.

Thank you.

About the settlements freeze:
Obama agreement is very favorable to Israelians: it doesn't concern Jerusalem. In judee Samarie when free will be finished it will be back...
But even with these conditions you have a strong opposition to this in your ocuntry it seems
Yuli Edelstein, Gilad Erdan, Silvan Shalom and Moshe Ya'alon

I heard some people in Army would not act against the colons if Army was asking them to take them out. And you know how hard it is.

A friend in Israel saying me your country becoming more and more religious. Well ok it is not bad but you know religious people have religious concerns about lands.

It is sad our religions are linked and this is so much problems.
Sometimes i worry some other states want us to fight and keep problems.

I think most of us condemn the roquettes and the terrorist acts

 

[Solomon2]

The problems are Zionism and religious and political extremists on both sides of the conflict. Many Israelis don't support this type of aggressive Zionism which has in fact stirred up hatred between Jews and Muslims who have been living to together in peace for hundreds of years.

Arab hostility began as Jews attempted to farm in Palestine once more; Jews in cities O.K., not Jews in countryside. A few Arabs supported the Zionist project, either by word or (more often) by deed, guarding settlements, assisting Jews in farm labor, and so on.

I believe two-state solution will help the region, and over time things will recover.

Geographical facts do not change political realities that are grounded in religious bigotry.

We can go back in history and discuss right and wrong ad nauseam, that's not going to help the Palestinians nor the Israelis. We can draw out an official border for Palestine to our East and they may keep West Bank and Gaza and I agree settlements must stop -

I think you are falling prey to the "salami" method of attack, cutting down Israel bit by bit. It would be best for geography to follow politics rather than the other way 'round.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

The problems are Zionism and religious and political extremists on both sides of the conflict. Many Israelis don't support this type of aggressive Zionism which has in fact stirred up hatred between Jews and Muslims who have been living to together in peace for hundreds of years. I believe two-state solution will help the region, and over time things will recover. However, don't only look at "Israeli Nazism" remember it takes two to tango. Or as you guys in Pakistan say "a clap happens with two hands."

We can go back in history and discuss right and wrong ad nauseam, that's not going to help the Palestinians nor the Israelis. We can draw out an official border for Palestine to our East and they may keep West Bank and Gaza and I agree settlements must stop they do us no good only prolonging hatred and adding fuel to the fire.

Are you pretending to be israeli ?

reading your previous posts on this forum and also your signature , you have made it pretty obvious you are a Pakistani , so what is the point in pretending now ?

Isnt this your signature ? "On the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these Hindu idolaters and foes of Islám at liberty."- Timur, On the Invasion of Hind

 

[Hussein]

It is never possible to speak in this forum
without insults . So sad.

 

[NWO]

It should be pointed out (though it's probably useless to this blindly anti-Zionist crowd) that this is totally unlike the Arabs and many Muslims who have resorted and continue to resort to invented injustices against Arabs by Israel to "justify" murder and theft against Jews and the support of despotism around the world.

And how doesn't Israel invent justice? The only difference between the Israeli and the Palestinians is that the Israel can afford fancy courtrooms, which are funded by the US.

People have always been concerned about that - including Israelis. The record shows, however, that Zionists did not and do not behave that way - in the very few cases such has happened it has been checked by other Zionists.

It's probably more than just a few cases, but such is to expected in times of conflict. However, that doesn't mean Israel can escape judgment.

It should be pointed out (though it's probably useless to this blindly anti-Zionist crowd)...

Of course it's anti-Zionist. However, don't confuse anti-Zionist with antisemitism or even anti-Israel. All it means is that some people oppose a philosophy.

You see, Ahmad? You've had it drilled into your mind for so long that even the concept is alien to you.

That's just a personal attack, nothing more and you know it.

To answer a few of your points: the last Caliph but one deeded Palestine to be a Jewish state in the Treaty of Sevres, much land was purchased from Arabs (especially anti-Zionist Arabs) by Jewish settlers, the Arabs violated the provisions that they were supposed to nurture their own Jewish populations and expelled them and expropriated most of their property instead, Jewish control and settlement of Palestine including the West Bank legally falls under the League of Nations mandate which set it aside for Jewish settlement, just because someone from the U.N. or E.U. says otherwise doesn't change this because their arguments always are specious if not empty.

I'm not sure I follow you on this. First, you support the League of Nations when they favor Israel, but oppose them when they go against Israel? That is called cherry picking.

As well, you said so yourself. Jewish landlords were buying up the land, and most were absentee lords. It's kind of like is bunch of Saudi princes begin buying up huge chunks of American land. Americans won't be too happy.

Its ultimate justification is the desire cited by many Muslims to see Jews as enemies, not friends.

Many people do oppose Israel and the Zionist policies, but that doesn't mean that they oppose Jews. And those who don't like Jews will be willing to act politely in front of them in public, and just talk bad in their homes or friends/family. However, I do admit that some do become openly racist against Jews.

It means these personnel (not always the institution itself) are choosing politics over principle.

Here is a pretty good article: British Mandate for Palestine. (The Mandate actually restricts the Jews more than the limits Mehmed VI set in the Treaty of Sèvres. The Brits were not as fair-minded as the Caliph they tried to influence.)

Okay, do you know why so much fighting is happening in Iraq? Because some ethnic groups, like the Kurds, were pushed together with other ethnic groups that they didn't get along with, like the Shiites. And who pushed them together? The British, who did it only for their interest, which was controlling the oil there. Same thing with Africa and European powers. They forced many groups who did not get along to live together and now, they both claim the same land as their own. This had lead Africa to be constantly broiled in conflict, even though the old claims may have been long forgotten.

Anyway, my point is why should the British decide who lives where and who doesn't live there?

You've got it backwards. It is incontestable that Arab governments (starting with the illegal state of Jordan in 1921, long before Israel's independence war of 1947) have violated the Sevres provision by expelling their Jews and seizing Jews' property. There is a good argument that this releases Jews from respecting the same; nevertheless, Jews continued to obtain private property by purchase, not seizure from Arabs, appropriating only "state" (formerly Turkish) lands for themselves.

Your confusion is rooted in how this process was done. The proposal to evict Jews from Palestine via terrorism was first made by the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1899. The Turks rejected this. However, the religious imperative became a tool in the hands of the powerful to accuse other land-owning Muslims of impiety by accusing them of planning to sell their lands to Jews. The "strong" Muslims (usually relatives of the Mufti or Arab-Ottoman officials) would then compel these weak Muslims to sell them their lands, which they in turn they would sell to Jews at a 4000% profit. (Forty times the original purchase price.) So throughout the post-WWI period of Zionist settlement, land purchase and anti-Zionist propaganda went together.

During and after the 1947 war matters became even more garbled:

1) Hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including entire villages, following their own leaders' encouragement or example, abandoned their homes in Jewish Palestine. (Of all the refugees, perhaps only fifty thousand were expelled, those in the Lod area whose leaders, late in the war, reversed their previous pledges of peace to the Zionists, deciding that the compulsion of Arab terror directed against them was more compelling than Jewish threats.)

2) A special agency was created to care for or create Arab refugees and (unlike other refugees worldwide) coddle them in perpetuity. The legal grounding cited for this is the same League of Nations Mandate that establishes Israel, supposedly obligating the Mandate power (first Britain, then the U.N.) to care for the population in its territory.

3) Egypt and Jordan occupied large swaths of Palestine. Gazans were not treated as Egyptian citizens. Jordan annexed the West Bank (only Pakistan recognized this, with murderous results) but established a kind of second-class citizenship for its Arabs.

4) The Arabs remaining after the war was over kept their lands and property. Abandoned property and villages were built upon by Jews, save that the Arabs who fled were allowed to return conditional upon their swearing allegiance to the Jewish State. Israel is 20% Arab today.

Is that proof enough of Israel's good intent and faithfulness in following the will of Caliph Mehmed VI, who was so concerned about Jews not violating the civil rights of Arabs? The Arab states can say nothing about their own good faith in this matter, can they?

(You'll note the absence of Arab civilian casualties in this account? That's because there were very few. Everyone remembers the dozen or so Arab civilians murdered in the confusion of Deir Yassin. Hardly anyone recalls the Arab revenge attack a few days later, the murder of over seventy unarmed Jewish doctors and nurses.)

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict.

 

[A1Kaid]

It is never possible to speak in this forum
without insults . So sad.

I agree, unfortunately some people don't want to give peace a chance, and have held onto their dogmatic views. They also insult and question a persons nationality because they expect a person from country A will only say certain things, and if they say something otherwise they are "posing". Nothing we can do about such people...

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I agree, unfortunately some people don't want to give peace a chance, and have held onto their dogmatic views. They also insult and question a persons nationality because they expect a person from country A will only say certain things, and if they say something otherwise they are "posing". Nothing we can do about such people...

You weren't able to answer my post and genuine questions,

Hence , BUSTED !

 

[NWO]

It is never possible to speak in this forum
without insults . So sad.

I believe that counts for any place on the internet where opposing view clash. All in all, PDF isn't too bad.

 

[A1Kaid]

You weren't able to answer my post and genuine questions,

Hence , BUSTED !

You see those soldiers in my avatar? You see the flag they are proudly carrying? Don't ask me who I am or where I'm from, it's quite obvious. Also get a life.