Pallywood: Debunking Palestinean Lies

[Zabaniyah]

You always run away with ad hominems man. When confronted with logic.

Stand and fight it out sometimes. Would help you gain some respect here.

Like you'd even know what Jihad means Padawan

"Mohamedan"....cute...

 

[vsdoc]

Okay, ask your Jewish friends to try to take over Mecca in return.

Please

Mecca is already under Jewish rule by proxy.

In effect that's 25 million of them versus 1.6 billion of you.

Not counting the 2.2 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Hindus looking on.

 

[Developereo]

You always run away with ad hominems man. When confronted with logic.

Stand and fight it out sometimes. Would help you gain some respect here.

If the above was your idea of 'logic', then you are welcome to your delusional 'victories'. We have locked horns in the past and we all know you guys are incapable of logic or factual debates. You only seek an opening to launch into your pre-planned rants.

Your choice of the word 'Mohammedan' when you know it is an offensive term for Muslims gave you away. As did your pathetic attempt to start a flame war in the other thread about Pakistani missiles. Devoid of intellectual capability, you just like to troll the threads.

Sorry, not interested in indulging you guys...

 

[Zabaniyah]

Mecca is already under Jewish rule by proxy.

In effect that's 25 million of them versus 1.6 billion of you.

Not counting the 2.2 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Hindus looking on.

Okay Mister, best of luck with that.

 

[vsdoc]

Okay Mister, best of luck with that.

I am not the one that needs the luck man.

I am but a poor humble Zoroastrian.

At last count there were just 2.5 million of us remaining.

We can at best sit on the sidelines watching you big boys slug it out.

If the above was your idea of 'logic', then you are welcome to your delusional 'victories'.

Of course its logical. What goes around can and does come around.

That you as a Pakistani muslim "perceive" yourself to be on the receiving end does color your view of the same though.

Your choice of the word 'Mohammedan' when you know it is an offensive term for Muslims gave you away.

I'm calling those wars as they are called historically by the rest of the world.

You want me to provide unbiased respectable references?

 

[vsdoc]

The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven, has always been the Holy land for three world religions - Judaism, Christianity, and finally, Islam. With numerous wars to wrest control of the holy city.

It is only fitting that the Jews get first dibs on it as they were first in line.

By bloodlines, and historically, the Palestines have a right to that land as well.

But then, so do 1.2 billion Indians to what is now Pakistan. And vice versa of course for 180 million Pakistanis.

Sh*t happens.

 

[yahya07]

From reading some of the comments in this thread I've noticed most of the proponents of Israel in this conflict deduce their suport not on the actual issues of the conflict itself but merely on idealogical grounds. For instance what on earth does the Palestinian support for Saddam Hussein have to do with their claim for independence? The term "Palestinian support" itself is a misnomer, it only took a few self-proclaimed leaders of the Palestinian people to declare their support for Saddam, does this all of a sudden deprive the Palestinian people of their right to statehood? Where are your brains people?

I also find it pretty shameful people are making judgements on the conflict based on their disdain for the Arab people, citing what Saudi Arabia could-have/should-have done for the Palestinians has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING.

 

[Solomon2]

I've asked this question before and didn't receive an answer, and I wish for someone pro-Israeli to answer this question : Are lands distributed by religion? If any group of people of certain religion used to live in a certain place but not any more, does that give them the right -

Just because they didn't have a defined border with Jordan and other countries, and just because they were culturally smiler to each other, it doesn't mean they should be kicked out from Palestine.

Except that's not how it happened. Here's a quickie pocket history:

Put yourself back in time to 1919. Three empires have disintegrated or are in the process of disintegration: the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman. Sure, in the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires the Russians and Germans respectively were the majority, but their efforts to rule others meant denying minority civil rights and led to external war. In the Ottoman Empire the Turks were not the majority and kept falling prey to violent internal conflicts.

So the decision was made - by the victors, but with the support of much of the post-Imperial populations - to break these Empires up into nation-states. Minorities whose nationalisms were suppressed would now have their own territories and states: Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, etc. Millions of people migrated between countries - the Greek evacuation of Asia Minor was probably the most disruptive. Areas where the nationalities were not separated after WWI became flashpoints for later wars: Danzig, Yugoslavia, the Saarland, Alsace, Silesia, and of course Palestine.

Why did the Ottoman Caliphs agree to support the Jewish National Home in Palestine? They had been approached before. The judgment of Abdul Hamid II was no, because the Arabs had fought for the Empire. With the Arab Revolt, however, that feeling of obligation ended. There was no reason to deny the Jews any longer, nor, I suppose, was the prospect of an Arab Empire replacing an Ottoman one attractive - the decades-long Mamluk threat from Egypt had been bad enough.

The obligation put upon Middle Easterners by the Caliph and Allies alike was that the Jews and Arabs should respect each others' civil and property rights in the territories that came under their political domination. The British Mandate declared that Palestine was the Jewish National Home. (Tens of thousands of Jews had already migrated to Palestine since the 1880s.) That meant that Jews could settle wherever they could buy property, or they could settle in "state" lands previously owned by the Ottomans. Transjordan, 70% of the Mandate territory, was peeled away.

The Jews were very faithful in re-settling Palestine in this fashion - indeed, under the British, they couldn't kick Arabs off private land if they wanted to. Outside of Palestine, however, the new Arab tyrants actively kicked Jews out, enriching their families or followers with the property and realty they seized. The process started with Jordan and continued, on and off, through the 20th century in all Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, which conquered Jewish communities in its war with Yemen. (Lebanon is a partial exception, since Jews have departed but some continue to own realty and even, it is said, collect rents through intermediaries.)

Farmers who tenanted agricultural property purchased by Jews departed their old fields after the harvest following the purchase, or were paid to teach Jews how to farm or to help guard the settlements Indeed, the money and prosperity the Jews brought to Palestine was a big draw for Arabs from surrounding countries, and the population of Palestine, both Arab and Jew, increased.

What freaked the Arabs out was the prospect that any portion of the Middle East would fall to Jewish control. Prodded by the British military, whose Empire (as Pakistanis should recall) thrived on being the middleman between contesting groups, and the militant new Mufti of Jerusalem (Yassir Arafat's uncle), Arabs took to violence against the Jews - even Jews who had been in Palestine for centuries. Their slogan was Al Yahud Kelabna - "the Jews are our dogs."

(That's what Pakistanis who stand up for "Palestinians" are fighting for, you know. Not "Islam" but "the Jews are our dogs.")

The British, whose primary concern was the Iraq to Haifa oil pipeline, were not terribly effective at halting violence of Arab against Jew and were more interested in appeasing Arabs by restraining or arresting Jews who defended themselves. That's how the Haganah got started, as a semi-secret Jewish self-defense organization.

After two decades of scarcely-controlled mayhem in Palestine and another World War the Brits wanted out. They evacuated Palestine. The 1947 partition plan - yet another hacking of Mandate territory - was rejected by the Arabs who went to war - first against individual settlements, then against the State of Israel. Under the Ottomans a population in revolt forfeits its civil and property rights. Israel, to its credit, passed a law permitting Arabs to return to Israel and their property (or compensation) upon swearing loyalty to the Jewish State and forswearing violence; about 25% did so. The remaining Arabs who fled Israel because they couldn't abide Jewish rule and their descendants thus have no claim on lands in Israel proper. Israel is about 20% Arab today. The remaining Jewish population in "Arab" states is so small as to be barely detectable.

The Mandate continued and still continues to exist. Just because the trustee departs doesn't mean the trust is dissolved. That was the U.N.'s rationale for establishing UNRWA, to take care of Arab "refugees" (its definition is a unique one) in Mandate territory. (Israel eventually dissolved the UNRWA camps in its territory and accepted their Arabs as citizens.) That's also the source of the legal claim of Jewish settlers in the West Bank: under the Mandate it is part of the Jewish National Home in Palestine and Jews can settle there, even if it isn't part of the State of Israel.

So now, IbnAlwaledm, Skorpian, you know how we reached today. Jews who recognized themselves as a nationality were deemed to have the right to settle in Palestine. The Arabs were not "kicked out of Palestine" because they were Arabs. They left or chose to stay away because they had a deep, abiding, and violent hatred of Jews, especially Israelis. Separating a population devoted to violence from its target has been the foundation of successful peace for the past century, from 1919 Budapest to 2007 Baghdad. Once the hot-heads have been frustrated brotherly feelings between peoples are then free to develop.

 

[Desert Fox]

Its mentioned in the Quran the Jews will be powerful twice once before the time of Mohammed and the second time after(obviously now).
{And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture that, "You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness.}{So when the [time of] promise came for the first of them, We sent against you servants of Ours - those of great military might, and they probed [even] into the homes, and it was a promise fulfilled.}{Then We gave back to you a return victory over them. And We reinforced you with wealth and sons and made you more numerous in manpower}{[And said], "If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, [you do it] to yourselves." Then when the final promise came, [We sent your enemies] to sadden your faces and to enter the temple in Jerusalem, as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with [total] destruction.}
We are just doing what was prophesied on the Qur'an

Doesn't this refer to the Babylonians and then the Romans? Also, not sure where it mentions Muhammad (PBUH).

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Doesn't this refer to the Babylonians and then the Romans? Also, not sure where it mentions Muhammad (PBUH).

This link offers a good explanation regarding the subject:

The two times the Jews would do mischief on the earth - Islamweb.net -English

 

[IbnAlwaled]

Doesn't this refer to the Babylonians and then the Romans? Also, not sure where it mentions Muhammad (PBUH).

No because it spoke once in past tense and on in "future tense".

 

[King Solomon]

From reading some of the comments in this thread I've noticed most of the proponents of Israel in this conflict deduce their suport not on the actual issues of the conflict itself but merely on idealogical grounds. For instance what on earth does the Palestinian support for Saddam Hussein have to do with their claim for independence? The term "Palestinian support" itself is a misnomer, it only took a few self-proclaimed leaders of the Palestinian people to declare their support for Saddam, does this all of a sudden deprive the Palestinian people of their right to statehood? Where are your brains people?

I also find it pretty shameful people are making judgements on the conflict based on their disdain for the Arab people, citing what Saudi Arabia could-have/should-have done for the Palestinians has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING.

There are so many other reasons. Only if you look at the documentaries somebozo posted.

 

[Developereo]

Solomon,

Your sanitized historical synopsis is factually incorrect.

The fact is that, after the Ottoman Caliph denied the Zionists' bid for a Jewish state, they moved to Plan B, which consisted of the following tactics:

- Above board migration of wealthy Jews from Europe and elsewhere to buy Palestinian lands.
- Clandestine, illegal, migration of less wealthy Jews to 'build up the numbers'.
- Political lobbying in Britain and the US to support a bid for a Jewish state in Palestine.

After the Arabs backstabbed the Turks -- based on a promise by the Brits of an Arab homeland with no mention of a Jewish state therein -- they found that the Brits had lied to them. The Brits and French had secretly decided to carve out the Middle East between their protectorates. Furthermore, in response to Zionist lobbying and in an attempt to curry favor with the Russian Bolsheviks, who the Brits mistakenly thought were predominantly Jewish, the Brits issued the Balfour Declaration. Further support for a Jewish state came from Zionist lobbying in the US.

At this point, the Zionists -- supremely organized and methodical as always -- moved into the next phase of their planning:
- Formation of terror squads (Hagana, Irgun, etc.) to drive out the Arabs and Brits
- Buildup of military capability (sourced from Czechoslovakia) in anticipation of a war of independence
- Shadow civilian institutions ready for the day when Israel would declare itself a state

The terror activities and, by now, clear intentions of the Zionists elicited a backlash from the Arabs to make a stand for Palestine. Unfortunately, given the abject incompetence of the Arab leaders compared to the far superior planning and Western influence of the Zionists, it was no contest.

The rest is history.

(The above is documented in the BBC program "Promises and Betrayals" with first-hand interviews with Jewish, Arab, British and other sources.)

 

[somebozo]

The fact that Hussein of Jordan was well aware of terriorties not included in the future Arab states and agreed to it knowingly or lets say tactically.

And secondly, in the begining there wasn't any mention of Israel..everything was associated to Palestine..only during the early 40's when the violence broke down by an alliance of hardliner Muslims and christian Arab alliance did the voice of two state solutions begin to echo. Jews immigrating from Europe with their wealth, scientific and enterprising skills skills soon began to loom as a challenge for arab despots...particularly the Hashmites who saw interest in keeping masses backward to secure their own kingdoms.

Henry McMahon had exchanged letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca in 1915, in which he had promised Hussein control of Arab lands with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo". Palestine lay to the southwest of the Vilayet of Damascus and wasn't explicitly mentioned. That modern-day Lebanese region of the Mediterranean coast was set aside as part of a future French Mandate. After the war the extent of the coastal exclusion was hotly disputed. Hussein had protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose isolation from the Arab state or states, but did not bring up the matter of Jerusalem or Palestine. Dr. Chaim Weizmann wrote in his autobiography Trial and Error that Palestine had been excluded from the areas that should have been Arab and independent. This interpretation was supported explicitly by the British government in the 1922 White Paper.
On the basis of McMahon's assurances the Arab Revolt began on 5 June 1916. However, the British and French also secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement on 16 May 1916.[6] This agreement divided many Arab territories into British- and French-administered areas and allowed for the internationalisation of Palestine.[6] Hussein learned of the agreement when it was leaked by the new Russian government in December 1917, but was satisfied by two disingenuous telegrams from Sir Reginald Wingate, High Commissioner of Egypt, assuring him that the British government's commitments to the Arabs were still valid and that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was not a formal treaty.[6]

According to Isaiah Friedman, Hussein was not perturbed by the Balfour Declaration and on March 23, 1918, in Al Qibla, the daily newspaper of Mecca, with Hussein writing:[7]

The return of these exiles [jaliya] to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their [Arab] brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and all things connected to the land.


He called on the Arab population in Palestine to welcome the Jews as brethren and cooperate with them for the common welfare. Following the publication of the Declaration the British had dispatched Commander David George Hogarth to see Hussein in January 1918 bearing the message that the "political and economic freedom" of the Palestinian population was not in question.[6] Hogarth reported that Hussein "would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a state was contemplated by Great Britain".[9] Continuing Arab disquiet over Allied intentions also led during 1918 to the British Declaration to the Seven and the Anglo-French Declaration, the latter promising "the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations."

Lord Grey had been the foreign secretary during the McMahon-Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on the 27th March 1923, he made it clear that he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British government's interpretation of the pledges which he, as foreign secretary, had caused to be given to Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.[11] Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were the minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon,which was held on 5 December 1918. Balfour was in attendance. The minutes revealed that in laying out the government's position Curzon had explained that: "Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future".[12]

German and Ottoman reaction
Immediately following the publication of the declaration Germany entered negotiations with Turkey to put forward counter proposals. A German-Jewish Society was formed: Vereinigung jüdischer Organisationen Deutschlands zur Wahrung der Rechte der Juden des Ostens (V.J.O.D.) and in January 1918 the Turkish Grand Vizier, Talaat, issued a statement which promised legislation by which "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to find their fulfilment".[29]

Solomon,

Your sanitized historical synopsis is factually incorrect.

The fact is that, after the Ottoman Caliph denied the Zionists' bid for a Jewish state, they moved to Plan B, which consisted of the following tactics:

- Above board migration of wealthy Jews from Europe and elsewhere to buy Palestinian lands.
- Clandestine, illegal, migration of less wealthy Jews to 'build up the numbers'.
- Political lobbying in Britain and the US to support a bid for a Jewish state in Palestine.

After the Arabs backstabbed the Turks -- based on a promise by the Brits of an Arab homeland with no mention of a Jewish state therein -- they found that the Brits had lied to them. The Brits and French had secretly decided to carve out the Middle East between their protectorates. Furthermore, in response to Zionist lobbying and in an attempt to curry favor with the Russian Bolsheviks, who the Brits mistakenly thought were predominantly Jewish, the Brits issued the Balfour Declaration. Further support for a Jewish state came from Zionist lobbying in the US.

At this point, the Zionists -- supremely organized and methodical as always -- moved into the next phase of their planning:
- Formation of terror squads (Hagana, Irgun, etc.) to drive out the Arabs and Brits
- Buildup of military capability (sourced from Czechoslovakia) in anticipation of a war of independence
- Shadow civilian institutions ready for the day when Israel would declare itself a state

The terror activities and, by now, clear intentions of the Zionists elicited a backlash from the Arabs to make a stand for Palestine. Unfortunately, given the abject incompetence of the Arab leaders compared to the far superior planning and Western influence of the Zionists, it was no contest.

The rest is history.

(The above is documented in the BBC program "Promises and Betrayals" with first-hand interviews with Jewish, Arab, British and other sources.)

 

[Developereo]

The fact that Hussein of Jordan was well aware of terriorties not included in the future Arab states and agreed to it knowingly or lets say tactically.

Firstly, he welcomed the Jewish migrants as citizens of an Arab state, not a Jewish state.

Hogarth reported that Hussein "would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a state was contemplated by Great Britain".

Secondly, who gave him the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinians?