Israel lobby group counters Palestinian dispossession with– Jewish creationism

Israel/Palestine
on 281 Comments

Seriously now, this is not the Onion:

Stand With US

Stand With US

We don’t make this stuff up. When I first saw this I thought it was a spoof ad– of the famous images of Palestinians’ loss of land.

But it’s no spoof. The ad above is a response from the Israel lobby group StandWithUs to a “Disappearing Palestine” poster campaign in Vancouver. That campaign is now taking the city by storm–see the image below. Launched by a group of seven solidarity groups calling themselves the Palestine Awareness Coalition, they have spent $15,000 to put posters on 15 buses, and to place a mural in Vancouver’s central SkyTrain station.

Hence– Stand With US:

[This graphic] depicts Jewish loss of land from Biblical times to the present by juxtaposing a map of the ancient Jewish kingdom circa 1000 BCE, a map of the land designated as the Jewish homeland by the League of Nations in 1920, and a map of the much smaller Israel of today

 

Never mind the League of Nations never designated the whole region from the Jordan river to the sea for a Jewish homeland, never mind that Zionist propagandists have always complained that the British and the League of Nations “arbitrarily severed Transjordan from the mandate”. A new legal theory was originally put forth by Canada’s own Howard Grief, who passed away last June. Grief copyrighted his theory in 2008. Grief, speaking here at a settler conference in 2011, which declared the “establishment of The Jewish Authority in Eretz Yisrael”,  argues that the 1920 San Remo conference gave Jews sovereignty over all of historical Palestine.

Extremist Zionist groups are now embracing Grief’s theory, as well as a Jewish biblical connection to Palestine, to justify… the Jewish claim to all of historical Palestine, or Eretz Yisrael.

I’d say that this looney tunes ad is asking a lot of ordinary folks who don’t regard bible stories as real estate titles. Here is a modern logic people can relate to, and it makes sense:

(Photo: Noor Kesbeh, Palestine Awareness Coalition)

(Photo: Noor Kesbeh, Palestine Awareness Coalition)

Updated to reflect commenters’ point regarding Transjordan.  I apologize for the error. Hostage supplied this explanation:

The territory in the Arabian interior east of the river Jordan and the line drawn from Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Allepo had been repeatedly pledged to the Hashemites for an Arab State or Confederation of Arabs States in line with the McMahon-Huessein Correspondence, the Sykes Picot Agreement, and the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates”, dated 13 September 1919. The Zionists concluded the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, because the Hashemites were one of the Allied Powers granted the discretion under the agreements to delineate the boundaries of the new Arab state(s).

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

281 Responses

  1. Citizen
    October 12, 2013, 11:25 am

    How clever of the Zionists.

    • MRW
      October 12, 2013, 9:19 pm

      Yeah, wiping out the Roman Empire, like we wouldn’t notice.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 3:51 am

        Might as well. What have the Romans ever done for us?

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 6:36 am

        Pizza.

  2. Denis
    October 12, 2013, 11:45 am

    This is soooo funny. I am on my knees laughing. Now throwing up. Now laughing again. I hope King Abdullah II is reading this.

    I live outside Vancouver. I gotta’ go downtown and see this for myself.

    I just love SWU. Their Captain Israel comic book. Their getting their butts kicked by the Olympia Coop. It’s always something funny with them.

    1000 BC (make that BCE, sorry) to 2013 — still laughing . . .

    • Annie Robbins
      October 12, 2013, 12:52 pm

      i really thought it was spoof denis. these people are seriously out of touch w/reality if they think these kinds of arguments are persuasive. it’s just deranged. but quite entertaining!

      • weindeb
        October 12, 2013, 1:11 pm

        “Entertaining”, Annie, lies in the service of ethnic cleansing, land theft, and worse? Deranged, yes, but there is method to their madness, and always has been, including the ’67 War brilliantly choreographed well in advance. Lies can become, and too often have, as believable as the truth, as any propagandist worth his cup of blood knows.

      • MRW
        October 12, 2013, 7:58 pm

        annie, who was the genius at MW who came up with this headline? Because it is genius. Jewish Creationism. mother. phuckin brilliant. Jewish Creationism. Says it all. Captures what they’ve been doing, and who they are.

        Been searching for six years for a term that describes the lies and distortion of history, one that captures it without abnegating real Jewish history. A term that describes the la-la-land of masada madness in the 21st C that has no relationship to historical reality, yet adherents use this religiosity to destroy others and few have the balls to shut them up. A term that silos them.

        Someone ought to slap a banner over those ads: Jewish Creationists Strike Again.
        __________________________
        BTW, for those of you who like Jesus-Never-Existed lore—I’m one—this is the most plausible and fascinating I’ve come across in a long time. Involves the Roman Flavians and Josephus. Video 1:23 hr. Atwill, the main researcher, grew up in Japan, went to a Jesuit school where he learn to read and write in Greek and Latin, so he read history in the original.

        From Rawstory last week announcing a symposium in London at which Atwill will present.

        Atwill, author of “Caesar’s Messiah,” claims he’s found ancient confessions by the scriptures’ authors that they invented Jesus Christ and his story as basically a form of propaganda.

        “Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century,” Atwill said. “When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That’s when the ‘peaceful’ Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to ‘give onto [sic] Caesar’ and pay their taxes to Rome.”

        He says that Jesus was not based on an actual historical figure, but Atwill argues that the events of his life were overlaid on top of actual events from the First Jewish-Roman War [written by Josephus, who became a Roman historian], waged by Emperor Titus Flavius in Palestinian territories.

        “The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar,” he says.

        Atwill said he understands that his theory is bound to upset Christians, and he’s hoping skeptics will come to challenge him . . . “Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history,” Atwill says. “To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East.”

        Sun Tzu’s Art of War (roughly 500 BC) had been translated into Koine Greek and Latin by this time, and was popular with Roman military strategists, which adds to the plausibility of this theory, IMO.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 12, 2013, 10:53 pm

        phil came up w/the headline. him and adam write most of my headlines (thank goodness), but mostly phil. sometimes he leaves my originals in the url and you can see them at the top of the browser. like this: link to mondoweiss.net

        they get final say on all MW headlines, not just mine. and they are very good at it.

      • yonah fredman
        October 13, 2013, 2:03 am

        mrw- It’s nice to have theories. I don’t find it credible. I thought there were Christians in Rome when Rome burned in 68. So this means between 33 and 68 the Romans created this myth. (They created the myth and started the cult and recruited the members and this out of whole cloth.) James, the brother of Jesus was an early preacher in the Christian church in Jerusalem. James was also an invention?

        My knowledge of history is weak, but this sounds like a weak theory, even weaker than my knowledge of history.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 13, 2013, 2:59 am

        between 33 and 68 the Romans created this myth.

        how long did it take the mormons? certainly zionists have created myths in less time.

      • ziusudra
        October 13, 2013, 5:39 am

        Greetings MRW,
        ‘Speechless’!
        The Man Jesus ne’er lived!?
        Who were these Jewish Christians like the 12 Apostles?
        Were they the CIA of the day spreading Propaganda &
        eventually dying for it? Why didn’t the Emperors after
        Tutus continue this Charade, but only in Jerusalem?
        The Roman Senators ne’er forgot their psycho. warfare.
        ziusudra
        PS It would tickle me pink being so.
        Incidentally, The Man Shakespeare ne’er wrote Shakespeare!
        It was done by a Duke, who couldn’t be associated with frivolous
        ‘theatre’ in the 16thC. The Man Shakespeare had no great education,
        no knowledge of Court nor languages nor did he ever travel.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 7:16 am

        yonah fredman,

        You didn’t watch the movie (link above). The only one who wrote the history of Jesus’ time and the battles with the Romans was Josephus. He wrote for the Flavius family, court historian, the family of emperors that came after the Caesars. Atwill says the Flavians created Christianity specifically after 70 AD as psychological warfare using Josephus’ historical writings as the underpinning. But I really simplify it here. Watch the movie.

        Maybe you can consider it more easily with this interview with Atwill by Bracha Bat Yosef on her TV show, but the movie is clearer: link to youtube.com

      • Yitzgood
        October 13, 2013, 12:06 pm

        The Man Shakespeare ne’er wrote Shakespeare!
        It was done by a Duke, who couldn’t be associated with frivolous
        ‘theatre’ in the 16thC. The Man Shakespeare had no great education,
        no knowledge of Court nor languages nor did he ever travel.

        You mean the Earl of Oxford? The Oxfordian theory is only supported by a small number of Shakespeare scholars. Many of Shakespeare’s sources were popular reading in his day–North’s English translation of Plutarch’s Lives, for instance.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 12:15 pm

        ziusudra,

        Who were these Jewish Christians like the 12 Apostles?

        Atwill says the 12 Apostles are based upon the Maccabees.

        I found this video about it fascinating as well, but it ain’t clear without the first video link. But I’m a nerd who loves this stuff. Christians would go batshit.

      • Hostage
        October 13, 2013, 9:02 pm

        You didn’t watch the movie (link above). The only one who wrote the history of Jesus’ time and the battles with the Romans was Josephus.

        Well I wouldn’t characterize it that way. The works of Josephus don’t really contain any discussions about the Christian sect. But they do provide an overview of the other sects, in some detail. The few sentences on the subject of the persons of James and Jesus in the works of Josephus are widely considered to be spurious Christian interpolations that were inserted after the fact.

        Furthermore, there’s just no evidence that the works of Josephus were widely published or circulated among the Jews of Palestine for propaganda purposes. He isn’t praised, condemned, cited, or mentioned in the contemporary Jewish literature at all.

        The works of Josephus, and other ancient Jewish historians or philosophers, like Philo of Alexandria, were preserved by the Gentiles, not by the Jews. If we had relied on the Mishnah and Talmud, no one living today would have ever heard about Josephus. On the other hand, the early Christians of Palestine who cited the works of Josephus as a proof in the case of Moses (e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho) never mention the passage about Jesus.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 9:17 pm

        yonah, I’m not a fan of Atwill’s theory, either.

        “I thought there were Christians in Rome when Rome burned in 68 … James, the brother of Jesus was an early preacher in the Christian church in Jerusalem.”

        Do not assume that the ancient references to “Christians” means what we now regard as Christians. They could well have been a bunch of messianic Jews.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 9:25 pm

        “Who were these Jewish Christians like the 12 Apostles?
        Were they the CIA of the day spreading Propaganda &
        eventually dying for it?”

        The topic of the Jewish Christians is enormous, but the common claim that the 12 disciples died for their beliefs is totally unsubstantiated. All the information we have about them is vague, mostly myth and fantasy fiction. At the start of the third century, Hippolytus of Rome (180-230 C.E) wrote a list of the disciples, and said that five of them fell asleep in old age.

        According to the Acts of Peter (one of my favourites – it includes a flying wizard, a talking dog, and the resurrection of a herring) Peter was executed for convincing women not to marry or have sex. Similarly, in the Acts of Andrew, Andrew was executed for estranging a woman from her fiancée. Nothing there about dying for the Flavian propaganda.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 13, 2013, 9:41 pm

        Do not assume that the ancient references to “Christians” means what we now regard as Christians. They could well have been a bunch of messianic Jews.

        that is who atwill says they are.

      • MRW
        October 14, 2013, 8:22 am

        RoHa,

        They could well have been a bunch of messianic Jews.

        That’s what Atwill says they were in a long single-man interview (youtube) where he goes through his topology thesis.

        I love Jesus-Didn’t -Exist stories. I wish I couldn’t remember the name of the American Christian theologian who was famous for his work, taught at the big Dallas seminary, among others. He did a study of the Bible and came out at the end not believing a word of it. Book’s around here somewhere.

        But Atwill makes sense to me.

      • MRW
        October 14, 2013, 8:26 am

        RoHa,

        Nothing there about dying for the Flavian propaganda.

        Which was mainly in the latter quarter of the 1st C.

      • MRW
        October 14, 2013, 9:07 am

        Hostage,

        The works of Josephus don’t really contain any discussions about the Christian sect.

        Exactly. According to Atwill, Flavius Titus hauled him backed to Rome after his successful campaign in Palestine and Jerusalem. Josephus was a turncoat who helped Titus out when he attacked Jerusalem, and they became buds. Once back in Rome, Josephus was given an apartment in Titus’s palace, and adopted as a member of the family: Flavius Josephus.

        According to Atwill, Josephus wrote the history of Titus’ campaign against the Jews in Palestine, whom Titus despised; they crippled his left arm. The War of the Jews.

        Atwill said the warrior sect they were fighting in Palestine was waiting for a Messiah, so Titus and his military strategists decided to give them one. They decided, however, to use psychological warfare after 70 AD because the Jews wouldn’t stop; they were exhausting them. But their Messiah would be peace-loving and would urge his followers to give unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s, turn the other cheek, and pay tax to Rome.

        Hebraic writers skilled in Hebrew/Old Testament typology used Josephus’ history of Titus’s exploits (as well as Josephus himself because he was in-house) to fashion a Messiah who had lived 40 years before during the time of Caesar and Tiberius and who would predict all of the things that actually happened 40 years later. Atwill says the Gospels (Evangelion in Greek, if I remember correctly, which means ‘Good News in Military Victory’) follow the exact sequence of the Roman battles that Titus won, not the Jewish wins, transposed onto the life of the new peace-loving Jesus. Atwill says this is by design, and he cites chapter and verse. Atwill claims that the parallels between Josephus’ work about the war and the life of Jesus in the New Testament are too exact to be random. Sometimes the expressions are the same.

        He also found documents that detail Titus rounding up all the Roman historians who had written about Palestine during the time of Jesus was to have lived, and killing them, as well as burning their work. Titus also brought the messianic Jews’ Torah and their histories back to Rome and locked them up somewhere in his palace.

        Atwill says that part of the job of the Hebraic writers and Josephus was to turn the new Christians against the Jews, and he claims on one tape that it was the genesis of anti-semitism; he cites specific passages in the Whiston/Perseus translation of War of the Jews where you can find it. Both Vespasian and Titus had a hard-on against this Jewish sect.

        Atwill does say, though, not to give his book, or talk, to Christians who would be offended by it, or let children read it because of the violence.

      • MRW
        October 14, 2013, 9:26 am

        Hostage, more.

        Atwill says that he didn’t think that the Caesars thought their deception would go as far as it has. He found evidence, which I can’t remember, of clues that showed they wanted to be found out. Atwill called it the vanity of the Caesars to want to be discovered as having pulled off such a job. Then along came Flavius Constantine who turned it into a state religion 200 years later and the power roll started.

      • FreddyV
        October 14, 2013, 10:21 am

        From what I’ve been told, Josephus’ account of Christ was more than likely injected in by well meaning but corrupt Christians looking to implant ‘historical’ evidence of Jesus’ existence.

        Jesus’ life and death wasn’t really a biggy by standards of the day. There were more messiahs being put to death than you could shake a stick at.

        Historians have suggested that the only reason Josephus’ work survived was because of the Jesus quotes.

      • RoHa
        October 14, 2013, 10:22 pm

        Critical revews of Atwill by two scholars who think Jesus is a myth. Carrier is particularly destructive.

        link to robertmprice.mindvendor.com

        link to freethoughtblogs.com

        “and he claims on one tape that it was the genesis of anti-Semitism”

        Latin literature reveals that the Jews were successfully exasperating the Romans well before Titus.

      • RoHa
        October 14, 2013, 10:25 pm

        “They could well have been a bunch of messianic Jews.

        That’s what Atwill says they were’

        But so do dozens of other people who have a far better knowledge of the topic than Atwill does.

      • ziusudra
        October 15, 2013, 4:23 am

        Greetings Yitzgood,
        … you mean the Earl of Oxford…..
        Yes, Thank you.
        …. The Oxfordian theory is only supported by a small number…….
        The book tells of this Shakspeare Person, who spent his time in
        court being a very litigious chap against all. Having also a very limited
        education, he couldn’t have had the knowledge of the geography of
        Europe nor the Languages. He had no experience of ‘ Courtly life’.
        How could such a man have written those’ Sonnets’ alone being such
        a Ruffian? I admit the same Person writing Titus Andronicus & the Sonnets is rather incongruous, but who’s to criticize Genius?
        Look at the different characters of Stephan King’s stories.
        Lastly these works will always be known as Shaksperian.
        Consider Mr. S. is Born 1564; his first Play in 1592 contnuing to 1613 almost consecutively, some 21 yrs. Then Stop. He dies in 1616!
        His first play at 32, his last at last at 51. He does nothing for 32 yrs then writes plays & poetry 21 yrs long? Oh, well.
        ziusudra

      • MRW
        October 15, 2013, 7:04 am

        Thanks, RoHa,

        I’ll take a look at them. I just skimmed Carrier–ah, academic vitriol. Carrier in his fourth paragraph is sloppy (aren’t we all sometimes)

        In this Atwill argues “Jesus [is] the invention of a Roman emperor” and that the entire (?) New Testament was written by “the first-century historian Flavius Josephus” who left clues to his scheme by littering secret hidden coded “parallels” in his book The Jewish War.

        Atwill doesn’t claim this at all. Atwill never claims that Josephus wrote the New Testament or any of the Gospels. He says Roman aristocrats with training in hebraic storytelling did. They used Josephus’s book The War of the Jews, not The Jewish War as Carrier calls it, to fix the historical events around what Jesus would then prophesize 40 years earlier, since The War of the Jews dealt with the period that came after Jesus’s death when Vespasian and Titus were fighting in Palestine.

        And this is inaccurate as well,

        [Josephus] left clues to his scheme by littering secret hidden coded “parallels” in his book The Jewish War.

        It was the Roman aristocratic Gospel writers who left the clues in their writings, not Josephus.

        Carrier doesn’t appear to have read the book, because that’s pretty basic.

      • RoHa
        October 15, 2013, 9:54 pm

        Though Vridar objects to the personal attacks on Atwill

        link to vridar.org

      • Kathleen
        October 12, 2013, 10:35 pm

        I don’t know Annie. When you take the time or are willing to suffer through listening to some of these Christian radio stations lobby for Israel and the Wings of and Eagle program ( Christians paying for Russian Jews to move to Israel) these people believe in the second coming of Christ and want to get all of the Jews of the world to Israel to complete what they see as reality presented in Biblical prophecies. I have been forcing myself to listen to these programs in Colorado and there are a lot of them. They believe those lands belong to Jews because Jews who talk to their god has told them so. Frightening stuff

        Those maps will ring the chimes of radical, blind right wing Christians. International law and UN resolutions mean nothing to people who have their heads up where the sun does not shine.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 1:34 am

        This is the same mentality that got rid of Giordano Bruno for saying the earth revolves around the sun, and that there infinite galaxies in the universe. They burned him at the stake in Feb. 1600.

      • seafoid
        October 13, 2013, 1:53 am

        It is tied up with creationism too, Kathleeen. Rose publishing have lots of material. It’s very right wing. Must be related to the GOP somehow.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 4:03 am

        He seems to have got the idea of infinite planets from Thomas Digges. The problem was that, if Digges and Bruno were right, there would be an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of people who would never be able to hear the Gospel, and thus could never be saved. They would all go to Hell. This would mean that God was not merciful. Of course, the Church insisted that God was loving and merciful, and burned Bruno at the stake to prove it.

      • ziusudra
        October 13, 2013, 5:45 am

        Greetings Kathleen,
        These Evangelical Zionists want to go a step further.
        Their belief: Ultimately World Jewry must convert to
        Christianity or perish. Hence, getting them all in one
        camp (hole) is only the first part of their plan.
        ziusudra

      • NickJOCW
        October 13, 2013, 8:10 am

        Bruno was particularly disturbing to the Roman Church because his proposition further threatened the unique pyramidal authority of the papacy: God > Pope on Earth > clergy > laity.

      • Denis
        October 13, 2013, 10:58 am

        @Kathleen: Christians paying for Russian Jews to move to Israel

        If ex-Lt.Col. Shalom Eisner, that Cossack IDF creep we all came to know and loath last year, is any indication, I would think it would be the Russians passing the hat to get those creeps to go to Israel.

        BTW, I don’t know if it’s been reported here, but he was just volunteered out of the IDF. That’s the punishment for IDF’s who bust unarmed peace activists in the mouth with the butt of a rifle. Well . . . check that. That’s the punishment for IDF’s who bust unarmed peace activists in the mouth with the butt of a rifle IN FRONT OF CAMERAS. Otherwise, they get promoted.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 1:31 pm

        RoHa,

        Bruno and Burno are just a typo apart.

      • James Canning
        October 13, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Jews must become Christians, or it is eternal hellfire and damnation for them. One reason some ardent Jewish Zionists are a bit ill-at-ease regarding Christian Zionists.

      • James Canning
        October 13, 2013, 2:38 pm

        @Seafroid – – Yes, many of those who want Jews to drive all non-Jews out of the “land of Israel”, also condemn Charles Darwin, the theory of evolution, etc etc etc. Interesting relationship, as you note.

      • Citizen
        October 13, 2013, 2:45 pm

        That would be the Jewish Zionists of whatever flavor who actually believe there’s an afterlife with heaven and hell. The recent poll on what Jews see as the criteria for being Jewish, discussed on this site not long ago, suggests not many so believe, so not many likely feel a bit ill-at-easy. More likely they laugh at the Christian fundies behind their backs while taking their donations.

      • Kathleen
        October 13, 2013, 6:17 pm

        Not “ill at ease” enough to say no to the millions of dollars coming in from Christians to get Jews back to Israel.
        “On the Wings of Eagles”
        link to ifcj.org
        On Wings of Eagles assists needy Jews in making aliyah (immigrating to Israel). They come from all over the world—Russia, Argentina, India, Muslim countries and elsewhere—to escape anti-Semitism and extreme poverty, and to realize the dream of living in their biblical homeland. When they arrive in Israel, On Wings of Eagles provides them with klitah (resettlement) assistance to help them become full, productive citizens. Through your generous gift, The Fellowship’s Wings ministry is being used to help fulfill the prophecies that promise to gather the Jewish exiles “from the four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12

        More groups who believe that false map provided by Stand With Us
        link to ifcj.org

        link to ezrainternational.org

        link to c4israel.org

        link to cjui.org

        Netanyahu tapped into this fundamentalist element most recently during his UN speech

      • MRW
        October 14, 2013, 9:32 am

        RoHa,

        there would be an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of people

        He didn’t say people. He said an infinite number of worlds within worlds made up of atoms (can’t remember the exact name for the smallness of the essence of things) that contained God.

        I’m too tired to go searching for that book too.

      • Shmuel
        October 14, 2013, 9:50 am

        (can’t remember the exact name for the smallness of the essence of things)

        Monad?

      • RoHa
        October 14, 2013, 10:32 pm

        “He didn’t say people. He said an infinite number of worlds within worlds made up of atoms (can’t remember the exact name for the smallness of the essence of things) that contained God.”

        This animistic principle – and his idea of universal laws – implies that the other planets would have people.

      • ziusudra
        October 15, 2013, 4:40 am

        Greetings Kathleen,
        (Zio) …. Christians to get Jews back to Israel…..
        Yes, this Thesis is working.
        ….And at the end of a very narrow long hall, you
        see F. Hegel holding up his concept:
        Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis =.
        Conquest – War – Catharsis =.
        Zionism – Islam – Destruction!
        Mankind will roll the globe back up the hill again,
        Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream…….
        ziusudra

    • Mike_Konrad
      October 12, 2013, 3:39 pm

      1000 BC (make that BCE, sorry) to 2013 — still laughing . . .

      I noticed that. Most people still do not know what BCE (Before Common Era) stands for.

      The problem is – whether you accept Christ or not – the Western Calendar is still keyed to Christ, even if it is off a few years. To use BCE is just ridiculous, and actually anti-Christian.

      Believe in Christ or not, but don’t deny that he existed, and that the Western Calendar is set to him. Use BC (Before Christ)

      This was not one of SWU’s brightest moves. Otherwise the poster is clever.

      • jon s
        October 12, 2013, 5:07 pm

        Mike, The problem is with the term “Christ” , which means “saviour”. A non-Christian may prefer not to use that term regarding Jesus.

      • W.Jones
        October 12, 2013, 11:48 pm

        Mike, The problem is with the term “Christ” , which means “saviour”. A non-Christian may prefer not to use that term regarding Jesus.

        Jon, I think it really does not matter. Obviously the English stopped worshiping pagan gods a long time ago but they kept talking about Wednesday and Friday, which were named after them. Are we going to abolish everything for this kind of thing?

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 12:06 am

        Technically, the Hebrew word for Messiah translates into Greek as Kristos.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 3:38 am

        ‘the term “Christ” , which means “saviour”. ‘

        No it doesn’t. It is the Greek equivalent of Messiah – the anointed.
        “Soter” is Greek for “saviour”.

      • piotr
        October 14, 2013, 4:25 pm

        Non-orthodox have no problem using term “orthodox” even though it means “true/correct faith/doctrine”.

        Concerning the numbering of years, in Poland the Communist government replaced “year of our lord” (rok pański) with “year of our era” (or before our era), and one philosopher quipped that those who say “our era” should rather say “your era”.

        However, dates “before Christ” are less funny than “before the beginning of the world” (although Christ was apparently born 4 BC).

      • just
        October 12, 2013, 5:19 pm

        “Otherwise the poster is clever.”

        Sure is, if everyone believes in human words that are a total fabrication, just like fairy tales by the Brothers Grimm………

        Real history and geography and international law– now, that is something entirely different.

      • Mayhem
        October 12, 2013, 11:12 pm

        @Just, with reference to history there is firm archaeological evidence now of Canaanite Jewish rituals from the reign of King David about 3000 years ago – refer link to israelnationalnews.com – this was recently shown in the first episode of Simon Schama’s magnificent TV series on the BBC depicting “The Story of the Jews”.
        As far as geography is concerned I don’t know what you are talking about.
        And as for international law (the law is an ass and international law an even bigger ass) there are no absolutes – it mostly depends on your political persuasion as to what interpretation you follow,

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 12:31 am

        Mayhem,

        firm archaeological evidence now of Canaanite Jewish rituals from the reign of King David about 3000 years ago

        That’s absolute bullshit and Simon Schama is not an archeologist. He’s a Brit historian who specializes in art history and French history.

        This is a real archeologist and Israeli to boot. He’s Ze’ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology. Ze’ev Herzog has been the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005, and serves as archaeological advisor to the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority
        link to individual.utoronto.ca

        And as for international law (the law is an ass and international law an even bigger ass) there are no absolutes – it mostly depends on your political persuasion as to what interpretation you follow,

        Not unless you prefer to live in a society as an ‘outlaw’, which was where the term came from. It also meant the laws of the land, or the rights, would not protect you.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 1:22 am

        with reference to history there is firm archaeological evidence now of Canaanite Jewish rituals from the reign of King David about 3000 years ago

        King David never existed.

        And as for international law (the law is an ass and international law an even bigger ass) there are no absolutes – it mostly depends on your political persuasion as to what interpretation you follow,

        No, the interpretation is well established. In terms of Israel, it depends on what you can get away with.

      • ziusudra
        October 13, 2013, 6:06 am

        Greetings Mayhem,
        …. there is firm archeological evidence…….
        Are you living up to your Name?
        Who is in back of this broadcast?
        Official Israeli Archeologists ‘ain’t’ saying ‘nothin’ about it!
        The Canaanites began their ascent 4k BC. All Semites wander
        in 1200BC. ( Later so called Hebrew & Arab Semite.)
        Consider, These People wander in, conquer Canaan, but build
        a puny Kingdom 200 yrs later, situated on 7.3 K Sq Km of contiguous Canaan of 408K Sq Km?
        This is a firm account of your clowny Pharisees of 536BC!
        Hence, believe it.
        ziusudra

      • NickJOCW
        October 13, 2013, 8:37 am

        Schama is not an historian either. History does not involve starting out with a preconceived scenario and then selecting this and that from the past to support it. He is a popularizer who somehow managed to produce a chronicle of the French Revolution without apparently ever having encountered the Memoirs of Madame de la Tour du Pin. link to en.wikipedia.org To give him some credit, he did admit his oversight later but it hardly inspires much confidence in his capacity for original research.

      • Mayhem
        October 13, 2013, 9:04 am

        @mrw, it might help if you actually read the article I posted about the archaeological discovery in 2012 that is by a Hebrew Univetsity archaeologist Professor Yosef Garfinkel. Schisms was just referencing it.

      • Mayhem
        October 13, 2013, 9:08 am

        Shingo declares that King David never existed and we are supposed to believe him just because he says so!!!!

      • miriam6
        October 13, 2013, 10:40 am

        NickJOCW@:

        Simon Schama IS a historian actually;

        Simon Michael Schama, CBE (born 13 February 1945) is a British historian specialising in art history and French history. He is a University Professor of History and Art History at Columbia University, New York.[2]
        He first came to popular public attention with his history of the French Revolution, Citizens.[2] In the United Kingdom, he is perhaps best known for writing and hosting the 15-part BBC television documentary series A History of Britain.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 1:49 pm

        Mayhem,

        I did read it. Garfinkel is the only one claiming this and other archeologists including Finklestein think he wrong. Here is one reaction to Garfinkel’s claims by Philip Davies, a renowned Dead Sea Scrolls expert.
        link to bibleinterp.com

      • Annie Robbins
        October 13, 2013, 2:16 pm

        hmm, colorful. and sounds a tad full of himself link to website.thejc.com

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 5:36 pm

        Shingo declares that King David never existed and we are supposed to believe him just because he says so!!!!

        No, it’s not that I say so, it’s that there is no evidence he existed. Even the messianic nut cases running the City of David Project admit they have no evidence of David and don’t even know if his name was David.

        Watch this piece of comic relief starting at approx 3:30.

      • thankgodimatheist
        October 13, 2013, 10:48 pm

        “link to israelnationalnews.com”
        No kidding! israelnationalnews.com is the Israeli equivalent of ‘Der Sturmer’. The Julius Streicher kinds who are behind this mouthpiece are the collective expansionist and violent settler movement. Just in case you ignored it.

      • RoHa
        October 12, 2013, 10:28 pm

        “Believe in Christ or not, but don’t deny that he existed”

        Why not? There are grounds for serious doubt that he existed.

        ” and that the Western Calendar is set to him. ”

        Or at least to a guestimate made by Dionysius Exiguus in or around 525 AD/CE.

        “Use BC (Before Christ)”

        I’m quite happy to use BC, BCE, Ab Urba Condita, Heisei Jidai, AH, or any other, as long as I am told clearly what calendar is being used, and can find a conversion chart.

      • yonah fredman
        October 13, 2013, 12:53 am

        RoHa- “There are grounds for serious doubt that he existed.” Care to share the name of the authors, books or links that are serious refutations that he lived.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 1:00 am

        RoHa, ;-)

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 1:26 am

        yonah fredman,

        Care to share the name of the authors, books or links that are serious refutations that he lived.

        Scroll up and read my post with a link. EDIT: link to mondoweiss.net

      • Taxi
        October 13, 2013, 2:07 am

        yonah,
        Considering that Jesus is supposed to have been a controversial political upstart, and a mind-blowing miracle worker, how come not a single scribe from Jesus’ time ever mentions him – not one! In fact, the world begins to learn of the story of Jesus some 200 years AFTER his death – through commissioned writings, no less.

        I know for some, the Shroud of Turin, for example, is evidence. To me it’s a projected hoax. Much like that other stunning hoax that suggests that Corn Circles are created by silent alien craft. All submitted archeological purported evidence regarding the existence of Jesus, is highly disputable; easily disputable. So really, yonah, the onus is upon thou to provide evidence that proves the absolute and undeniable existence of Jesus. Or Abraham. Or Moses.

        We know for sure that Mohamad existed. To me, at least this shows that islam has some (minor) basis in reality. That Mohamad absolutely believed in Abraham, Moses and Jesus’ existence, however, puts Swiss-cheese holes in his case for god, for reality, and for absolute truth.

        You and Mohamad have much in common, it seems.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 3:49 am

        It isn’t the mainstream position, but the mainstream has to make an awful lot of dodgy assumptions to keep up the idea that Jesus existed. (I don’t know whether he did or didn’t.)

        link to amazon.com
        link to amazon.com
        link to amazon.com

        You can find a lot of discussion here.

        link to vridar.org

      • ziusudra
        October 13, 2013, 7:41 am

        Greetings Taxi,
        We reserve the prerogative to deny all 3 related religions securing ourselves from strange paranormal theatrics, slavery & psycho damnation.
        Thank God Martin Luther’s Protestantism saved us from the eternal yoke of the Catholic Church, but helped Capitalism to spill over into Protestant Holland & both leading the way for the Enlightenment.
        So speaks a lapsed Catholic.
        ziusudra
        PS We know that Noah, Abraham & the Deeds of Moses come from the
        Sumerians & Egyptians. – also the concept of the ‘Trinity’ of the Catholic Church originate from the Sumerians -.

      • NickJOCW
        October 13, 2013, 10:09 am

        Taxi, a little before 200. Josephus writing at the end of the 1st century has two references to Jesus, and Tacitus mentions Jesus’ crucifixion in his Annals, around AD 116. The earliest surviving Roman document about Christians is a letter from Pliny the younger, who was Governor of what is now Turkey, to the Emperor Trajan around 112 AD seeking advice how he should deal with them.

        Neque enim dubitatem, qualecumque esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe et inflexibilum obstinationen debere punire

        For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished.

        One might well think the same about Zionists today?

      • Denis
        October 13, 2013, 11:16 am

        Taxi: In fact, the world begins to learn of the story of Jesus some 200 years AFTER his death

        This is a good point. I’m going to un-baptize myself as soon as I can find a dry towel around here.

        BTW . . . talking about fictional characters, how many years after the fact did we first get written notice that Moses was rapping with that burning bush? Was that a first-hand account or hear-say?

        At least Mo had the good sense to write it all down as it was being dictated by Gabe. That makes the Quran admissible in court as a contemporaneous writing. The Jews and Christians have nothing but hear-say from centuries after the fact, which wouldn’t even get them past a summary judgement hearing.

        And Buddha . . . I don’t think that guy even knew HOW to write. So he’s got no cred at all.

      • talknic
        October 13, 2013, 12:01 pm

        @ yonah fredman >” Care to share the name of the authors, books or links that are serious refutations that he lived.”

        There’s only hearsay that Jesus lived, no actual tangible evidence. Ditto for G-d

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 7:21 pm

        ” Josephus writing at the end of the 1st century has two references to Jesus”

        There is little dispute that these are partial forgeries, and strong arguments that they are total forgeries interpolated into the text. (By Eusebius, perhaps?) Origen did not know these passages.

        “Tacitus mentions Jesus’ crucifixion in his Annals, around AD 116.”

        The earliest manuscript is 11th century. (We note in it that “Chrestians” was altered to “Christians”.) Tertullian, who quotes Tacitus regularly, does not refer to this passage. We also note that Eusebius does not seem to have known it. But in the fifth century we find Sulpicius Severus has the passage almost word for word. He does not attribute it to Tacitus. On the other hand, the context includes a harsh condemnation of Christains as haters of mankind, so if it is a forgery, it does not seem likely to be a Christian forgery. (Early Christians were not honest writers. Their works include a mass of fiction and forgery.) Assuming it is authentic, the passage tells us what Tacitus heard from Christians or people who heard the claims of Christians. Tacitus uses the title “procurator” for Pilate, but we know that Pilate’s official title was “praefectus”, so Tacitus would not have gleaned that from official records.

        Pliny, of course, only knows what Christians were saying they believed.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 9:10 pm

        “At least Mo had the good sense to write it all down as it was being dictated by Gabe. ”

        Not quite solidly established. Muhammad does seem to have been a historical character. The first Arabic biography of Muhammad was written about 100 years after his death, and the Hadith are notoriously dodgy sources, but there are pretty nearly contemporary non-Arabic sources which tell us about him. However, support for the traditional idea of Muhammad reciting the Qur’an and getting it written down is far flimsier.

        “And Buddha . . . I don’t think that guy even knew HOW to write. So he’s got no cred at all.”

        A bit disappointing, but no-where near as big a problem for Buddhists. The key issue is the ideas. The path to liberation is still the path even if it was worked out by a committee of aliens. We could still use calculus even if Newton and Leibniz turned out to be myths.

      • thankgodimatheist
        October 13, 2013, 11:08 pm

        And what a “coincidence” that Abraham and Sarah are just so close to Brahma and Saraswati !

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 11:20 pm

        “And what a “coincidence” that Abraham and Sarah are just so close to Brahma and Saraswati ! ”

        I’ll need a bit more than names to make a connection.

      • bintbiba
        October 14, 2013, 6:49 am

        heh heh heh Taxi…. I like the way your mind works!

      • ziusudra
        October 16, 2013, 3:07 am

        Greetings Denis,
        ….Moses was rapping with that burning bush?…..

        No, before ascending the Mount, he stopped off at the closest Egyptian Temple to copy 10 of the 147 Negative confessions out of the ‘Book of the Dead’ written in 1350BC.
        ziusudra
        PS He broke the tablets anyway.
        How Long does it take to form clay, scribble on it & dry it?
        How Long did it take to melt ore, construct a cask to form a golden calf?

      • Ecru
        October 13, 2013, 2:01 am

        Mike

        BCE is more and more common these days in technical publications (as is BP – Before Present) but you’re right it is still based on the Christian calendar. It’s not the best solution but any other (say dating things to when Rome gave up on the Republic) would cause all types of problems for people so it’s probably the best we can do for now.

        Given that many children in the West don’t even know what BC stands from (or AD but that’s Latin so they have an excuse) simply swapping to BCE isn’t a problem and is hardly insulting to Christians since even the Catholic Church in its archaeological papers has been known to use the new terminology.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 13, 2013, 11:05 am

        “Given that many children in the West don’t even know what BC stands from (or AD but that’s Latin so they have an excuse) simply swapping to BCE isn’t a problem”

        If that’s the case, then those who have an objection shouldn’t have a problem, either.
        The way I see it is that those who are oh so offended by the letters “c” and “d” are cowards.

        First, it’s an arbitrary and historical practice and those who find it distaste to say “BC” but not the days of the week are hypocrites of fools.

        Further, substituting the labels is an attempt to rob Christians of a piece of their culture, as the new labels are not truthful. (In what was is the last 2000 years a “common era”??). Further, if they we’re really offended by the religious part of the system, they would not use a system under new labels that still referenced the Christian religious tradition. That makes them cowards for not proposing an entirely new system that used a completely separate event as it’s touchstone for dating.

        Third, and most importantly, the new labels are inferior. The are prone to confusion as they are nearly identical and neither is intuitive in fact or for those who actually use the system already.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 9:36 pm

        I don’t think being offended comes into it.

        Use of the term “Common Era” is a recognition of the fact that the calendar is used internationally, and not just among Christians. Arabs, Japanese, and Thais who wish to communicate with each other will use it rather than using the dates of the Islamic, Japanese, and Thai calendars. Mind you, as far as I can tell, most Arabs, Japanese, and Thais could not care less whether it is called CE/BCE or AD/BC as long as everyone knows which calendar is being used.

        “an attempt to rob Christians of a piece of their culture”

        That is just silly.

      • Ecru
        October 14, 2013, 12:15 am

        @ Woody Tanaka

        “..substituting the labels is an attempt to rob Christians of a piece of their culture..”

        Uhm, think I’ll go with the Vatican as an authority on what “robbing Christians of a piece of the their culture” is if you don’t mind.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 14, 2013, 7:42 am

        “Uhm, think I’ll go with the Vatican as an authority on what ‘robbing Christians of a piece of the their culture’ is if you don’t mind.”

        The Vatican is going along with the labels, it didn’t create them. And the Vatican is hardly the authority for all the world’s Christians. The point stands.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 14, 2013, 7:46 am

        “Use of the term ‘Common Era’ is a recognition of the fact that the calendar is used internationally, and not just among Christians.”

        It’s an post hoc rationalization because some people had irrational objections to the letters “C” and “D”. They were were too cowardly to propose a new system (because it had no chance of being adopted widely), so they tried to hijack the Christian one.

        “Mind you, as far as I can tell, most Arabs, Japanese, and Thais could not care less whether it is called CE/BCE or AD/BC as long as everyone knows which calendar is being used.”

        Right. Which demonstrates that the change to the inferior labels was not needed. What was needed is for those who objected to it to get a life.

        “That is just silly.”

        Nonsense. The motivation was to directly replace the references to Christianity from the Christian calendar.

      • RoHa
        October 14, 2013, 8:16 pm

        “It’s an post hoc rationalization because some people had irrational objections to the letters “C” and “D”. ”

        Evidence?

        “Which demonstrates that the change to the inferior labels was not needed.”

        Agreed.

        “The motivation was to directly replace the references to Christianity from the Christian calendar.”

        And how is that “robbing Christians of a piece of the their culture”? If a calendar is “culture” at all, how have Christians lost anything?

      • Ecru
        October 15, 2013, 5:50 am

        Seriously if Christians can get so upset over a couple of letters how insecure in their faith must they be? Kind of sad really.

        Personally I think we should completely re-jig the whole calendar to ABB – “After Big Bang” and watch the Christian kooks who insist on 6000 years turn purple.

        BTW we’d presently be in year 13,798,000,000 ABB (+/- a bit, which lends I think a nice air of uncertainty to the whole thing)

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 15, 2013, 2:17 pm

        “Evidence?”

        Evidence of what? That that statement is a post-hoc rationalization? There is plentiful that the CE/BCE usage arose because of the objection to the perceived religious implications of the letters C and D in the abbreviations BC/AD.

        “And how is that ‘robbing Christians of a piece of the their culture’? If a calendar is ‘culture’ at all, how have Christians lost anything?”

        It’s a Christian calendar, using Christian terminology, dating from an event central to the Christian religion, which arose for use in what used to be called “Christiandom.” It’s an element of Christian culture. Co-opting it by using the inferior labels ecause of religious objections, it has the effect of de-Christianizing that.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 15, 2013, 2:28 pm

        “Seriously if Christians can get so upset over a couple of letters how insecure in their faith must they be? Kind of sad really.”

        It’s not the Christians getting upset over a couple of letters. It’s non-Christians who are getting upset, because they don’t believe Christian theology, therefore they object to BC and AD (yet have no problem with the days of the week. Go figure.)

        “Personally I think we should completely re-jig the whole calendar to ABB – ‘After Big Bang’ and watch the Christian kooks who insist on 6000 years turn purple.”

        I read a proposition to start a new calendar with the keystone event the second Apollo 11 landed on the moon. It’ll never happen, though. The social (and in some cases financial) cost of changing A modified Gregorian calendar, pegged to Greenwich Mean Time and the Christian-era year numbering has, for common international purposes, become a fixed standard. It can be tweaked, but I see no reason to think it’ll change in any major way in our lifetimes.

      • RoHa
        October 15, 2013, 10:10 pm

        ‘It’s a Christian calendar, using Christian terminology, dating from an event central to the Christian religion, which arose for use in what used to be called “Christiandom.” ‘

        And was made into an international calendar by the actions of imperialists who were mostly part of what used to be called (and spelled) “Christendom.” That took it out of being part of “Christian culture”.

        As a result of British imperialism, millions of people all over the world (though not many in Scotland) speak languages which vaguely resemble English. Those people not only claim that they speak actual English, but those from the larger colonies even teach their languages to others under the name of English. The English have been robbed of their culture!

      • Annie Robbins
        October 15, 2013, 11:11 pm

        priceless RoHa!

      • Walid
        October 13, 2013, 3:37 am

        “the Western Calendar is still keyed to Christ, even if it is off a few years.

        …Believe in Christ or not, but don’t deny that he existed, and that the Western Calendar is set to him…”

        Mike, the anomaly that was created by the Julian calendar that had started in 37 BC was corrected by the Gregorian one on October 4, 1582 that overnight became October 15th to correct the 10 or 11-day error (error of 1 day accumulated every 128 years) created by the Julian up to that date.

        The only ones still running on the old Julian calendar for their liturgical year are of the Greek Orthodox Church, which is the reason behind the difference with the rest of the Western world in their celebrating Easter.

        As to the setting of calendar to the birth of Jesus (AD, Year of the Lord), according to the Biblical recitations of the life of Jesus, this date too is in error by about 4 years.

      • ziusudra
        October 13, 2013, 5:49 am

        Greetings Mike C.,
        You ‘is’ sooooo petty!
        I’m not applauding, i’m throwing motzas.
        ziusudra
        PS We, Westerners believed the Catholic Temporal Empire
        for a 1000 yrs.

      • quercus
        October 13, 2013, 9:20 am

        @Mike_Konrad. I’ve always found the expression BCE comical and meaningless political correctness and I am glad to read someone else does as well. Call it what you will, doesn’t change the fact that the earth has gone around the sun 2,013 times since the birth of someone called Jesus of Nazareth. Were an alien to arrive on our planet asking why we call the year 2,013, that is what the answer would be.

        The BCE appellation is falling into disfavor, as it should — it so silly.

  3. kayq
    October 12, 2013, 11:59 am

    Thanks Annie.

    And I thought revisionist Zionism couldn’t get any worse, well guess I was proved wrong on that one.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 12, 2013, 1:03 pm

      my pleasure kayq.

      • ymedad
        October 12, 2013, 7:01 pm

        You write: “Never mind the League of Nations never designated the whole region from the Jordan river to the sea for a Jewish homeland, never mind that Trans-Jordan was never included in the Palestinian mandate.”
        Is that a statement of truth?

        Well, what is written in the Mandate for Palestine?

        This:

        “ART. 25.
        In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions”

        Even a simple-minded human would understand that, at the very least, the region designated for a Jewish homeland had to be from the sea to the Jordan River.

        What was in dispute was the area from the Jordan River eastward. And that eastern boundary was not yet determined in 1922.

        Moreover, there’s:

        “ART. 5.
        The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”

        All the other partition suggestions could not have been legal if the League of Nations hadn’t somehow acquiesced to them and the 1939 White Paper was not so authorized. In fact, appeals were made to the Mandates Commission in Geneva that summer to deny the British their whittling away of the territory of the Jewish Homeland but the outbreak of World War II thwarted that process.

        And the administration angle?

        Even Wikipedia informs all that

        The Emirate of Transjordan…was a British protectorate established in April 1921…The territory was officially under the British Mandate for Palestine but had a fully autonomous governing system from Mandatory Palestine. In 1946, the Emirate became an independent state.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 1:08 am

        ymedad,

        This is the whole of Article 25, with a part which you conveniently left out.

        ART. 25.
        In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

        So what are Articles 15, 16, and 18?

        ART. 15.
        The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

        The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

        ART. 16.
        The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

        And finally:

        ART. 18.
        The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

        Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 1:14 am

        ymedad,

        You write

        All the other partition suggestions could not have been legal if the League of Nations hadn’t somehow acquiesced to them and the 1939 White Paper was not so authorized.

        Here’s what the British White Paper of 1939 says.

        [T]he Royal Commission, His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

        Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.’ His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated …. the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE.”

        But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 1:30 am

        What was in dispute was the area from the Jordan River eastward. And that eastern boundary was not yet determined in 1922.

        Rubbish. The area was not in dispute at all, and in 1922, was added to the Mandate with the explicit provision of crating Transjordan . All of the territory of Transjordan was annexed to the British Mandate after the Syrian General Congress had declared Feisal their King.

        All the other partition suggestions could not have been legal if the League of Nations hadn’t somehow acquiesced to them and the 1939 White Paper was not so authorized.

        Wrong again. The British Empire had several votes in the Assembly of the League and a veto in the Council of the League of Nations. Decisions at any meeting of the League could only be adopted on the basis of unanimity among the members present and voting, in accordance with Articles 5 and 15 of the Covenant. In practice that meant the League could not overturn any administrative decision adopted by the British mandatory government. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        Transjordan had been promised, under treaty, to the Shariff of Mecca 2 years before Ballfour. It was never up for grabs.

      • ymedad
        October 13, 2013, 2:22 am

        so?

      • ymedad
        October 13, 2013, 2:23 am

        you know not of what you write.

      • seafoid
        October 13, 2013, 2:38 am

        Where did it say the locals were to be dispossessed? Zionism uses the law where it suits but otherwise defaults to barbarism.

      • Hostage
        October 13, 2013, 3:40 am

        You write: Even a simple-minded human would understand that, at the very least, the region designated for a Jewish homeland had to be from the sea to the Jordan River.

        des·ig·nate means: To indicate or specify; point out.

        Over the years, a number of British and international commissions were established to study Zionist claims like yours. They noted the words “Jewish homeland”, “viable”, and contiguous” do not appear anywhere in the boilerplate-laden language of the mandate.

        The only regions explicitly designated for the settlement of Jewish immigrants were limited to: “State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” Even that land could only be allocated, while “ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced”. So the territorial scope of the Jewish national home was limited, at best, and relegated to the intervening spaces between what the mandate described as “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” In other words, most of the land between the river and the sea was already taken and was not included or designated by default in the Jewish national home.

        “Never mind the League of Nations never designated the whole region from the Jordan river to the sea for a Jewish homeland, never mind that Trans-Jordan was never included in the Palestinian mandate.”
        Is that a statement of truth?

        I’m pretty certain that Annie knows Transjordan was added to the Mandate territory about a year after the San Remo conference. God knows we’ve discussed that enough here in the past. I assumed she was sarcastically parroting the Zionist hasbara which claims that the British somehow “arbitrarily severed it from the mandate”.

        Here’s something that’s true: The only historical connection between Transjordan and Eretz Israel are Jewish fables, like the one that claimed God prohibited the Israelites from claiming so much as one footstep of the Land of Moab or Edom. There is also the scripture which claims that Moses was forced to deliver his farewell address in Transjordan, precisely because God wouldn’t let him schedule an appearance anywhere inside the territory of Eretz Israel.

        According to the Jerusalem Talmud, the Sages, like R. Yose the Galilean refused to recognize offerings of first fruits from Transjordan. They said that some had taken the land for themselves, but it still wasn’t part of “the land flowing with milk and honey” that God promised to Israel. See Bikkurim 1:8 et seq

        All of the Jewish colonization societies had their eyes on Transjordan and wished to take it for themselves once again. But neither the British memo nor the League’s Article 25 could interrupt a “continuous Jewish presence” or uproot any “Jewish communities” located there. There were none.

        Transjordan may have been in Palestine, but it damn sure wasn’t in Eretz Israel.

      • ymedad
        October 13, 2013, 3:53 am

        I personally especially like the fable about the Prophet flying off on his winged steed to Sinai and then hopping off to Jerusalem (or wherever) and rising to heaven and that is why the Western Wall is called Al-Buraq and why there is an indentation of the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount (and three beard whiskers, too?).

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 4:45 am

        Even a simple-minded human would understand that, at the very least, the region designated for a Jewish homeland had to be from the sea to the Jordan River.

        There as no region designated for a Jewish homeland, which is why the word “homeland” does not appear anywhere in Baflour, San Remo or LON.

        And all 3 explicitly say IN Palestine, not of Palestine. There was never any mention that the territory was to be Jewish owned or Jewish controlled. It was to be shared by Jews and non Jews alike.

        You anti intellectual settler types can’t help but perpetuate the myth that you are uneducated and illiterate.

      • Talkback
        October 13, 2013, 5:08 am

        @ MRW

        I would like to add that the 1939 paper saw the Jewish national home as allready established.

      • Talkback
        October 13, 2013, 5:13 am

        ymedad asks: “so?”

        Well, nothing unusual. A Hasbarat was caught spreading propaganda using methods of false quotation.

      • Mayhem
        October 13, 2013, 8:24 am

        The very name of Transjordan means beyond the Jordan or Across the River Jordan. It is in fact the east bank of the Jordan river. Jordan has never had any legal entitlement to any of territory west of the Jordan river.
        And Hostage you have wrongly implied with your selective quote that the settlement of Jewish immigrants was to be limited to: “State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”
        Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate from the League of Nations states in full

        The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

        Article 6 can only be interpreted to mean that Jews could settle anywhere on the land and that INCLUDED (and was not restricted to) State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

      • Mayhem
        October 13, 2013, 8:48 am

        @hostage pray tell what is the difference between “Jewish homeland’ and the term ‘Jewish nationsl home’ used multiple times in The Palestine Mandate, that was approved unanimously by the League of Nations and which categorically endorsed a ‘Jewish national home’?

      • ymedad
        October 13, 2013, 11:11 am

        Funny how only Jews are specifically mentioned whereas everyone else is in the non-Jews category which could mean Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. Only the Jews were the recognized national group with political rights.

        I think we have been trough this before but simplicity is, well, too complicated?

        From the Mandate foreward: ” 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” and “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. Article 2: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble” and Article 4: “An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine…The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency”.

        A review of the correspondence of British politicians all reveal terms such as “state”, “homeland”, “commonwealth”, etc.

        At the San Remo Conference, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, noted in his diary that there had been a ‘two-hour battle’ among the British and French delegates, ‘about acknowledging and establishing Zionism as a separate State in Palestine under British protection’.

        Churchill wrote in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920 that
        Zionism offered the Jews ‘a national idea of a commanding character’… ‘if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event
        will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.’

        Everyone knew it was a state, a Jewish state to be.

      • talknic
        October 13, 2013, 12:05 pm

        @ ymedad “so”… you’re wrong and a cherry picker

      • talknic
        October 13, 2013, 12:08 pm

        @ ymedad “you know not of what you write”

        Shingo appears to know of what the Mandate document says and he knows a cherry picker when he sees one

      • Cliff
        October 13, 2013, 12:11 pm

        Mayhem,

        Who cares. Are you saying it’s ok for a group of outsiders to dictate to the indigenous Palestinian Arab MAJORITY that you religious fanatics can steal their home?

      • Cliff
        October 13, 2013, 12:12 pm

        And what gave Jews the right to settle on land they did not own?

        A group of European outsiders?

      • Cliff
        October 13, 2013, 12:13 pm

        You are a thief and a Jewish fundie. You ‘know not what you write’ (who the hell speaks like this).

      • James Canning
        October 13, 2013, 1:42 pm

        British Mandate for Palestine did not provide for carving a state run by Jews, out of Palestine. Full stop.

      • James Canning
        October 13, 2013, 1:44 pm

        Yes: no provision whatever for carving a state run by Jews, out of Palestine. None.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 13, 2013, 2:26 pm

        Funny how only Jews are specifically mentioned whereas everyone else is in the non-Jews category which could mean Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever.

        why is this “funny”. besides, everyone was mentioned in the first sentence, as “Arabs of Palestine.” why should they be mentioned any differently? as christians or muslims or whoever.

      • Citizen
        October 13, 2013, 3:41 pm

        @ Shingo

        “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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”. – See more at: link to unispal.un.org

      • Hostage
        October 13, 2013, 5:33 pm

        The very name of Transjordan means beyond the Jordan or Across the River Jordan. It is in fact the east bank of the Jordan river. Jordan has never had any legal entitlement to any of territory west of the Jordan river.

        Bullshit, the people living west of the Jordan river overwhelmingly rejected the idea of having Ben Gurion serve as their head of state. In fact, they still prefer a regional alliance with Jordan. The government of Palestine just signed a treaty with Jordan which reaffirmed the fact that the disengagement from the West Bank was a qualified one did not end its obligations and the exercise of some territorial jurisdiction regarding the Holy places in Jerusalem. See the text of the Treaty link to en.lpj.org

        The people living in the West Bank were overwhelmingly non-Jewish and opted for political union with the East Bank, instead of suffering the same fate as the Palestinians who were permanently exiled, internally displaced, and subjugated under twenty years of Jewish martial law and apartheid.

        There were regional congresses, and a national plebiscite, in which more than 80 percent of the population of the west Bank participated. The union was eventually recognized by the all of the super powers. The country was admitted as a member of the UN, which accepted its credentials to represent all of its population. So Jordan’s claim to the West Bank was legal and based upon the principles of popular sovereignty and democracy. Half of the lawmakers were representatives from the West Bank. Jordan had Palestinian Prime ministers, foreign ministers, and ambassadors too.

        That’s why the rest of the world has always flatly rejected the Zionists pathetic claims to the Occupied Arab territories.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 5:51 pm

        Jordan has never had any legal entitlement to any of territory west of the Jordan river.

        Wrong again.

        Look up UNSC228. It refers to Hebron as Jordanian territory. All 15 members of the UNSC recognized it as such.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 5:53 pm

        pray tell what is the difference between “Jewish homeland’ and the term ‘Jewish nationsl home’ used multiple times in The Palestine Mandate, that was approved unanimously by the League of Nations and which categorically endorsed a ‘Jewish national home’?

        Sure.

        The authors of the Balfour Declaration employed the circumlocution “national home for the Jewish people”, NOT “homeland” and they did so intentionally. Many, if not most, Jews (including several Cabinet Ministers) were non-Zionists who did not fancy Palestine as their homeland. They insisted that the Declaration contain a safeguarding clause with respect to the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Supporters claimed that “a national home” didn’t mean a state or autonomous government. For example, Lord Cromer thought it would only be a symbolic spiritual center and a reservoir of Jewish culture.

        A week before the Balfour Declaration was released, Privy Council President Lord Curzon, War Cabinet Secretary Hankey, and Secretary of State for India Montagu wrote memorandums explaining that unlike the terms “Homeland”, the term “Jewish National Home” had no agreed upon meaning to Jews or supporters of the Zionist movement. ]
        See CAB 24/30, “The Future of Palestine” (Former Reference: GT 2406), 26 October 1917; CAB 24/4, “The Zionist Movement”(Former Reference: G 164), 17 October 1917; and CAB 24/28 (Former Reference: GT 2263) “Zionism, 9 October 1917.

        On October 31, 1917, when the Balfour Declaration came before the War Cabinet, Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state.
        See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East, page 120

        I hope that alleviates your ignorance.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 6:12 pm

        Funny how only Jews are specifically mentioned whereas everyone else is in the non-Jews category which could mean Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. Only the Jews were the recognized national group with political rights.

        Why is that funny? The rason Jews are specifically mentjoed is because they are the group who needed to APPLY for the right to migrate to Palestine and APPLy for citizenship. The other existing groups automatically qualified for that status.

        An you are lying about only Jews being granted political rights.

        Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations, pretty much smashes that moonbat theory down in one blow.

        “The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”

        So the Palestinians, meaning all the inhabitants of Palestine, we recognized as one nation and having the same political rights.

        Furthermore, the Allied Powers were justifiably concerned about the weasel wording of the Balfour Declaration. So they addressed its defects in the text of the San Remo Resolution (that Zionists prattle-on so much about). It stipulated that:

        It was agreed –

        (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

        link to cfr.org

        The ICJ noted in its advisory opinion that the rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time”. The Court cited Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as one of the more recent examples:

        In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

        So, the exercise of both civil and political rights, free from any discrimination on religious grounds, was one of the rights “hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

        “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”.

        BTW, the term , “historical connection”, was concocted to downplay the fact that the Zionists lack any legal standing to assert a claim to the territory of Palestine during the Post-WWI peace conferences at Versailles and San Remo.

        The Principle Allied Powers decided there were no bases for a legal entitlement, so Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about the “historical connection” of the Jewish people be added to the Mandate instead. The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate reveal that the Allies did not consider the historical connection as a basis for any Jewish claim:

        “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.
        – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

        Article 2: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble”

        We’ve already established that the term ” Jewish national home” had no legal definition and most certainly did not mean Jewish state or Jewish sovereignty.

        Article 4: “An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine…

        In other words, the Jewish agency was to be but one part of the Palestinian government to ensure the rights of Jewish people were protected, which was deemed necessary as they were a minority and largely immigrant community,

        The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency”.

        Meaning, an agency, not a sovereign ruler.

        A review of the correspondence of British politicians all reveal terms such as “state”, “homeland”, “commonwealth”, etc. ”.

        No they do not. The terms “state”, “homeland”, “commonwealth”, do not appear in Balfour, San Remo or LON.

        At the San Remo Conference, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, noted in his diary that there had been a ‘two-hour battle’ among the British and French delegates, ‘about acknowledging and establishing Zionism as a separate State in Palestine under British protection’.

        Again irrelevant. If the establishing Zionism as a separate State in Palestine had been agreed upon, it would have clearly been articulated in the text of the San Remo and LON resolutions.

        That’s why I can’t help laughing every time you hasbarats being up LON and San Remo. You insist that the texts themselves establish a Jewish state, but when it’s pointed out to you that no such state is even mentioned, your fall back position is that there were secret talks about it in some back room.

        Churchill wrote in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920 that
        Zionism offered the Jews ‘a national idea of a commanding character’

        Again, no mention of state, homeland, sovereignty, rule etc. And the funniest thing of all is that Churchill’s white paper explicitly stated that the Mandate was not to create a Jewish state.

        A hasbara fail on all counts ymedad . It was NOT to be a Jewish state.

      • Talkback
        October 13, 2013, 6:37 pm

        ymedad: “Funny how only Jews are specifically mentioned whereas everyone else is in the non-Jews category which could mean Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. Only the Jews were the recognized national group with political rights.”

        Even funnier is that the whole mandate says nothing about that they were recognized as a national group with political rights. It says nothing about Jewish rights at all. Not even a right to settle can be found.

        And the funniest thing is what general attorney of Palestine Norman Bentwich (a Zionist Jew) wrote about a national home:
        “[A national home] signifies a territory in which a people, without receiving rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing its moral, social, and intellectual ideas.”
        link to unispal.un.org

        If that’s not funny, what is?

      • Mayhem
        October 13, 2013, 6:53 pm

        How convenient Shingo for you to cherry pick your words insinuating falsely that Balfour somehow did not approve of the establishment of a Jewish state. With the quote you plucked out to dolly up your case, you omitted the words “although on different occasions he implied that it did” so the full quote from the reference you gave said:

        Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state (although on different occasions he implied that it did)”

        Your quote did not end up alleviating my ignorance, it just fortified my understanding that you are always ready to twist the facts and history to suit your dishonest agenda. The quote in fact tells us nothing other than there were many opinions being expressed in the lead up to the OFFICIAL Balfour Declaration.

      • Hostage
        October 13, 2013, 7:15 pm

        @hostage pray tell what is the difference between “Jewish homeland’ and the term ‘Jewish nationsl home’ used multiple times in The Palestine Mandate

        That’s pretty simple. The mandate didn’t explicitly cede any territory for the exclusive use of the Zionists and only treats them as potential immigrants, not inhabitants, natives, or citizens. In fact, many members of the Jewish Agency. like Rabbi Silver, never were.

        Many of the members of the War Cabinet who adopted the Balfour Declaration would only agree to the establishment of a national shrine or cultural center, not a Jewish state or territory.

        The declassified record shows that they rejected the idea that the Zionists had any legal claim or legal connection to the territory, and that anything they did for them was out of charity, not a legal obligation. See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

        Jewish members of the Cabinet, like Montagu, insisted that the rights and position of Jews as citizens and natives of other countries be explicitly preserved and protected.

        In 1947, the UNSCOP report to the General Assembly cited the conclusion of a British Commission which stated that the term “National Home” was undefined and had no agreed upon scope or meaning:

        “The notion of the National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it has no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation.

        — See paragraph 141, of the UNSCOP Report to the General Assembly, A/364, 3 September 1947 link to unispal.un.org

        In fact, the week before the Balfour Declaration was released, Privy Council President Lord Curzon, War Cabinet Secretary Hankey, and Secretary of State for India Montagu wrote memorandums explaining that the term “Jewish National Home” had no agreed upon meaning or scope to either the Jews or supporters of the Zionist movement. So the “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” in favor of “the establishment in Palestine of a [not the] national home for the Jewish people” had no definite legal meaning.
        See CAB 24/30, “The Future of Palestine” (Former Reference: GT 2406), 26 October 1917; CAB 24/4, “The Zionist Movement”(Former Reference: G 164), 17 October 1917; and CAB 24/28 (Former Reference: GT 2263) “Zionism, 9 October 1917.

      • James Canning
        October 13, 2013, 7:31 pm

        Great post.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 13, 2013, 8:12 pm

        That’s nothing compared to the fable about the descendants of some Asiatic converts to Judaism having and right to be in Palestine. That fable is the silliest of all.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 13, 2013, 9:12 pm

        “Funny how only Jews are specifically mentioned whereas everyone else is in the non-Jews category which could mean Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. ”

        LMAO. That’s like finding it “funny” that only Mafia members are featured on the evidence supporting a RICO indictment. The fact is that “Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever” were not conspiring with European politicians to steal someone else’s land. The zionists were. The mention in the document is just proof that Mr. Rothschild and his buddies got what they paid for.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 10:29 pm

        How convenient Shingo for you to cherry pick your words insinuating falsely that Balfour somehow did not approve of the establishment of a Jewish state.

        No Mayhem, it’s not cherry picking when one does not have to cherry pick to avoid something they don’t want to addresa. Balfour never said anything about a state, or Jewish territorial rights, or sovereignty.

        (although on different occasions he implied that it did)”

        Speaking of cherry picking, the quote continues:

        “It signaled instead he said, that the Jews had to work out the own salvation and create “a real center of national culture and focus on national life in” Palestine.”

        Again, NOTHING about a Jewish State or sovereignty, but simply creating their own culture IN Palestine and even more clearly, he makes it beyond dispute that it was up to the Jews to do it on their own.

        In other words, there is nothing in the Balfour declaration that says anything about a Jewish state.

        The quote in fact tells us nothing other than there were many opinions being expressed in the lead up to the OFFICIAL Balfour Declaration.

        Rubbish. The fact that Balfour did not dare put the so called implications on the page is conclusive. It doesn’t matter what Balfour hoped or might have “implied” at other times, there is NOTHING in the declaration that mentions Jewish State, Jewish Sovereignty or Jewish ownership of the land.

        END OF STORY.

        Your quote did not end up alleviating my ignorance, it just fortified my understanding

        Too funny. As though you expect us to believe that anything you read was ever going to change your ideology which is impervious to facts.

      • Hostage
        October 13, 2013, 11:39 pm

        Funny how only Jews are specifically mentioned whereas everyone else is in the non-Jews category which could mean Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. Only the Jews were the recognized national group with political rights.

        That’s just another example of wishful thinking that has been debunked here many times in the past. The national rights of all those groups were already under the protection of the public international law of Europe, as well as the nationality laws and millet system of the Ottoman Empire. No discrimination was allowed in affording the right to vote or hold public office on the basis nationality in any event:

        The Proclamation for the Ottoman Empire, 1908 said:

        3. It will be demanded that all Ottoman subjects having completed their twentieth year, regardless of whether they possess property or fortune, shall have the right to vote. Those who have lost their civil rights will naturally be deprived of this right.
        4. It will be demanded that the right freely to constitute political groups be inserted in a precise fashion in the constitutional charter, in order that article 1 of the Constitution of 1293 A.H. [Anno Hegira] be respected.

        9. Every citizen will enjoy complete liberty and equality, regardless of nationality or religion, and be submitted to the same obligations. All Ottomans, being equal before the law as regards rights and duties relative to the State, are eligible for government posts, according to their individual capacity and their education. Non-Muslims will be equally liable to the military law.
        10. The free exercise of the religious privileges which have been accorded to different nationalities will remain intact.

        link to fordham.edu

        The ICJ even noted that the existing rights of the non-Jewish communities under Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) were protected by the provisions of the mandate. It stipulated:

        Article LXII. The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spontaneous declaration. In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever. The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be assured to all, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organization of the different communions, or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs.

        Ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of all nationalities traveling in Turkey in Europe, or in Turkey in Asia, shall enjoy the same rights, advantages, and privileges.

        The right of official protection by the Diplomatic and Consular Agents of the Powers in Turkey is recognized both as regards the above-mentioned persons and their religious, charitable, and other establishments in the Holy Places and elsewhere. The rights possessed by France are expressly reserved, and it is well understood that no alterations can be made in the status quo in the Holy Places. The monks of Mount Athos, of whatever country they may be natives, shall be maintained in their former possessions and advantages, and shall enjoy, without any exception, complete equality of rights and prerogatives.

        link to fordham.edu

        The Sane Remo resolution specifically stipulated that:

        It was agreed –

        (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

        link to cfr.org

      • Hostage
        October 14, 2013, 2:30 am

        Your quote did not end up alleviating my ignorance, it just fortified my understanding that you are always ready to twist the facts and history to suit your dishonest agenda. The quote in fact tells us nothing other than there were many opinions being expressed in the lead up to the OFFICIAL Balfour Declaration.

        Correction: The quote tells us that Balfour was only able to overcome the objections from other cabinet members to the inclusion of the term “Jewish national home” in the government’s declaration by explicitly stating for the record that the term did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state.

        The statement in parenthesis isn’t attributed to Balfour and doesn’t appear in the Cabinet minutes. The notion, that on other occasions Balfour had “implied” that it did, is merely an inference drawn by the author. In any event, even if that were true, it still wouldn’t alter the explicit assurances Balfour supplied to the War Cabinet in order to gain their approval of the terms of the declaration.

      • Mayhem
        October 14, 2013, 6:03 pm

        Shingo, it was ‘occupied territory’ – there was no intention of Jordan to make it sovereign territory and it was not legally entitled to that territory.

      • Shingo
        October 14, 2013, 11:48 pm

        Shingo, it was ‘occupied territory’ – there was no intention of Jordan to make it sovereign territory and it was not legally entitled to that territory.

        Wrong again. It was not occupied, it was part of the federal union between Trasjordan and Arab Palestine and was recognized by all 15 members of the UNSC.

        That is why UNSC 228 refers to Hebron as the territory of Jordan. For all 15 members to accept that, it must have been recognized as legal.

      • Hostage
        October 15, 2013, 1:52 am

        Shingo, it was ‘occupied territory’ – there was no intention of Jordan to make it sovereign territory and it was not legally entitled to that territory.

        That comment demonstrates your ignorance or the fact that you will repeat Zionist propaganda no matter how many times the Missing Reversioner theory has been debunked. Transjordan and Arab Palestine were military allies. The Arab Higher Committee and the heads of local Palestinian Arab councils advised the Security Council that they had called upon Transjordan for assistance. So the Hague rules on belligerent occupation never applied to the West Bank. link to unispal.un.org

        There was never any question that the people inhabiting Arab Palestine and Transjordan had finally been emancipated from the British Mandate and that the law of nations recognized their inherent right to establish their own state, operate their own government, conduct their own foreign relations, and form foreign alliances however they pleased. Political union or incorporation in an already existing state is one of the recognized modes for the people of a territory to exercise their right of self-determination.

        The UN Security Council had refused to recognize Transjordan as an independent state when it applied for membership in 1946. The President of the Security Council said that Transjordan was part of the joint Palestine mandate that had not yet been legally terminated. The relevant LoN resolutions had required that all of the territory subject to a mandate regime be emancipated simultaneously. While Transjordan and Palestine were both administered as separate states under the mandate, there was no consensus that the boundary between them would remain an international one in the future settlement of the question by the UN. The Zionists claimed Transjordan was an indivisible part of the mandate and that they should be allocated the Port of Aqaba in any settlement.

        King Abdullah had received hundreds of requests from Palestinian notables and the Arab Higher Committee to protect their territory from Jewish militias after the British withdrew. Historian Eugene Rogan says that petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)”. See Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948″, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

        The Jericho Congress adopted resolutions naming Abdullah I the “King of Arab Palestine” and proposing a joint kingdom, pending the final settlement of the Question of Palestine. That first resolution made him their legal sovereign in December of 1948, with or without any annexation.

        Abdullah was already the King of Transjordan. The proposal to unite the two kingdoms required the endorsement of the Transjordanian Parliament.
        After it had ratified the Jericho resolution, the name of the Kingdom was officially changed to “Jordan”, a completely new legal entity that included both the West and East Banks of Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

        Pending the national plebiscite to elect representatives to the new Parliament, the King reigned over the West Bank in accordance with a decree that retained the laws that had been in effect during the Mandate. He assumed the powers that had been exercised by the King of England, Privy Council, and High Commissioner. The new Jordanian Parliament, in which half the seats were reserved for representatives from the West Bank, ratified the political union between the two banks on the basis of popular sovereignty and applied Jordanian law to the new combined territory for the first time in 1950. That last step was considered an annexation in international law, but Abdullah had already exercised sovereign jurisdiction over the West Bank as its King since December 1948.

        Zionists gloss over the fact that Israel quietly applied its municipal laws to all of the territory it held beyond the UN partition lines in the regions allocated to the new Arab state. Israel was not invited to enter that territory by the inhabitants and there were no regional resolutions calling for incorporation in the Jewish state.

        P.S. I’d love to hear why you think Israel still applies Jordanian laws and criteria that were not in effect during the mandate to create new “state lands” for the settlements if you don’t believe it was entitled to exercise sovereign jurisdiction there in the first place? You really can’t have it both ways.

      • talknic
        October 15, 2013, 4:05 am

        Further points to Hostage’s comment link to mondoweiss.net

        The Arab League demanded Transjordan act as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). link to pages.citebite.com

        Unlike the other states in the Arab League, Transjordan was not at that stage a UN Member State. It made sense to keep Transjordan in step with the UN Charter. Insisting Transjordan only be a trustee complied with Chapt XI link to un.org

        As corpus separatum had never been instituted, the territory had never been legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. (UNSC res 476 seems to make this clear link to domino.un.org “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;” )

        The Hasbara notion that Jordan was an illegal occupier can be easily countered by the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Transjordan. Israel agreed!

        Likewise the Hasbara bullsh*t is that the GC’s do not apply because the West Bank was not a state. It was a part of a Sovereign State from the moment it was annexed to Jordan and a part of a UN Member State from the moment Jordan was accepted into the UN. This is also supported by UNSC res 476 “3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”

        Requested annexation link to jcpa.org.il complied with the UN’s notions of self determination and; put the territory and it’s people under the rule and protection of a sovereign rather than having folk living under the laws of occupation a la Gaza under Egypt. Why Egypt/Gaza didn’t follow suit remains a mystery (to me)

        Then there’s the Hasbara twaddle that only two countries recognized Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank. Apart from the fact that NO COUNTRIES recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, it is entirely irrelevant. Legality is determined by law, not recognition. The Annexation of the West Bank complied with Customary International Law. (see the US legal custom of having an agreement/treaty for Texas, Hawaii, Alaska)

      • ymedad
        October 15, 2013, 4:32 am

        “The Hasbara notion that Jordan was an illegal occupier can be easily countered by the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Transjordan. Israel agreed!” Nope.

        a) The object of the agreement was “to facilitate the transition from the present truce [from the liquidation of armed conflict] to permanent peace in Palestine” so the geo-political entity still was a “Palestine”, not Jordan.

        b) In Article II, 1, it states that “no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce” and “political” would include Jordan stealing away the “Arab State”.

        c) In that same Article, 2, it states “It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” Again, there is in this no “recognition of Jordan” as a ‘legal occupier’.

        d) Article VI, 9, reads “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” Again, Jordan is awarded no standing.

      • Hostage
        October 15, 2013, 5:35 am

        Further points to Hostage’s comment link to mondoweiss.net

        The Arab League demanded Transjordan act as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). link to pages.citebite.com

        Unlike the other states in the Arab League, Transjordan was not at that stage a UN Member State. It made sense to keep Transjordan in step with the UN Charter. Insisting Transjordan only be a trustee complied with Chapt XI link to un.org

        I used to believe that too, but came to realize that it’s just as illegal for the Arab League to interfere with the exercise of the right of self-determination of peoples emancipated by the UN as it is for Israel to do so today.

        Here is what the Arab League objected to:

        In 1950, the first general elections were held in both the East and West Banks and the first joint Jordanian Parliament with twenty members from each bank, met together with a Jordanian Senate and unanimously declared as follows:

        First: to confirm the unification of both banks of the Jordan river in one state called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan having as its head H.M. King
        Abdullah, and to be ruled by a constitutional representative body where all
        citizens shall enjoy equal rights and bear equal responsibilities;
        Second: to affirm the preservation of all Arab rights in Palestine and the
        defense of all these rights in all available legitimate means, without prejudice to the final settlement of its just cause;

        Third: to refer this resolution for ratification by HM the King and that it shall become binding upon his signature;and
        Fourth: this resolution shall become binding as soon as it is ratified by the
        King.

        link to books.google.com

        The Arab League is not a government or governing body. Only the UN General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council administered territories under Chapter XI. According to the UN Yearbook for 1946-47:

        “The Egyptian representative explained, in reply to various statements, that the Arab States did not represent the Palestinian Arab population.”

        link to unispal.un.org

        There was never any Palestine Mandate or sacred trust of civilization that did not include Transjordan too. The idea that it could serve as a trustee over Palestine, violated the criteria for the termination of a mandate regime established by the League of Nations to prevent that very thing from ever happening. All of the territory subject to a mandate had to emancipated, or none at all. There weren’t supposed to be any second-class citizens.

        When the UN Mediator proposed a union between the former Arab territories of the Mandate, the General Assembly concluded that the decision on that proposal was up to the inhabitants themselves, not the UN, since they had already been emancipated.

        The UN had terminated the mandate, but it still refused to admit either the State of Transjordan or Jordan as a member until 1955. In the interim there was no accession or Jordanian obligation under the terms of the UN Charter.

        In any event the dispute with the Arab states did not alter the fact that the Charter provisions regarding a non-self-governing territory were simply inapplicable. It was the act of the duly-elected Jordanian lawmakers from the West and East Banks that the Arab League found so objectionable. They had adopted a resolution ratifying “The Unity of the Two Banks”. It stated that it was without prejudice to the final settlement of the question of Palestine. So it was really none of the Arab League’s business. Apart from the issue of the Corpus Separatum, most governments and the UN quietly recognized the union.

        The fact that Abdullah mollified the other members of the League by agreeing to exercise stewardship over his own Kingdom, didn’t alter the fact that the West Bank was represented by its own lawmakers and that they had already inserted a safeguarding clause in the terms of the resolution on their union which left open the option for the Palestinian people as a whole to exercise their right of self-determination in the future.

      • Hostage
        October 15, 2013, 5:53 am

        “The Hasbara notion that Jordan was an illegal occupier can be easily countered by the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Transjordan. Israel agreed!” Nope.

        The armistice agreement itself acknowledges that the purpose of the agreement was to implement the resolution adopted by the Security Council. That ordered the parties to STFU and establish permanent armistice lines of demarcation that cannot be altered without mutual consent. That means that everyone agreed that the government of Jordan can legally exercise jurisdiction over the West Bank until hell freezes over, unless it agrees not to. Israels boundary with Jordan was established without prejudice to any territory captured by Israel in 1967.

        Your Ambassador to the UN said:

        “Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states.”

        — See “Effect on Armistice Agreements”, FRUS Volume VI 1949, page 1149 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        It’s an undisputed fact that Israel cannot unilaterally alter the terms of those agreements or rescind those Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions. The representative of Israel pointed out that fact. During the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, Abba Eban stated that they clearly defined the State’s jurisdiction and had the normal legal characteristics of frontiers:

        The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces. They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line. These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement.

        The Armistice Agreements are not peace treaties. They do not prejudice the final territorial settlements. On the other hand, the provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.

        link to un.org

        There is no legal obligation for any of the parties to ever agree to any changes to the armistice lines.

      • Shingo
        October 15, 2013, 6:04 am

        a) The object of the agreement was “to facilitate the transition from the present truce [from the liquidation of armed conflict] to permanent peace in Palestine” so the geo-political entity still was a “Palestine”, not Jordan.

        False.

        As Hostage jut pointed out:

        “The armistice agreement itself acknowledges that the purpose of the agreement was to implement the resolution adopted by the Security Council. That ordered the parties to STFU and establish permanent armistice lines of demarcation that cannot be altered without mutual consent. That means that everyone agreed that the government of Jordan can legally exercise jurisdiction over the West Bank until hell freezes over, unless it agrees not to. Israels boundary with Jordan was established without prejudice to any territory captured by Israel in 1967.”

        b) In Article II, 1, it states that “no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce” and “political” would include Jordan stealing away the “Arab State”.

        False. Jordan did not steal away the Arab State because as Hostage explained to you, the Arab State agreed to a political union by plebiscite, as was their right.

        c) In that same Article, 2, it states “It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” Again, there is in this no “recognition of Jordan” as a ‘legal occupier’.

        It is true that there was no no “recognition of Jordan” as a ‘legal occupier’ because Jordan was not an occupier. As has been explained, the territory WAS Jordan.

        d) Article VI, 9, reads “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” Again, Jordan is awarded no standing.

        Wrong again. It wasn’t up to Israel to make that decision on the behalf of Arab Palestine.

        That is why all 15 UNSC memebers recognized the West Bank and EJ and Jordan in 1966.

      • Sibiriak
        October 15, 2013, 7:44 am

        Cliff:

        And what gave Jews the right to settle on land they did not own? A group of European outsiders?

        Bingo! Outsiders, Euro-supremacists and imperialists. That point is even more fundamental than the fact that the Balfour Declaration etc. never mentioned a Jewish state, and that the expression “a national home for the Jewish People” was intentionally vague and legally meaningless (although politically momentous).

      • talknic
        October 15, 2013, 8:07 am

        @ Hostage … Thx understood. I’ll adjust accordingly

  4. Tzombo
    October 12, 2013, 12:04 pm

    Even if that whole ‘ancient Israeli kingdom’ was founded in reality/history, do they realise that the Iranians can claim the entire region (including Israel) on those grounds? So can the Greeks and Italians and the Turks.

    • bintbiba
      October 12, 2013, 6:52 pm

      Touche’ , Tzombo.
      Quelle farce!

    • ziusudra
      October 13, 2013, 7:56 am

      Grretings Tzombo,
      ……….’ ancient Israeli Kingdom’…….
      They ne’er speak of a Kingdom.
      They speak solely of having been there in ‘Land'; Homeland &
      Eretz Israel ( Land of He fights God)!
      Who fought God ? Joshua meaning (He deceives!) who would later be called Israel!
      He fights, he deceives. Quite a character.
      ziusudra
      PSThis Land is ne’er verbalized in size, but acts as a gigantic ‘rubberband’!

  5. just
    October 12, 2013, 12:20 pm

    It’s from MAD magazine…..

    (oh poop– the Z liars are getting so very desperate!)

  6. xanadou
    October 12, 2013, 12:21 pm

    Oops. Somebody forgot to tell the creationists that the northern end of the ancient kingdom was known then to all, and today to the educated, as Sumer. Lots of religions, none of them Judaism. That came centuries later when the uppity clerics of Mesopotamia’s Ur were booted from their magnificent edifices. Some of them ended up in Judea. The rest is history.

    Oh, if the creationists can read AND comprehend the text at the same time, Finkelstein/Silberstein’s “The Bible Unearthed” will explain to them the why and how of the above, and the difference between the myth of Israel and the cruel reality of antiquity’s Judea, the birthplace of the new regional religion.

    I highly recommend Messrs’ F&S book. It also makes for a great companion read to Shlomo Sands “Invention of the Jewish People”, i.e., why the massive proselytizing around the Meditterranean was necessary for Judaism’s survival beyond a small local cult. (Hint: none of the other regional cults had survived beyond antiquity.)

    • piotr
      October 12, 2013, 2:48 pm

      That reminds me an article about mitochondrial DNA of Ashkenazi Jews that attributes about 90% of them to European ancestry, and which is obviously invalid as it makes a lot of references to neolithic periods and dates that, according to the Bible, happen before the beginning of the world.

      As we all know, King Arthur conquered France, but the Welch to not make any claims on that basis. Or to England (Saxons to Saxony, Angles to Angeln).

      • ziusudra
        October 13, 2013, 9:46 am

        @ Piotr,
        …. King Arthur conquered France…….
        Wha’?
        King Arthur?
        France?
        The Anglo Saxons conquered Britain in 449AD!
        They had already been invading the Isle in 441AD
        It is noted that Bishop Patrick was in the area in 430AD,
        where do you place a legendary King Arthur?
        There was a France in the 5th C???
        ziusudra
        PS Like Moses for the Judeans, King Arthur was the named Messias of the Brits to help them against the Picts Celtics of Scotland. After he didn’t materialize they called for the help of the Germanic Anglo & Saxons, who like it so much, they conquered & remained.

      • piotr
        October 14, 2013, 1:27 am

        My point is that exploits of King Arthur are eloquently described in several books, while those of Joshua, David etc. in only one, so evidence is even stronger. In both cases there are profound discrepancies with other historical records — perhaps Assyrians and Egyptians noticed the Davidian kingdom from Nile to Euphrates but anti-Semitically chose not to record their observations…

        Since old books are subject to different interpretations, perhaps the map number two is a better material for nitpicking. When and how were Jews booted out of their homes in the middle of the desert that now forms Jordanian-Iraqi border?

      • yonah fredman
        October 14, 2013, 2:18 am

        piotr- There is no biblical report of nile to euphrates as an accomplishment. Although there are references to it as a goal.

      • Citizen
        October 13, 2013, 3:58 pm

        @ piotr

        This recent study of such DNA suggests that Jewish males entered Europe from the ME and married Gentile women long ago:
        link to bbc.co.uk

        If true, are the Ashkenazi Jewish Zionists who settled in Israel even Jewish according to classical Jewish maternal blood line law?

      • miriam6
        October 13, 2013, 10:13 pm

        Citizen@;

        This recent study of such DNA suggests that Jewish males entered Europe from the ME and married Gentile women long ago. If true, are the Ashkenazi Jewish Zionists who settled in Israel even Jewish according to classical Jewish maternal blood line law?

        Those Gentile women would have converted to Judaism one would assume.
        Having done so – the offspring of such Jewish men and non- Jewish women would be considered Jews because of the woman’s conversion to Judaism.

        Pretty simple really.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 13, 2013, 10:25 pm

        yes, and pretty simple the maternal ancestors of those offsprings never stepped foot in palestine. hence, not a ‘return’.

        i agree they would/should be considered jews. but for the most part it’s a fable ashkenazi jews are returning to the land of their ancestors. ideological and spiritual ancestors perhaps, but that’s not the same as palestinians, whose ancestors actually lived there, and likely many as jews who converted at one time. they are home. not european transplants/colonialists.

      • Hostage
        October 14, 2013, 12:46 am

        Those Gentile women would have converted to Judaism one would assume.

        Of course you don’t cite any of the historical sources which say that didn’t happen in actual practice. See for example Yaron Ben-Naeh, “Blond, tall, with honey-colored eyes: Jewish ownership of slaves in the Ottoman Empire.” Jewish History 20.3-4 (2006): 315-332. link to pluto.huji.ac.il

        The books of Ezra and Nehemiah record the fact that the Princes of the Tribe of Judah were the most notorious offenders in that regard. They had married foreign wives and had children who were not considered Israelites or converts. We can only assume that pool of Jewish Y-chromosome and Gentile MtDNA didn’t just “vanish from the Earth” when those wives and children were cast-off and put away.

        It may surprise some Zionists, but we also know from the reports of ancient Jewish and European travelers that there were already contacts between those groups that pre-date the modern era. More modern Ottoman Court records from the 1500s and 1600s reflect the fact that wealthy and middle class Jews in Turkey, Syria, and Palestine were active in the Gentile slave trade. In fact, it wasn’t unheard of for the so-called Jewish “dhimmis” to own Muslim or Christian slaves. From the 1200s on, we know for certain that it was very common for Middle Eastern Jews to own Slavic, German, Austrian, and Russian slave women and use them as concubines. Since they shared household chores and worked on the Sabbath, they were not encouraged to become converts. In many cases, the offspring from these unions were treated as legal heirs of their Jewish owners. The Rabbis had conniption fits of course (See the rules in the Schulcan Aruch on relations with slaves) but it appears that many Jews paid no attention.

        The ancients used the same modes of transport employed by their medieval descendants. I’m just curious. Why should we imagine that the Jews, who migrated to Europe through some of these same Jewish Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman communities, have behaved so much differently from their Jewish brethren? Why should we assume the anonymous European Gentile matriarchs in these studies weren’t living in the Middle East as slaves, like all these others that were recorded by Yaron Ben-Naeh?

      • piotr
        October 14, 2013, 1:41 am

        Over the ages people were converting to different religions, including from and to Judaism, and this is OK.

        One question is how it gives the right to real estate to the north of Wilderness of Zin, the west of Dead Sea etc. And how conversion out of Judaism leads to the loss of that right.

        The second question is why Israeli (and some American) Jews lament the mixed marriages of Jews if they are frequently associated with conversions to Judaism?

      • yonah fredman
        October 14, 2013, 2:16 am

        piotr- “frequently associated with conversions to Judaism”. Well, frequently as in more than once. but it is not frequently, compared to: children raised with no religion.

      • yonah fredman
        October 14, 2013, 2:22 am

        annie- It would be interesting to hear a historian speculate intelligently on the percentage of the Palestinian population (or the percentage of their genes: as in ancestors) whom one could trace back to people living there 2000 years ago, Jewish or nonJewish.

        People with little background in history, aka the peanut gallery, throwing around speculations is entertaining to some, but not really educational. In other words, historians or facts please. Let the historians speculate, but let the peanut gallery know when silence is golden.

      • Hostage
        October 14, 2013, 4:31 am

        People with little background in history, aka the peanut gallery, throwing around speculations is entertaining to some, but not really educational. In other words, historians or facts please. Let the historians speculate, but let the peanut gallery know when silence is golden.

        Yonah I cited a very well documented history of Jewish ownership of Gentile female slaves in the Ottoman Empire, including Slavic, Circassian, Caucasian, Hungarian, Russian, and Austrian women. It’s interesting to me that these genetic studies are based solely upon the proposition that Jewish men migrated to Europe, and overlook the wealth of historical records which indicates that a flood of European female slaves come to the Middle East.

        The slave markets of the Khazar kingdom were one of the prime sources of these female slaves from Europe that ended up in Ottoman Asia:

        Khazaria’s economy, unlike the steppe empires where cattle breeding was the dominant source of income, depended on trade and agriculture. Cattle, rice, fish and wheat were the most important products. The country was situated at a crossroads on the silk-route. The Khazars’ tolerance attracted many traders, among them Greeks, Arabs and Jews. Besides the trade with Byzantium, the Caspian offered numerous possibilities for exchange with Persians and Arabs. This oriental trade was supported by raw materials found in the Caucasus, such as gold and silver. The slave trade was also important. Russians brought slaves from the North to the slave-market in Itil, who where then shipped to the Muslim lands in the South.

        –Paul Meerts, Assessing Khazaria, The International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) Newsletter | # 3 4 | July 2004 link to iias.nl

        According to The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Volume 1. The Ancient Mediterranean World”, at the end of the Republican period a third of the population of Italy were slaves. Before the Roman Empire was divided, there were slaves from all over Europe and the Mediterranean, including Germans, Celts, Italian and Jewish slaves in the Byzantine region.

        The flow of commerce, trade, and human beings wasn’t limited to migrations toward western Europe:

        The geographic breadth and the diversity of networks transporting Europeans into the House of Islam is arresting (Map 2 5:1). Beyond Frankish Europe, one famous stream of slaves tramped toward the southeast along the northern arc. They certainly were doing so by the early tenth century, and they may have started arriving earlier, along with the furs and Frankish swords, if that is how some of the Slavs of Iraq got there.110 Many of these slaves are believed to have been collected along the way as tribute or plunder from the Slav tribes whose territories the Rus traversed. But at Birka, on the doorstep of the river routes toward Byzantium and the Caliphate, we have already met a troop of Christian slaves from the west (above, p. 611). There is no reason to assume that their shipment stopped in the Swedish lakes zone.

        The Black Sea would be notorious for its late medieval slave trade. The large numbers of Byzantine slaves held by the Khazars and freed by Constantine-Cyril and Methodius show that the trade goes back to the ninth century. It was another stream that fed the river of human labor flowing into the Caliphate, for we know that the Khazars exported slaves there (Chapter 2on4i).

        — Michael McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce AD 300-900, Cambridge University Press, 2001 link to books.google.com

        So I’m always interested in discovering how a scientist today could employ European MtDNA evidence to rule out the Khazar hypothesis, when the Khazars supplied European females slaves to the markets in the Middle East?

      • yonah fredman
        October 14, 2013, 6:45 am

        Hostage- Either you are dishonest or not reading me carefully. I was not talking about the genetic makeup of Jews, I was talking about genetic makeup of Palestinians.

      • Hostage
        October 14, 2013, 7:53 am

        Hostage- Either you are dishonest or not reading me carefully. I was not talking about the genetic makeup of Jews, I was talking about genetic makeup of Palestinians.

        Correction: You said it would be interesting to have a historian trace the percentage of the Palestinian population whom one could trace back to people living there 2000 years ago, Jewish or non-Jewish.

        So you were explicitly soliciting the views of historians on the Jews and implicitly on historical views on the numbers of Gentile slaves 2,000 years ago and their connection to modern day descendants in Palestine. One account in the Christian scriptures, Acts 2, indicates that Jews and converts from every nation under heaven gathered in Jerusalem for the religious holidays, i.e. Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs. So people were very mobile even back then.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 14, 2013, 8:04 am

        “Those Gentile women would have converted to Judaism one would assume.”

        Anything to support this speculation other than your overwhelming desire that it be true?

        More likely, given the time frame, is that these males acquired these mates and no one in the process gave a damn what the women wanted and probably didn’t bother asking her opinion on what religion she wanted to follow.

      • James Canning
        October 14, 2013, 1:46 pm

        Great post, Hostage. And has anyone seen research on the “Frankish” or “Crusader” element, in present population of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria?

      • James Canning
        October 14, 2013, 2:11 pm

        Good questions. Perhaps mixed marriages lessen “knee-jerk” support for Israel right or wrong?

      • Ecru
        October 15, 2013, 6:11 am

        @ yonah fredman

        There’s been plenty written on the origins of Palestinians, by historian, archaeologists and geneticists. It’s just you don’t like the consensus that they’re the descendants of local Jews and others who acculturated to Arab/Islamic culture over the years and so you ignore all of it.

  7. Kathleen
    October 12, 2013, 12:23 pm

    That is all they have playing on biblical myths and false entitlements to land..based on writings of Jewish guys with an agenda who claimed to talk to a god. Aye yi yi. But some people have based their whole belief systems on this entitlement hooey.

    Give people facts based on international law and some people’s heads start to spin.

  8. Bumblebye
    October 12, 2013, 12:46 pm

    Talk of creative (historical) accounting!
    And Creationist fundies – we’ve got ‘em here and busy, busy:

    link to theguardian.com

    “A state-funded orthodox Jewish girls’ school in north London has been criticised after it was discovered that dozens of pupils had their GCSE exams censored, with questions about evolution deliberately blacked out of science papers.

    The OCR examinations board found that 52 papers in two GCSE science exams sat by pupils at Yesodey Hatorah Senior girls’ school in Hackney this summer had questions on evolution obscured, making them impossible to be answered.”

    “Yesodey Hatorah is a voluntary-aided all-girls school, meaning it is fully funded by the government but retains full power over its own admissions procedure. According to the school’s prospectus it gives priority to admitting “Charedi Jewish girls who meet the Charedi criteria as prescribed by the rabbinate of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations.””

  9. JohnAdamTurnbull
    October 12, 2013, 1:14 pm

    In the last couple of weeks, the one remaining Disappearing Palestine transit ad has been ripped off the wall three times.

    I haven’t yet seen any evidence of the StandWithUs maps, and I expect the more sober Zionists may be recommending some caution.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 12, 2013, 1:37 pm

      I haven’t yet seen any evidence of the StandWithUs maps, and I expect the more sober Zionists may be recommending some caution.

      john, they have 2 days to rethink it.

      The StandWithUs ads will run beginning the week of October 14 until November 14, 2013.

      link to standwithus.com

      but personally,i hope they go ahead with it. it’s like a bright red flag screaming ‘we’re freaks’.

      • JohnAdamTurnbull
        October 12, 2013, 3:10 pm

        The Georgia Straight did a pre-view and it’s getting some wtf? reaction.

        link to straight.com

        Yes. Me too.

      • Citizen
        October 13, 2013, 4:09 pm

        @ JohnAdamTurnbull
        Most of the comments under the Georgia Straight article are jeering with aghast laughter at the StandWithUs map.

  10. joemowrey
    October 12, 2013, 1:17 pm

    Unfortunately, given the willful ignorance and gullibility of most people in this country, nonsense graphics like this will probably be very effective. I’ve had conversations with people who actually believe, and will insist, that it’s the Palestinians who are occupying Israel, not the other way around. Let’s not forget, the absurd “Land without a people for a people without a land” slogan is still in wide use and is accepted unquestionably by many people. Outright lies are often a more effective form of propaganda than subtly twisted half truths.

    • Walid
      October 12, 2013, 5:01 pm

      “Unfortunately, given the willful ignorance and gullibility of most people in this country, nonsense graphics like this will probably be very effective.”

      Especially with Americans awaiting the second coming.

    • JennieS
      October 12, 2013, 6:54 pm

      Unfortunately I agree Joe. The evangelicals have taken up passionate Zionism – my local happy clappy church is decorated with Israeli flags and pictures of menorah. Most of the rest of the society do not know or care much about the I/P issue but centuries of Christianity have left a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural claims to choseness and land rights. Combined with a fear of radical Islam and the feeling that Jews are more like “us” than the Palestinians are this familiarity means that John & Jane are more likely to see these maps as representations of reality Than the joke they are.

    • ckg
      October 12, 2013, 11:14 pm

      Rep Louis Gohmert of Texas informed the floor of congress that Palestinians are occupying Israel.

      • just
        October 13, 2013, 5:28 am

        How many idiots can Texas continue to produce?

        (Ann Richards (RIP), how the civilized masses need you!)

      • ckg
        October 13, 2013, 9:15 pm

        Texas A&M boasts alumni geniuses Gohmert, Rick Perry, and Joe Barton.

      • James Canning
        October 13, 2013, 2:43 pm

        @ckg – – Any more gems from this apparent idiot?

      • Kathleen
        October 14, 2013, 6:40 pm

        Gohmert is a nutcase

  11. Allison Deger
    October 12, 2013, 1:41 pm

    This is not going to win SWU any friends. People generally think calling for Israel to take over Jordan and Syria is a bit crazy.

  12. pipistro
    October 12, 2013, 2:09 pm

    Let alone the historical fake, it’s astounding that some moron named Adam doesn’t draw a map of the world and says that the whole of it once was his homeland.

    • JohnAdamTurnbull
      October 12, 2013, 5:31 pm

      I’m your moron. I tried it, but Eve claimed half and the snake was into women’s rights. God expropriated and subdivided the property.

  13. seafoid
    October 12, 2013, 2:42 pm

    No map for the middle ages pre san remo when there was no jewish land in the levant.

  14. Mike_Konrad
    October 12, 2013, 2:45 pm

    They hit back well.

    The Palestinian poster shows 97% of the land being Palestinian.

    Actually about 80% of the land was government land and held by neither Jew nor Arab.

    Technically, the StandwithUs poster is more accurate, though it does not explain that the Transjordan part of the Mandate was lopped off before San Remo.

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2013, 1:40 am

      Actually about 80% of the land was government land and held by neither Jew nor Arab.

      False. The number is 30 %

      Technically, the StandwithUs poster is more accurate,

      Rubbish. It’s utter BS as is your comment.

      though it does not explain that the Transjordan part of the Mandate was lopped off before San Remo.

      That’s because it was not even part of the mandate until 1922.

    • ymedad
      October 13, 2013, 2:25 am

      a) San Remo was April 1920. The lopping off was authorized by the League of Nations in July 1922, preliminarily and finally, September 1923.

      b) oh, and Shingo still knows naught of what he writes (or wraughts).

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 4:04 am

        The lopping off was authorized by the League of Nations in July 1922, preliminarily and finally, September 1923.

        False.

        Transjordan was not even part of San Remo, so it could hardly have been lopped off when it was not part of the Mandate until 1922.

        The Allies were still negotiating the territory that would be included in the mandates after the overthrow of Faisal’s Syrian Kingdom in July of 1920. That was several months after the San Remo Conference (April 1920). Historian Mary Wilson wrote that immediately after Faisal was overthrown:

        The British suddenly wanted to know “what is the “Syria” for which the French received a mandate at San Remo? and does it include Transjordania?” Hubert Young to Ambassador Hardinge (Paris), 27 July 1920, FO 371/5254
        – cited in Mary Christina Wilson, “King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan”, Cambridge, 1988, page 44

        In fact, the British did not add the territory liberated by Feisal to their Palestine Mandate, until after the Emir Abdullah had taken-up residence in the territory liberated by his brother and had threatened to evict the French from Damascus. Churchill negotiated a compromise during the Cairo Conference.

        On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the drafts of the Palestine Mandate for the first time. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate, including the territory of Transjordan, was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922. See Aaron S. Klieman, “Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921″, Johns Hopkins, 1970, ISBN 0-8018-1125-2, pages 228–234

        So contrary to your false claim, it was added, not lopped off in 1923.

        See more here:

        For example, in March of 1921 the British Cabinet published a conclusion pointing out that fact as part of its General Policy on Mesopotamia and Palestine. See the Conclusion, Former Reference: CC 14 (21)
        Dated 22 March 1921
        Catalogue reference CAB 23/24
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        The Meeting was Chaired by Prime Minister Lloyd George and the other attendees included Lord Chancellor Birkenhead; Chancellor of the Exchequer Chamberlain; Secretary of State for India Montagu; Secretary of State for Home Affairs Shortt; Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Curzon; Secretary of State for War Worthington; Chief of the Imperial General Staff Field-Marshal Wilson; Lieut-Colonel Amery, M. P. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies

        Here is a the verbatim quote:

        “THE EMIR ABDULLAH AND TRANS-JORDANIA: That no immediate decision could be taken in regard to the proposal for appointing the Emir Abdullah as Governor of Trans–Jordania under the High Commissioner of Palestine, nor in regard to the other proposals for occupying Trans-Jordania, in regard to both of which the Cabinet felt considerable misgivings. On political grounds they were informed that the installation of Abdullah to Trans-Jordania, combined with that of Feisal in Mesopotamia, would be regarded by the French as a menace. On military grounds they were reminded by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that, the occupation of Trans-Jordania would involve a new commitment, the extension and, duration of which it was impossible to forecast. The Cabinet, recognised that, in the event of an attack on the French in Syria from Trans-Jordania, we should not be entirely free from responsibility, since Trans-Jordania, though not forming part of the mandated territory, is included in the British zone of influence under the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In view of the proximity of Trans-Jordania, however, they felt that the possibility should not be excluded of exercising such control as was necessary by action from Palestine itself. In these circumstances they felt that the right course would be to communicate their misgivings to Mr. Churchill before his interview with, the Emir Abdullah at Jerusalem on Easter Monday.”

        The boundaries of Palestine had been established in an “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″ that was handed by Mr. Lloyd George to M. Clemenceau and placed before the Versailles Peace Conference. It divided the territory between the British, French, and Arab administered OETAs on the basis of the “principles of the Sykes-Picot agreement” and “the Sykes-Picot line” – and Palestine was strictly limited to only that area occupied by the British armed forces after their withdrawal from Syria. As Field Marshal Wilson noted above, that area did not include Transjordan. The memoire mentioned “the Arab State” that the British and French had committed to support in Zones A and B under the terms of Sykes-Picot. The memo is available in the FRUS and in J. C. Hurewitz collection. All of the plans involving OETA North, South, and East had to be revised after August of 1920, when the French overthrew Faisal’s Syrian Kingdom. That only happened after the Cairo Conference and Mr. Churchill’s meeting with Abdullah. The relevant extracts from the aide-memoire are:

        1. Steps will be taken immediately to prepare for the evacuation by the British Army of Syria and Cilicia including the Taurus tunnel. 2. Notice is given both to the French Government and to the Emir Feisal of our intentions to commence the evacuation of Syria and Cilicia on November 1, 1919′… …6.The territories occupied by British troops will then be Palestine, defined in accordance with its ancient boundaries of Dan to Beersheba.

        So yeah, I know much more than you of what I write.

      • ymedad
        October 13, 2013, 4:25 am

        “it was added, not lopped off in 1923.”

        so why Article 25?

      • James Canning
        October 13, 2013, 1:57 pm

        Great post.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 6:23 pm

        so why Article 25?

        To add it to the mandate and detail that it was to be a seperate entity from the territory West of the Jordan River.

        That’s why the On 16 September 1922, the League of Nations approved a British memorandum detailing its intended implementation of that clause, namely to exclude Transjordan from the articles related to Jewish settlement.

        I have already explained that the status of Transjordan was not established until AFTER San Remo.

      • Hostage
        October 13, 2013, 10:05 pm

        it was added, not lopped off in 1923.”

        so why Article 25?

        The first yearbook of the League of Nations contains The Draft Mandate for Palestine, but it contains no reference to Transjordan in any of its Articles, including 25. It nonetheless contained all of the safeguards for the rights of the non-Jewish communities and called for the widest possible degree of self-government for all of their localities in Palestine: link to books.google.com

        At the time, “Palestine” was legally defined by an “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. The occupation administrations were established using the Sykes-Picot Lines. The memo explicitly stated that Palestine would only include the territory under British occupation, after it’s withdrawal from Syria. Transjordan had been liberated by Arab forces, and it had been designated as part of an Arab state or confederation of Arab states under the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The Aide-memoire also referred to the region as “the Arab state”. As the Cabinet Minutes cited by Shingo indicated, Transjordan was not part of the British occupied territory or the territory of the mandate. So it was occupied and governed by Faisal’s Arab administration in Damascus under the terms of the Aide-memoire.

        After the overthrow of Faisal’s regime and the Cairo Conference, the British, French, and Hashemites agreed to annex the remaining Arab territory to the Palestine mandate on condition that none of the provisions pertaining to Jewish immigration and settlement would apply. That agreement was without prejudice to the existing rights of the non-Jewish communities of Palestine, which were already the subject of a safeguarding clause of their own in the text of the Balfour Declaration and the draft mandate.

    • talknic
      October 13, 2013, 5:39 am

      @ Mike_Konrad “Actually about 80% of the land was government land and held by neither Jew nor Arab”

      Arabs and Jews owned ‘real estate’. ‘territory’ belongs to all its legitimate (legal) inhabitants, whether they own ‘real estate’, rent, hire or lease ‘real estate’ or are homeless bums living under a bridge.

      “Technically, the StandwithUs poster is more accurate, though it does not explain that the Transjordan part of the Mandate was lopped off before San Remo.”

      Both points are irrelevant . The moment the State of Israel was proclaimed and recognized as it asked to be recognized

      ” the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” link to trumanlibrary.org

      Declaration, pleading for recognition and being recognized drew a new line in the sand as to what territory was Israeli. The ‘Historical land of Israel’ immediately became of historical interest only and not reflective of the State of Israel’s self defined and legally recognized extent. The State of Israel has not legally acquired or legally annexed ANY territory since being recognized.

      The hundreds of UNSC resolutions reminding the State of Israel of its obligations to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law are based on Israel’s self defined and recognized sovereign extent.

      The StandWithUs notion is quite simply nonsense

    • Talkback
      October 13, 2013, 6:16 am

      Mike_Konrad says: “Actually about 80% of the land was government land and held by neither Jew nor Arab.”

      Actually to the Village Statistics of 1945 Arabs owned 48,5%, Jewish and public land was each 5,67% and the rest was unassigned, uncultivated (parts of) Negev desert.
      link to palestineremembered.com

      And actually 100% the land was Palestinian, belonging to the citizens of Palestine.

      And technically the StandWithUS picture of 1920 is ridiculous, because no land was assigned as a whole to Jews or a Jewish National home. This has to be the most racist map of all of them.

    • Hostage
      October 13, 2013, 6:30 am

      The Palestinian poster shows 97% of the land being Palestinian.

      Actually about 80% of the land was government land and held by neither Jew nor Arab.

      LOL! Then why did Menachem Ussishkin waste so much of his adult life complaining that the JNF couldn’t find any state land to settle Jewish immigrants on and very little private land that could be purchased? Let’s keep in mind that the Jews and his JNF never acquired title to more than 6 percent of the land during his entire lifetime.

      The Ottomans didn’t have western style public domain and the lands on the civil lists were managed under a system of usufruct by tenured Arab cultivators. From the very outset, the British mandatory administration established a land commission to determine the extent of so-called state-owned land available for Jewish settlement. It determined that little or no such land existed that wasn’t already under cultivation by Arab tenants or occupants.

      The “existing” prescriptive legal rights under the Ottoman code for cultivators who had occupied the land for ten or more years were affirmed by the British government in accordance with the safeguards contained in the both the Balfour declaration and the San Remo resolution. The rights of so-called absentee landlords were limited in most cases to usufruct from village lands. In those cases the landlords had no legal right to dispose of the properties without the consent of the tenants. See for example ”A broken trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians 1920-1925”, By Sahar Huneidi, pages 212-223 or ”State lands and rural development in mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948”, By Warwick P. N. Tyler, page 21: “The State Lands of Palestine” link to books.google.com

  15. eljay
    October 12, 2013, 3:08 pm

    The “Ancient Jewish Kingdom” and “Jewish Homeland” are utterly irrelevant.

    “State of Israel” should read “Oppressive, Colonialist, Expansionist and Supremacist ‘Jewish State’ of Israel”.

    The “Disputed Land” is not disputed but occupied and colonized.

  16. agatharchides
    October 12, 2013, 3:09 pm

    As absurd as the maps are, I have to admit I don’t see where creationism comes into it.

  17. radii
    October 12, 2013, 3:10 pm

    any map more than about 100 years old is entirely misleading because it may represent what land area a given set of rulers claimed but there were always other populations living within that area that lived pretty much the way they wanted … go to arab areas and even today the borders are mostly meaningless to the people on the ground because they are often tribal and their ties are to their past and perceptions formed not on maps created by Western powers … only the past 100 years or so where modern satellites, cartography and the ability to micro-manage physically through military might proclaimed borders do the lines on maps carry so much more weight

  18. TomAmitaiUSA
    October 12, 2013, 3:13 pm

    So, are they admitting that Arafat wasn’t lying when he said the Zionists want to take control of all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, or are they just claiming that they have a right to it, but will generously settle for somewhat less?

  19. James Canning
    October 12, 2013, 3:45 pm

    Bravo! Complete rubbish, the claim Jordan was part of Jewish “homeland”! Utter nonsense.

  20. jon s
    October 12, 2013, 3:48 pm

    The existence of the large, united,kingdom of David and Solomon is, indeed, a subject of controversy among archaeolgists and historians.
    The second map shows the partition of 1922. when the British gave Transjordan the the Emir (later King ) Abdallah.
    I’ve pointed out that the “pro-Palestinian” maps are even more misleading:
    link to mondoweiss.net

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2013, 1:41 am

      I’ve pointed out that the “pro-Palestinian” maps are even more misleading:

      And been repeatedly debunked.

    • talknic
      October 14, 2013, 6:57 am

      jon s October 12, 2013 at 3:48 pm Completely irrelevant as of the moment the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel became effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) link to trumanlibrary.org and was recognized as such

  21. Taxi
    October 12, 2013, 4:25 pm

    We’re looking at a cultist map. Not even 1% of 1% of the world’s population recognizes this map as legitimate.

    Clearly, Jewish colonial Khazars are pathological liars and thieves.

    And why stop at 1000 BCE? Why not 1001 BCE, eh?! Is it because the Wicca religion in Jerusalem’s ancient hills predates the ‘arrival’ of judaism there? Based on zionist logic, don’t them indigenous Wiccan Canaanites therefore have a greater claim to the land than even the non-Palestinian Arab jews? Let’s take this zio real estate configuration to court and see what the judge says about deedless biblical claims to land, shall we? Let’s put this poor deluded map up against some UN internationally recognized maps. Really now, let’s put in a kookoo’s nest, where it belongs.

    And for Pete’s sakes, someone tell them zios that most of them Arab jews in 1000 BCE have, down the line of time, converted to either christianity or islam. Palestinian jews, being the only legitimate jews claiming Palestine as “their land”, are actually a minority within a collective jewish middle eastern minority. Point is, being a mere fraction of a minority themselves, even the legitimate Palestinian jewish claimants cannot logistically rule over the swaths of Arab moslem and christian lands shaded up on that evil little zio map. The cruel, impossible dream that is zionism!

    Someone needs to also keep reminding the zionists that judaism is a religion and not a race or a nationality. It’s just a religion; like any other religion out there.

    For some reason (probably much olive picking this week), a philosophical breeze is blowing my way tonight – so please allow me this small but necessary digression:
    Out of all the Abrahamic religions, only islam can prove the physical existence of its prophet, Mohamad. Only yesterday, I was reading this article about how a group of political Romans had apparently “confessed” that they’d “invented Jesus”, in order to pacify the poor and use the Jesus followers as counter-revolution tactic against the rebellious jews:
    link to independent.co.uk

    Begs the question here: were the original desert Hebrews just disgruntled pagans, a blasphemous pagan minority, a fringe who wanted out of paganism and so they started telling stories about themselves using ‘offensive symbolism’ for self-preservation, for self-protection – ie the fear-inspiring story of a single giant god who is everywhere forever, bigger and better than any puny pagan god, an absolute non-pagan and violent god who specifically “chooses” the ex-pagan Hebrews and blesses them, protects and favors them above all others forever? Yes, that’s called ‘offensive symbolism’ in storytelling – because it’s fear-stimulating.

    I ask the experts out there, is there any physical proof of the existence of Abraham? Of baby Moses drifting downstream in a bread basket? (It’s a sincere question – or two).

    Let me please be clear here: I personally vacillate between atheism and agnosticism (I’m never one, or the other, but always somewhere in between). Despite this, and in principle, I actually see a humanistic value in the concept of mythology, including religious mythology. I am a creature curious by the history and meaning of symbolism. I see value in the way symbols affect the human cognitive experience. I see an abstract beneficial value in all kinds of mythologies. I see value in the story of Jesus, even though there is no proof of his existence. I see value too in the stories of Abraham and Moses. Yes I can easily respect a mythology, any mythology, that inspires millions to better themselves. Who can argue with that? But I cannot be both intellectually and morally honest and condone any religious group that uses religious mythology as an excuse to lie, steal and murder. That domain should be left to craven politicians. Begs another question here, therefore: are religion and politics identical buckets but with different handles?

    Are believers and ideologues destined to forever run with empty bucket to some mythological finish line? Trampling over non-believers and apoliticals till the end of time?

    What kind of life for trampler and trampled is that?!

    • piotr
      October 13, 2013, 7:27 am

      Alas,while Wiccans do not deny Zeus, Thor, Mars, they are usually pacifist.

      Also, Gaia is a deity that did not give eternal covenants to anyone.

    • ziusudra
      October 13, 2013, 9:27 am

      Greetings Taxi,
      …… were the original desert Hebrews……. pagans…….just telling stories…….

      They weren’t even Hebrews in 1200BC.
      They adopted Hebrew from the Greek, ‘One outside of the Hellenic Culture’
      in 323BC under Alexander of the Macedonians.
      They were 12 tribes, where 10 tribes disappear into oblivion along with their Kingdom of Israel.
      The 3rd Kingdom of Judea (southern) collapes in 586BC under the Babylonians.
      Thus ending Tribes & Kingdoms of the ancient Semites.
      They started writing only because King Cyrus of Persia would allow them to return to Jerusalem if they could prove in writing that they would live by a ‘Code of Ethics’
      in 536BC. They created their Genesis out of Sumerian & Egyptian history along with their Protagonists Noah, Abraham & the deeds of Moses.
      5K returned under Rebbe ,Scribe Ezra in 456BC, where the lived in Canaan/ Falesteena as a minority migrating to Greece in 200BC & also dropping Hebrew for Aramaic.
      ziusudra
      PS The majority of the freed descendents of the Judeans stayed in the big light cities of Mesopotania.
      Although Schalim (Twilight Godess) was a walled in City under Canaanites it fell to a dirty unwalled Village of 2K inhabitants in 1000BC under King David where it was Judaised Jerusalem.

      • Taxi
        October 13, 2013, 3:17 pm

        Thank you, ziusudra. You are always cascading, in your unique rhythmic way, much fascinating and valuable information. Deep history seems to be your domain. I also find your name most fascinating. I don’t know why, but I see you as a contemplative pipe smoker :-)

      • piotr
        October 14, 2013, 9:33 pm

        I would put huge disclamer for historical accuracy of ziusudrah. For example, Jews viewed Samaritans as impostors and heretics, but many agree that they descent mostly from the people of the Israel – northern Hebrew kingdom, and as late as 6-th and 7-th century they represented a large part of Palestinian population. Subsequently, in a number of stages, most converted to Islam.

        Also, there was no separate Hebrew language but a slight regional variation of Canaanite language common to Palestine, Lebanon and nearby territories, subsequently abandoned for Aramaic. Aramaic speakers were partly Hellenized, but probably mostly in culture rather than linguistically. Then they switched to Arabic (including the Jews in Arab lands).

  22. tokyobk
    October 12, 2013, 4:44 pm

    Can someone explain the first map. It should be 100% green. The yellow represents land purchased legally in Palestine by Jews presumably.

    Why does that represent a loss of Palestine itself?

    The other maps makes sense because they represent post-conquest.

    • Walid
      October 12, 2013, 4:57 pm

      Conquest? All along I thought you guys were talking about self-defense.

      • tokyobk
        October 12, 2013, 5:11 pm

        wait, which guys? I take you for smart so surely you don’t equate Jewish or the belief that Jews can also be part of the natural landscape of Palestine, with Zionism (which you have never seen me defend).

      • Taxi
        October 12, 2013, 5:28 pm

        What a poncy back-peddle, tokyobk. I believe your “conquest” was a classic Freudian slip. So why don’t you lie down on the proverbial couch and tell me all about your childhood. Whaah?! You don’t think I’m “smart” enough to figure out where all your covert, predatory aggression is coming from?

      • Walid
        October 12, 2013, 9:31 pm

        Tokyo, the snide remark had nothing to do with Jews but was a reflex to the word “conquest” that you used in “post-conquest”. As to Jews being a natural part of Palestine, of course I believe that they are, but not their Zionist aspect and I don’t equate one with the other. Things had been relatively good between the 2 groups until the poison of Zionism was injected into Palestine, an intro that was like the intro of the spiked blankets with the Amerindians.

    • libra
      October 12, 2013, 5:46 pm

      tokyobk: The other maps makes sense because they represent post-conquest.

      tokyobk, how on earth does the 1920 map make any sense, “post-conquest” or otherwise?

      It seems to me that no matter how hard you try to hide or deny it, that inner Zionist of yours just keeps popping out.

    • eljay
      October 12, 2013, 6:45 pm

      Can someone explain the first map. It should be 100% green. The yellow represents land purchased legally in Palestine by Jews presumably.

      Why does that represent a loss of Palestine itself?

      A good point and a good question.

    • Talkback
      October 13, 2013, 5:25 am

      tokyobk says: “Can someone explain the first map. It should be 100% green. The yellow represents land purchased legally in Palestine by Jews presumably.

      Why does that represent a loss of Palestine itself?

      The other maps makes sense because they represent post-conquest.”

      I agree on this one, tokyobk. The first map is utterly racist because it devides Arab and Jewish Palestinians. It is also false, because the green part is not private property like the white parts (likes makes it appear yellow). The other maps are ok, because they devide between Israel and the rest of Palestine.

      • tree
        October 13, 2013, 1:00 pm

        Talback, nearly 90% of the land of Palestine was privately owned by Palestinian individuals and communally owned by Palestinian villages. The parts owned by the JNF (the non-green stuff) were alienated from the Palestinians by the restrictive religious/ethnic covenants that the JNF placed on the land. They were not given to the Palestinian Jews who had lived there prior to the Zionist project. They were given to foreign Jews who were willing to be colonialist “pioneers” in Palestine. They were not even given to the Arab Jews from Yemen that the Zionists recruited to replace the Arab labor that they disdained, because the early Zionists were eugenicists and believers in the “scientific racism” of their times which claimed that Europeans were superior to Arabs, and Ashkenazi Jews were superior to Mizrahi Jews.

        It is also false, because the green part is not private property like the white parts (likes makes it appear yellow).

        Actually it is private property. Both the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate Palestine government recognized that only about 5% of the land was government owned, and the rest was overwhelmingly owned by Palestinian individuals.

      • Talkback
        October 13, 2013, 6:06 pm

        tree says: “Talback, nearly 90% of the land of Palestine was privately owned by Palestinian individuals and communally owned by Palestinian villages.”

        No it wasn’t. A large part of Palestine belongs to the Negev desert which was uncultivated. Arabws owned about 48% according to the Village Statistics of 1945.

      • tree
        October 14, 2013, 1:05 am

        No, Talk back, you are wrong. The Negev, which constitutes about 28% of Israel was not totally uncultivated. The Bedouins were pastoralists, not nomads, and they cultivated plots of land. Read up on the Green Patrol, one of Ariel Sharon’s notorious units, which have repeatedly destroyed Bedouin crop land with herbicides to prevent them from cultivating their supposed “uncultivable land”. What you are doing is confusing Ottoman designated “miri’ lands with Western style “state” land.

        There is a map created from the Village Statistics of 1945, which lists the various ownership of the land, published by the UN in 1950. It notes:

        The category of “public ownership” under the British Mandate derived from that known as miri under the Ottoman system of land tenure. Subsumed under the latter category, however, in addition to state domain, were many other subcategories that admitted a whole range of private and communal usufruct and leasehold.

        link to palestineremembered.com

        In other words, miri land is not only State land but can also include land over which individuals and communities can have possessive or usufructuary rights.

        A recent report from B’Tselem, discussing Israel’s misapplication of Ottoman Land Law to dispossess Palestinians goes into the Ottoman rules for private land ownership of miri land.

        Nature of the type and scope of cultivation that grants ownership rights

        Under article 78 of the Ottoman Land Code , a farmer who cultivated miri land for 10 years without objection by the state acquires ownership rights in it. The statute does not define the nature of the cultivation needed to acquire the ownership. This has important implications as the Central Mountain Range in the West Bank is characterized by rocky land, only a small portion of which is arable. The Mandatory Supreme Court ruled that in a rocky parcel of miri land, cultivation of pockets of fertile land scattered here and there grants the farmer ownership rights in the entire parcel. This doctrine was applied in the West Bank also during the period of Jordanian rule.

        In its declarations policy, Israel applied a different and more stringent interpretation: a person who claimed rights in rocky land must prove that he cultivated at least 50 percent of the entire parcel. If the pockets of land under cultivation amounted to less than 50 percent, the entire parcel was deemed state land, leaving the farmer with no rights whatsoever. By doing so, Israel classified as government property land that, under the local Law, was private Palestinian property.

        Demand of continuous cultivation of the land

        The Mandatory Supreme Court ruled that a farmer who cultivated miri land for 10 years and then ceased cultivating it did not lose the ownership rights he had acquired in the parcel, EVEN IF HE DID NOT REGISTER IT ON HIS NAME IN THE LAND REGISTRY. This interpretation was applied in the West Bank also during the period of Jordanian rule.

        In its declarations policy, Israel adopted the opposite interpretation, whereby unregistered miri land which had been cultivated for 10 years or more, after which cultivation stopped at some point, was government property and could be declared as state land. In this way, Israel declared large swaths of land in the West Bank as state land, though under the local Law they were private Palestinian property.

        Disregard for community rights in grazing land

        Under the 1858 Code, metruka land is defined as public land of two kinds: one, land that serves the entire public (for example: roads), and two, land designated for a specific group, such as grazing land that a certain village has used for many years. The Mandatory Supreme Court ruled that in order to establish their collective rights in the land, it is sufficient for residents of the relevant village to prove that they used the land for many years for grazing.

        In its declarations on state land, Israel disregarded the collective rights of Palestinian communities in grazing land. Quite to the contrary, in many cases, Israel’s declarations were based on the claim that the land was not cultivated, but only used for grazing. A government survey conducted in 1976 showed that the West Bank had 3.6 million dunams of grazing land, two million of which (about 35 percent of the entire West Bank) were not arable. ,b>Undoubtedly, a substantial portion of these lands are designated metruka land and belong to local Palestinian communities. Declaring these lands state land and allocating them to settlements breach local Law.

        link to btselem.org

        While the B’tselem report deals with West Bank land, the same Ottoman Land Laws applied in the land that became Israel.

        The official British Survey of Palestine, issued in 1945, listed private ownership of Palestinian land at 24 miilion dunams owned by “Arabs and others” and 1.5 million dunams owned by Jews. The remaining 150,000 or so dunams was considered by Britain as the only real “state” land. The majority of “public land” was not strictly state land but was land used for grazing by local villages, and should be more correctly termed “village land”.

        See Table 2 of the Survey here:

        link to palestineremembered.com

        Further documentation of the percentage of ownership of the Negev was given a while back by commenter Blake, citing records from 1937:

        The British Mandate records affirm that 12,600,000 Dunums of Negev land belonged to the Bedouins. (Mandate records 1937. See Penny Maddrell, The Beduin of the Negev, Minority Rights Group, Report no.81 (1990) p.5

        link to mondoweiss.net

        He also cited this from a 1947 UN document produced by the UN Special Committee on Palestine in one of its reports to the UN General Assembl.:

        164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land.

        link to unispal.un.org

      • Talkback
        October 14, 2013, 8:26 am

        tree says: “There is a map created from the Village Statistics of 1945 …”

        tree, I’m using the same source Village Statistics from the same site:
        48,5%: Arabs
        5,67%: Jews
        5,67%: Public
        40,16%: unassigned, uncultivable lands in the Bersheeba district.
        link to palestineremembered.com

        All of Palestine should have been colored green. It’s not a question of private ownership, but of the COLLECTIVE rights of ALL citizens of pre 48 Palestine whether Jews or Arabs. If the map was about Jewish and Arab PRIVATE land, the Negev desert or large parts of it would be blank. The first map is racist. It considers only land not privately owned by Jews as Palestine.

      • talknic
        October 14, 2013, 9:26 am

        @Talkback ” It’s not a question of private ownership, but of the COLLECTIVE rights of ALL citizens of pre 48 Palestine whether Jews or Arabs. “

        Correct. Private, corporate and institutionally owned land is ‘real estate’ not ‘territory’. Territory belongs to all its legitimate inhabitants whether they own real estate, lease real estate or are homeless living under a bridge.

      • tree
        October 14, 2013, 6:51 pm

        Talkback,

        Talback, your error seems to be that have totally ignored footnote 3 which explains the meaning of the heading “unassigned , uncultivable lands in the Beersheva district” and thus you assumed that that figure was a figure for non-privately owned land.

        Here is note 3 from your linked page:

        This vast area appears in the “Village Statistics” under the separate column of ‘Uncultivable Land’ as distinct from areas appearing under the column of ‘Public’ because any rights the Government may have claimed therein had not been settled before the end of the Mandate.

        So in other words, this was NOT considered public land but merely “uncultivable land” which the government’s possible claims thereto had not been legally settled during the British Mandate. It purposefully did NOT include these figures under “public lands”. Uncultivable land is not synonymous with public land or state land. In most cases it is land that is in the possession of villages and individuals and used for grazing herds of animals. As my link on the discussion of miri lands above shows, uncultivable land is not ipso facto “state land” and can be owned by both individuals and communal groups.

        The later official British Survey of Palestine 1947 clearly indicated that the British government recognized that 24+ million dunams of the 26+ million dunams of land that comprised Mandate Palestine was privately held by Palestinian Arabs. You are simply misinterpreting the figures you cite.

        Its estimated that 10,000,000 of the 12,000,000 dunams of the Negev were owned by Bedouin tribes, who grazed their animals on it and cultivated portions of the tracts that allowed the raising of crops. See my post above for the cite.

        The first map is racist. It considers only land not privately owned by Jews as Palestine.

        No, it considers only land not owned by a foreign corporation, the JNF, held in trust ostensibly for all Jews everywhere, and alienated by restrictive covenants from ownership, leasehold or tenantship from the vast majority of Palestinians as not part of Palestine. It is a map showing land purchased by a foreign corporation for foreign, non-Palestinian, interests as not Palestinian owned land. The racism is on the other foot.

      • tree
        October 14, 2013, 7:13 pm

        Talback, I would also recommend that you read the pages that follow the one that you linked.

        See here:

        link to palestineremembered.com

        Those pages go on to explain the defects of using the term “uncultivable” as a synonym for “not individually owned”. What it primarily meant in term of the governing British was that “uncultivable” land was not taxed, regardless of its ownership.

      • Sibiriak
        October 15, 2013, 9:08 am

        @tree: Excellent, informative posts, answering some questions I’ve had for a long time.

        it considers only land not owned by a foreign corporation, the JNF, held in trust ostensibly for all Jews everywhere, and alienated by restrictive covenants from ownership, leasehold or tenantship from the vast majority of Palestinians as not part of Palestine.

        Crucial points: that we are talking about land owned and controlled by a foreign *corporation*, the JNF–not individual Jewish Palestinians–and that those lands were *alienated* from non-Jewish Palestinians by the various means you mentioned and for Zionist purposes.

      • Hostage
        October 13, 2013, 10:42 pm

        The yellow represents land purchased legally in Palestine by Jews presumably. Why does that represent a loss of Palestine itself? . . . The first map is utterly racist

        Let’s see, the British betrayed their Arab allies, seized control of the country, and imposed new land laws at the point of a bayonet. They did that in order to enable the JNF to buy-up the breadbasket of Palestine, dispossess or displace the former, tenured Arab cultivators, and “nationalize” as much land as possible – right out from under the feet of the Palestinian fellahin. They did that using the Zionist policy of “The Conquest of Labor” (a combination in the form of trust or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce based on Jewish nationality).

        After all that, how can you still manage to conclude the victims of blatant colonialism are racists?

      • Sibiriak
        October 15, 2013, 9:14 am

        Hostage:

        Let’s see, the British betrayed their Arab allies, seized control of the country, and imposed new land laws at the point of a bayonet. They did that in order to enable the JNF to buy-up the breadbasket of Palestine, dispossess or displace the former, tenured Arab cultivators, and “nationalize” as much land as possible – right out from under the feet of the Palestinian fellahin. They did that using the Zionist policy of “The Conquest of Labor” (a combination in the form of trust or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce based on Jewish nationality).

        Brilliant summation!

    • tree
      October 13, 2013, 12:46 pm

      Can someone explain the first map. It should be 100% green. The yellow represents land purchased legally in Palestine by Jews presumably.

      Why does that represent a loss of Palestine itself?

      You are still stuck in Zionist framing. tbk. The yellow on the first map indicates land purchased by Zionists and the JNF, which was alienated from the individual Palestinian tenant farmers by restrictive covenants placed on it by the JNF and oft-times violently enforced. The green represents land that was privately owned by Palestinian individuals and communally-owned by Palestinian villages. Despite Mike Konrad’s assertion that most of the land was state owned, Hostage is right. The Ottoman Empire did not have huge tracts of “state land” similar to what exists in both the United States and in Israel, after its ethnic cleansing campaigns which further alienated private Palestinian owned land. Israel not only confiscated the land of those it drove out of its claimed territory, but also confiscated over 65% of the land of the 20% of the Palestinians who managed to remain, or return to, the land that became Israel’s territorial domain.

      I’ll repeat again a statement i have made several times before:

      According to the official British Survey of Mandate Palestine, issued in 1945, private ownership of land by non-Jewish Palestinians encompassed 24 million dunams (approximately 90% of Mandate Palestine), while Jewish land ownership was only 1.5 million dunams ( approximately 5%).

      Even the Jewish National Fund admitted this in 1949:

      The Jewish National Fund made a study of Jewish villages in Israel in 1949 and stated:(9)

      Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000- 400,000 dunams – apart from the desolate rocky area of the southern Negev, at present quite unfit for cultivation – are State Domain which the Israel Government took over from the Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunams. Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The J.N.F., however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the Government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel.

      link to palestine-encyclopedia.com

      Whereas Israel considers the land “Jewish Land” because a few millenia ago there was a Jewish presence on the land (or because “G-d gave it to them) and thus it claims that Jews from any where in the world have exclusive rights to it, the Palestinians consider the land “Arab Lands” because they were private held by Palestinian Arabs prior to Israel’s confiscation of their land. This was justified by Israel solely on the fact that the owners were not Jewish. Palestinians have no concept of the land belonging to all Arabs everywhere that is similar to the ethnic beliefs of Zionist Jews. Arabs from Yemen or Morocco or Egypt or Saudi Arabia have no “ethnic right” to the land, only the land’s rightful owners have such a right. This seems to be your issue because you can’t understand the difference in viewpoint, and seem to assume that everyone thinks like Zionist Jews do.

  23. DICKERSON3870
    October 12, 2013, 4:53 pm

    RE: “Grief . . . argues that the 1920 San Remo conference gave Jews sovereignty over all of historical Palestine. Extremist Zionist groups are now embracing Grief’s theory . . .” ~ Annie Robbins

    MY COMMENT: Apparently Jackie Mason also embraces Grief’s theory. In the comment below*, the “half of our land” that he says Israel gave up to make peace is apparently Jordan!

    * JACKIE MASON:

    [EXCERPT] I see it the way every Jew sees it. Palestinians just have a false feeling that the Jews are taking over their land when in fact they’re taking over the Israeli land. They [the Palestinians] don’t belong there… historically, biblically, throughout– by every principle, by every standard, everybody knows, It’s the Jewish land… So you try to make peace with them… And no matter how much we gave up, no matter in what ways we acquiesce– by literally giving up half of our land [apparently referring to Jordan - J.L.D.], it still can’t satisfy them.
    Because they feel Jews don’t belong there at all, and they’re determined to destroy them if they stay there.” . . .

    SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net

    • DICKERSON3870
      October 12, 2013, 4:56 pm

      P.S. Jackie Mason has never impressed me. He strikes me as a particularly obtuse combination of Joan Peters and Benzion Netanyahu**.

      ** SEE – “Bibi’s Father’s Answer to the ‘Arab Problem': Hang’ Em in the Town Square”, By Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 4/04/09

      [EXCERPTS] Imagine, if you will, if Barack Obama’s real father was Rev. Jeremiah Wright and imagine, if you will, that Wright gave an eight-page interview to USA Today the week of Obama’s inauguration. Then you can imagine the “interest” with which such a ‘Maariv’ interview with Bibi Netanyahu’s father was met in Israeli circles.
      Noam Sheizaf, who works for Maariv, has translated portions of the interview . . .
      . . . And without further ado, I give you, Ben Zion Netanyahu, the father of the man:
      [EXCERPTS] . . . • Question: You don’t like the Arabs, to say the least.
      Benzion Netanyahu: “The Bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases.
      The tendency towards conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetuate war.”. . .
      . . . • Question: Is there any hope of peace?
      Benzion Netanyahu: …No…The two states solution doesn’t exist. There are no two people here. There is a Jewish people and an Arab population… there is no Palestinian people, so you don’t create a state for an imaginary nation… they only call themselves a people in order to fight the Jews.”
      • Question: So what’s the solution?
      Benzion Netanyahu: “No solution but force… strong military rule. Any outbreak will bring upon the Arabs enormous suffering. We shouldn’t wait for a big mutiny to start, but rather act immediately with great force to prevent them from going on…
      If it’s possible, we should conquer any disputed territory in the land of Israel. Conquer and hold it, even if it brings us years of war. We should conquer Gaza, and parts of the Galil, and the Golan. This will bring upon us a bloody war. . .” . . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to richardsilverstein.com

      • MRW
        October 12, 2013, 9:11 pm

        What an ugly person Benzion Mileikowsky is. Mean mind. Small mind. Where does Netanyahu/Mileikowsky think he’s going to get this tremendous ‘force’ that he insists must be used against the Arabs? It shows he’s deluded.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2013, 3:20 am

        “The Bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases.”

        And yet very few Arabs live in the desert. Most of them live in cities or on farms, and have done for generations. So BN is not even talking about real Arabs.

  24. W.Jones
    October 12, 2013, 5:18 pm

    I think it was Norman Finkelstein who said the West bank is not disputed because there is no basis for the Israeli State to claim it.

  25. MHughes976
    October 12, 2013, 5:57 pm

    Well I’d quite like to see an argument that ‘this is Jewish land’ under normal moral principles. I never have seen even the beginnings of a seriously argued case.
    I think it’s important to keep reminding people that ‘Palestine’ is the only attested name for the whole of modern Palestine in ancient geography. However there’s no denying that the Hasmonean and Herodian kings at one time ruled most of it and some lands beyond. Why on earth should that sort of thing affect anyone’s rights here and now?

    • RoHa
      October 13, 2013, 4:22 am

      If we stick with normal moral principles, I have never seen the beginnings of a seriously argued case for Zionism and the creation of Israel, either.

    • NickJOCW
      October 13, 2013, 12:13 pm

      Herod, surely, was a Roman client king. That’s little more than a governor with a special hat.

      • MRW
        October 13, 2013, 2:02 pm

        NickJOCW,

        Herod was Rome’s tax collector in Palestine. His daughter or grand-daughter was Flavius Titus’ mistress after her first husband died young. And her first husband was Marcus Alexander, the son of the richest man in Palestine who was another tax collector for Rome. Herod, Alexander, and Titus were tight.

      • MHughes976
        October 15, 2013, 12:12 pm

        Roman taxes were not paid in territories ruled by Herodian kings – it was the temporary transfer of the Jerusalem region to direct Roman rule after Herod the Great’s death that led to the imposition of Roman taxes and to the fateful revolt of Judas of Galilee. I think that the Herodians should be thought of as key allies of Rome, themselves Roman citizens of the highest rank outside the Senate and much more important than junior Senators in that they had close connections with the both the dynasties, Caesarian and Flavian, that ran Rome. Poor old Pontius Pilate was a flunky in comparison with Antipas the Tetrarch. Tiberius Alexander was the leader of the pro-Roman faction among the Jews, a senior officer of the Roman armed forces and Governor of Egypt, a very serious job. Titus had to send Berenice (we’d call her Veronica) away from Rome because she was the love of his life and the Senate was furious at rumours that he intended to marry her. If they had married when she was of childbearing age they might have had a son who would have been the first Jewish king to reign in Europe, making history different! Both the Hasmoneans and the Herodians believed that the future of Judaea lay with Rome but they had quite a lot of freedom of action.
        So I’m happy to say that Palestine was for a time ruled, at least to a significant extent, by dynasties of clearly Jewish character. But the change in political control or loss of a dominant position is not the same as expulsion of populations, the kind of human tragedy that the Palestine Map calls us to remember. Moreover, the way in which power changed hands in the ancient world has no bearing on the rights of living individuals now.
        Hadrian’s counter-insurgency in a later generation certainly had tragic results for many real people and should not be forgotten but once again it does not determine the rights and wrongs of now.

  26. Philip Munger
    October 12, 2013, 6:32 pm

    Where does the claim come from that award of the League Mandate of Transjordan to some future Zionist entity was ever credibly part of any accepted document involving territorial transfer from Ottoman to League control after WWI? Churchill’s Cairo Conference of 1921 doesn’t appear to have included any Zionists:

    The Cairo Conference of March 1921 was convened by Winston Churchill, then Britain’s Colonial Secretary. With the mandates of Palestine and Iraq awarded to Britain, Churchill wished to consult with Middle East experts. At his request, Gertrude Bell, Sir Percy Cox, T. E. Lawrence, Sir Kinahan Cornwallis, Sir Arnold T. Wilson, Iraqi minister of war Jaʿfar alAskari, Iraqi minister of finance Sasun Effendi (Sasson Heskayl), and others gathered in Cairo, Egypt. An additional outstanding question was the policy to be adopted in Transjordan to prevent anti-French military actions from being launched within the allied British zone of influence. The Hashemites were Associated Powers during the war, and a peaceful solution was urgently needed. The two most significant decisions of the conference were to offer the throne of Iraq to Emir Faisal ibn Hussein (who became Faisal I of Iraq) and an emirate of Transjordan (now Jordan) to his brother Abdullah ibn Hussein (who became Abdullah I of Jordan). The conference provided the political blueprint for British administration in both Iraq and Transjordan, and in offering these two regions to the sons of Sharif Hussein ibn Ali of the Hedjaz, Churchill stated that the spirit, if not the letter, of Britain’s wartime promises to the Arabs might be fulfilled. After further discussions between Churchill and Abdullah in Jerusalem, it was mutually agreed that Transjordan was accepted into the mandatory area as an Arab country apart from Palestine with the proviso that it would be, initially for six months, under the nominal rule of the Emir Abdullah and that it would not form part of the Jewish national home to be established west of the River Jordan.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Danny Ayalon created a bizarre Youtube back in July 2011 that showed Transjordan as part of Israel, and I wrote about it then:

    link to my.firedoglake.com

    And – why doesn’t the Stand With Us set of maps not show this one, posted at the Chabad web site?

    link to chabadinfo.com

  27. Mayhem
    October 12, 2013, 6:36 pm

    This campaign that counters these fallacious maps that the pro-Palestinian propagandists shove in our faces makes a lot of sense for Zionists keen to give people a quick pictorial rendition of what has actually been going on historically in this part of the world.
    Notwithstanding Robbins histerical(sic) reaction it cannot be denied that the maps depicted are valid. The one in the middle showing 1920 illustrates the hope at the time for a Jewish homeland that would have encompassed the entire Palestine Mandate. Even thought those hopes quickly faded under the harsh light of reality, as the British and French carved off large chunks to keep the Arabs happy, the fact remains that the entire region west of the Jordan river remained as the candidate area for a Jewish homeland, despite Robbins insinuations to the contrary.
    It may have been the case that the area west of the river was not intended to be 100% Jewish, but it was indisputably earmarked to be a Jewish homeland. What with the Arabs’ efforts to stop the Jews establishing their Jewish homeland (or Jewish state) the fact remains that the area west of the river remained as this integral entity called Palestine, that was to encompass a Jewish home(land).
    I made this same point recently at link to mondoweiss.net and all Shingo could do was shout false without any justification. Furthermore Hostage also came to the party with some comments link to mondoweiss.net.
    At the time I responded to this paragraph that Hostage had quoted from the Churchill White Paper of 1922.

    Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine’.’

    I thought it was interesting to note how what had been expressed in the White Paper pandered so much to the Arabists. I draw particular attention to the following section:

    as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine

    This statement is truly ironic and extraordinarily hypocritical as subsequent history has shown us that these Arabs, so worried about the preservation of their own Arabic population, language or culture went ahead and ensured the disappearance or the subordination of the Jewish population, language, or culture in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, Syria, Bahrain, Aden and Yemen.
    Israel today is not exclusively Jewish and has never intended itself to be exclusively Jewish. Its Declaration of Independence states

    WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

    And no the Palestinians – Arabs who occupied the area that was the Palestine Mandate – had to prevent Jews from taking up residency in what was earmarked to be a Jewish homeland, when they had plenty of opportunity to settle on those parts of the Mandate that were carved off to create Syrian, Jordan and Lebanon exclusively for the benefit of the Arabs.
    When we arrived at the impasse in 1947 the United Nations Partition Plan was tabled to deal with the fact that the state of Palestine could not remain as a single entity housing both Jews and Arabs; it was pretty evident by then that the Arabs did not want to live together with a significant Jewish presence.
    If the Palestinians had wanted a state, as I have said was there for the taking in 1947, why did they not accept the Partition Plan? That act of abnegation in itself demonstrated any willingness of the Arabs to accept a significant Jewish presence in the region. The Arabs have never been prepared to tolerate a Jewish home in Palestine. That is why Netanyahu keeps on insisting that the Palestinians today acknowledge Israel’s right to be a Jewish state.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 12, 2013, 11:57 pm

      cannot be denied that the maps depicted are valid. The one in the middle showing 1920 illustrates the hope at the time for a Jewish homeland that would have encompassed…

      ahh, now that makes more sense. a map of hope at the time. i confused the words “jewish land” (the blue part) as an allegation of something already established.

      it was pretty evident by then that the Arabs did not want to live together with a significant Jewish presence.

      listen up: link to youtube.com

      and the zionists?

      • tree
        October 13, 2013, 12:32 am

        it was pretty evident by then that the Arabs did not want to live together with a significant Jewish presence.

        The problem was not the presence, it was the European Jews actions that upset the Palestinians, demanding rule over a country in which they were both a minority and foreigners. It was creation of covenants on JNF land that prohibited any labor on the land that was not Jewish, it was the JNFcovenants that made it illegal to ever sell the land to a non Jew. It was the attempts to force the British Mandate government to hire Jews over non Jews and to pay Jews more for the exact same work. It was Zionist boycotts against Jews buying Arab goods or employing Arab labor(“conquest of labor”), it was Zionist refusal to join in any Mandate Legislative body unless the Zionist Jews (originally less than 10% of the Mandate population) were given one half of the legislative seats. It was the racism of the European Jews who saw both the non Jewish Arabs and the Jewish ones as lesser human beings.

        If any group had tried that cr*p in the US they would have been ridden out of town on a rail. The Zionists were extremely lucky. They were brutal and racist a**holes, and they got away with it.

        The Zionists didn’t accept the Partition Plan. They “accepted” a Jewish State, which was merely “accepting” what they wanted in the first place, which they proceeded to expand and ethnically cleanse in direct violation of the UN Partition Plan. It was evident from the very beginning of Zionism that it had no intention of sharing the land with non Jews. Everything it has done since simply reiterates that fact.

      • Citizen
        October 13, 2013, 2:45 am

        @ Annie Robbins

        Yep. Mayhem sees a map of historic Zionist hope in the contemporary Zionist poster, and we can all see it’s not revealed as such to living viewers.

      • Mayhem
        October 13, 2013, 7:33 pm

        @annie, can I have the right of reply? Ilan Pappe is a revisionist historian whose controversial and oft-discredited views has been discussed to death – your youtube adds nothing new to any discussion. More recently we have the incident where Abbas in speaking to the Egyptian media (July 28. 2010) had said, “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”.
        This unwillingness of Arabs to tolerate Jews long predates Zionism as I have posted on Mondoweiss before at link to mondoweiss.net

      • Annie Robbins
        October 13, 2013, 10:39 pm

        mayhem, i don’t know why you’re so bent on humping that abbas link. it got rejected before.

        link to ynetnews.com

        Note: Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency published on July 28 its version of Abbas’ briefing to the Egyptian media, quoting him as saying: “I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land”. This version was reprinted by Palestinian newspapers al-Quds and al-Hayat al-Jadida on July 30 and by other Arab newspapers.

        A few days later Wafa published a new version of Abbas’ interview to the Egyptian media, where he was quoted as saying: “We have no objection to the presence of a third party after the (Palestinian) state is established, and we don’t oppose that the third party will be NATO or any other force. However, I will not agree that an Israeli, even if he is a Muslim, will be present on my land, but I’ll agree only (to the presence) of a third party. The reason for that is stemmed in the fact that the Israeli is the heir of the occupation, while the presence of the third party is temporary as are the Multinational Forces in your country (Egypt) and UNIFIL in Lebanon.”

        look at the context. it’s completely out of character for abbas to say this cherry picked quote ofyours,and completely in context for him to reject any an Israeli, even if he is a Muslim, to be present in the capacity of a third party security force in palestine which was obviously his meaning.

        so no, this is a big fail and was corrected by wafa for the record. for why would he even make this statement smack dab in the middle of discussing nato forces? stop spamming and if a link/highjack is rejected don’t beg to include it if it’s off topic.

        of course ilan pappe is “oft-discredited” by zionists who are loath to acknowledge the ethnic cleansing of palestine. but pappe is a respected historian in most quarters, he used the british archives and did not fabricate dialogue/quotes. if you find any specific quotes in that video you think are false, state them. otherwise, you’re just using an ad homimen crutch.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2013, 10:46 pm

        Ilan Pappe is a revisionist historian whose controversial and oft-discredited views has been discussed to death – your youtube adds nothing new to any discussion.

        Yes, revisionist historians are the ones who exposed the Nakba. And what’s more, if you want to talk about who has been discredited, the same can be said for Benny Morris and the Karsh, who Morris describes as a useful idiot.

        More recently we have the incident where Abbas in speaking to the Egyptian media (July 28. 2010) had said, “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”.

        Which is perfectly reasonable. Israel doesn’t allow foreigners to live permanently in Israel so why should Palestine be any different? Of course, you think you can get away with conflating Israelis with Jews, which is typical of your dishonesty. Abbas and Erakat both said Jews could live there if they agreed to become citizens of Palestine.

        So to debunk your lies once again, this is not about unwillingness of Arabs to tolerate Jews.

      • talknic
        October 14, 2013, 12:19 am

        Mayhem ” .. Abbas .. said, “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”.
        This unwillingness of Arabs to tolerate Jews …”

        Conflating Israelis with Jews does nothing for your credibility.

        Try something else

      • Mayhem
        October 14, 2013, 5:52 pm

        My remarks Annie have hardly been off the topic as they have been aimed at getting readers to realise that Arab Muslim opposition to a significant Jewish presence in the region is endemic, continues to be and has been so long before the arrival of modern Zionism. Therein lies the root of the problem.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 14, 2013, 11:53 pm

        no the root of the problem is zionist jews wanting the land without the palestinian people who live there. obviously jews lived there and for the most part quite safely before zionism. political zionism is the problem.

        aimed at getting readers to realise that Arab Muslim opposition to a significant Jewish presence in the region is endemic

        yeah, we hear you. and we also know zionist leaders said there could be no jewish state without the demographics changing radically in their favor. so it’s really quite irrelevant to claim jews want palestinians out, but in a kinder, nobler, justifiable way, if that’s what you’re alluding to.

      • Shingo
        October 14, 2013, 11:58 pm

        My remarks Annie have hardly been off the topic as they have been aimed at getting readers to realise that Arab Muslim opposition to a significant Jewish presence in the region is endemic, continues to be and has been so long before the arrival of modern Zionism.

        When do you think Zionism arrived Mayhem?

      • Hostage
        October 15, 2013, 2:35 am

        Arab Muslim opposition to a significant Jewish presence in the region is endemic, continues to be and has been so long before the arrival of modern Zionism.

        The rest of the world agreed with them and outlawed colonialism. But why don’t you complain about the abolition of slavery, and piracy too while you’re at it?

      • James Canning
        October 15, 2013, 7:27 pm

        Surely Mayhem knows that ALL Arab countries have agreed to accept Israel within pre-1967 borders. ALL. Full stop.

      • James Canning
        October 15, 2013, 7:29 pm

        @Mayhem – – ALL Arab countries have agreed to accept Israel within pre-1967 borders. Probably no news to you.

      • talknic
        October 15, 2013, 9:46 pm

        Mayhem ” Arab Muslim opposition to a significant Jewish presence in the region..”

        You’re a lair. You know damned well that the Arab peace initiative has been totally ignored by the Israeli Government. It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions

        You know that the Palestinians have offered to accept and indeed declared a State on only 22% of their rightful territories. It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions

        From the Arab League Declaration on the invasion of Palestine

        “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed. link to mfa.gov.il

        Almost identical to the LoN Mandate giving Jews the right to establish a homeland as Palestinian Jews

        Try something else

        ” Therein lies the root of the problem.”

        The root of the problem lies in Zionist Colonist lies and those like yourself who perpetuate them.

        Proven liars like yourself deserve to be banned for lying. However it is wonderful that you afford time and again the opportunity to show readers just how low you and your kind are willing to go. Breaking the most basic of Judaisms tenets on behalf of the Jewish state is quite bizarre

        Keep up the good work

    • RoHa
      October 13, 2013, 3:32 am

      “The Arabs have never been prepared to tolerate a Jewish home in Palestine.”

      They were perfectly prepared to accept Jews making their homes in Palestine. They were not prepared to have their country divided up and a chunk given to the immigrants and their children, especially since any Arab left in that part (and there were to be plenty) would be either subjugated or expelled. The Partition plan was contrary to the express desire of the majority of the population of Palestine, and the U.N. set it aside.

      And what has happened since 1947 to make the Arabs think that having European Jews around the place would be anything but bad?

      “If the Palestinians had wanted a state, as I have said was there for the taking in 1947,”

      Israel seized part of the proposed Arab state, and worked hard to block the founding of a sate on the remainder.

      The fact is that if the Zionists had not wanted to take over part of Palestine, we would not have this problem. The Palestinians were living quietly in their own country. They did not go and stir up trouble in Poland or Brooklyn. It was the Zionists who came to Palestine and caused all the trouble.

      The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular had and have no moral obligation whatsoever to pander to the desires of Jews in general and Zionists in particular.

      But by their acts the Zionists have put themselves under a moral obligation to the Palestinians.

      • Mayhem
        October 14, 2013, 6:08 pm

        Back in 1989 I asked Nabil Shaath a question why the Palestinians did not accept the UN Partition Plan. He admitted that had been a mistake on their part, but the Palestinians should not be held forever to account for their blunder. At the time The Arab Higher Committee rejected both the majority and minority recommendations within the UNSCOP report. They “concluded from a survey of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or moral basis”. Adopting a selfish view like that so blatantly wrong no wonder their credibility became very questionable.
        The Palestinians have to acknowledge their mistakes and be prepared to accept the reality of Israel today. They cannot turn back the clock and undo history, but they can do something about their unwillingness to accept the existence of the Jewish state and make compromises that will bring their people beyond this impasse that they perpetually and obsessively inhabit. What the Palestinians may have wanted all this time they cannot get (Israel is not going to go way); their leaders need to be practical-minded and more realistic if they want to change the status quo and improve their situation.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 14, 2013, 11:55 pm

        compromise? why don’t you chain them to a wall and beat them to a bloody pulp first if you want more out of them mayhem. since obviously you have not taken enough. or steal their children in the middle of the night and torture them. how bout their honor and dignity, you want that too?

        f off.

      • Shingo
        October 15, 2013, 12:04 am

        They “concluded from a survey of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or moral basis”.

        That view was shared by the Allied Powers who stated categorically that there was no legal basis for territorial claims.

        The Palestinians have to acknowledge their mistakes and be prepared to accept the reality of Israel today.

        It was no mistake. Ben Gurion himself said that:

        “Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitute one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy”
        (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

        He also said that:

        “after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine”
        (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

        And

        “The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today–but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.”
        (Simha Flapan, p. 52-53)

        In other words, Ben Gurion stated shamelessly that even if the Arab had accepted the partition, it would not have made one iota of difference to the outcome.

      • Hostage
        October 15, 2013, 2:55 am

        At the time The Arab Higher Committee rejected both the majority and minority recommendations within the UNSCOP report.

        It’s a matter of public record that the Jewish Agency and Zionist Organization rejected the partition plan of the British Peel Commission and both the majority and minority UNSCOP reports too. The FRUS reports that:

        Rabbi Silver deemed the minority report unacceptable; nor did the majority report satisfy the Jewish people because of the limited area of the proposed Jewish state and the exclusion of Jerusalem from that state. Nevertheless, the Agency was willing to accept the majority report since it made possible the immediate reestablishment of the Jewish State. This acceptance was made subject to further discussion of constitutional and territorial provisions (pages 15-17).

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        That’s why the General Assembly had to turn right around and convene an Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine to incorporate all of the changes demanded by the Jews.

        The UNSCOP majority report gave the entire Negev to the Arab State and required both new states to hold elections and adopt democratic constitutions, including protections of equal rights for minorities, during a two year-long waiting period prior to independence. By those standards, Israel still wouldn’t be considered ready for self-government – and Israel should be held forever to account for that situation.

      • talknic
        October 15, 2013, 11:28 pm

        Mayhem “They “concluded from a survey of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or moral basis”. Adopting a selfish view like that so blatantly wrong”

        What moral or legal claim did Zionists have to claim a state? None in the Balfour declaration, None in the LoN Mandate for Palestine. They were given an OPPORTUNITY to declare a state. They accepted that opportunity and immediately despoiled it trying to acquire even more territory.

        “no wonder their credibility became very questionable”

        By who? Delusional Zionist propagandists who’re so practiced at spreading false information they believe it themselves?

        “The Palestinians have to acknowledge their mistakes and be prepared to accept the reality of Israel today”

        The reality of today is that Israel is a pariah state with troops and illegal settlers outside its actual borders for 65 years. A state that can no longer afford to adhere to the law because of all its illegal facts on the ground. A state that can only bully and delay and continue to break the law because of the US UNSC veto vote, in the hope of breaking a Palestinian will that will not be broken

        “They cannot turn back the clock and undo history”

        Uh? WTF are Zionist colonizers trying to do ?

        “but they can do something about their unwillingness to accept the existence of the Jewish state “

        No one has ever recognized Israel other than by it’s actual name “the State of Israel” link to pages.citebite.com and; although they have no legal obligation to recognize anyone, they have in fact recognized the State of Israel. It wasn’t enough another brick had to be put in the wall.

        “and make compromises”

        So that Israel can keep territories it has illegally acquired by war? WHY? Thus far Israel has never made a single compromise. It has only taken and demanded more.

        “that will bring their people beyond this impasse that they perpetually and obsessively inhabit. “

        It is Israel refusing to stop taking non-Israeli territory, refusing to stop ILLEGAL settlements, refusing to adhere to the law that causes the impasse

        “What the Palestinians may have wanted all this time…”

        …their rights under the laws Israel agreed to uphold.

        Your post is nothing but Ziopoop for idiots. Every time you try your schtick here you’re affording the opportunity to show readers how transparent and nonsensical the Zionist arguments are.

        Keep up the good work

      • RoHa
        October 16, 2013, 12:19 am

        ‘They “concluded from a survey of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or moral basis”. Adopting a selfish view like that so blatantly wrong…’

        For the sake of MHughes976 and myself, could you spell out the moral basis for the Zionist claims to the country?

      • eljay
        October 16, 2013, 7:52 am

        >> The Palestinians have to acknowledge their mistakes and be prepared to accept the reality of Israel today.

        And the Israelis have to acknowledge their past and on-going (war) crimes – including terrorism, ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization, torture and murder – and honour their obligations under international law.

        >> … they can do something about their unwillingness to accept the existence of the Jewish state

        “Jewish State” is a supremacist construct. No-one – not even the Palestinians – should be expected or required to “accept the existence” of a supremacist state.

        Palestinians – and Israelis – should, however, accept the existence of a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state (within its / Partition borders) alongside a secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestinian state (within its / Partition borders).

        >> … make compromises that will bring their people beyond this impasse that they perpetually and obsessively inhabit.

        And Zio-supremacist Jews need to make compromises that will bring them beyond the sense of entitlement to a supremacist “Jewish State” of “Greater” Israel that they perpetually and obsessively inhabit.

    • Misterioso
      October 13, 2013, 4:40 pm

      The illegal (i.e., in violation of the established legal maxim Nemo dat quod non habet – nobody can give what he does not possess) Balfour Declaration did not call for a Jewish state or “homeland” in Palestine. It recommended the founding of a Jewish “national home,” which is neither a “homeland” nor a state. No one understood this better than Chaim Weizmann: “The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was built on air.”

      You also ignore the all important fact that the 1922 League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate, i.e, Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens could assume democratic self-rule. There was no call for a Jewish state/homeland or any form of partition.

      Regarding the the 1947 Partition Plan:
      Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan for good reasons founded in international law. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% were of foreign origin, only 30% had taken out citizenship, tens of thousands were illegal immigrants) and owned less that 6% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, illegal, contrary to the terms of the British Class A Mandate, never adopted by the UNSC) outrageously recommended they be given 56% of Palestine (including its most fertile areas) in which Palestinians made up 45% of the population. (10% of Palestine’s total Jewish population consisted of native anti-Zionist Palestinian/Arab Jews).

      Although native Palestinian citizens made up at least 69% of the population and owned over 94% of the land, the Partition Plan recommended they have a mere 42% as a state. (The 2% of Palestine comprised of Jerusalem, East and West, and Bethlehem was to be a corpus separatum under international control). No wonder the utterly unjust and illegal Partition Plan was rejected by Palestinians. Indeed, it proved so unworkable that when Polish born David Ben-Gurion (nee, David Gruen) et al. declared the “Jewish State” of Israel effective 15 May 1948 (after Jewish forces had already expelled and dispossessed 400,000 Palestinians per the Jewish Agency’s Plan Dalet), the UNGA, as requested by the Truman administration, was in the process of shelving the Partition Plan in favor of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine. When war erupted due to the necessity of intervention by the outnumbered and outgunned Arab state armies to stem the accelerating expulsion of Palestinians, a US proposed cease-fire was accepted by the Arab League but rejected by Israel.

      During the ensuing war Israel seized 78% of Palestine, expelled a further 400,000 Palestinians and destroyed over 500 of their towns and villages, including churches, mosques and cemeteries.

      BTW, just before and during Israel’s first invasion of Egypt in 1956, the IDF drove out about 25,000 more Palestinians and during and after the war it launched on 5 June 1967, Israel expelled a further approximately 250,000 Palestinians and tens of thousands later.

    • Talkback
      October 13, 2013, 6:19 pm

      Mayhem: “It was pretty evident by then that the Arabs did not want to live together with a significant Jewish presence. … If the Palestinians had wanted a state, as I have said was there for the taking in 1947, why did they not accept the Partition Plan?”

      Stupid question. The majority of Palestinians wanted the independence and unity of their state, not its partition. So what really “pretty evident” is, is that Zionist didn’t want to live together with a significant Nonjewish presence and started to terrorize them after the Whitebook of 1939 sem to have ended their wet dreams. Why do you think that they needed a war to conquer Palestine and still keep Nonjews expelled and denationalized?

      • Shingo
        October 14, 2013, 12:15 am

        “If the Palestinians had wanted a state, as I have said was there for the taking in 1947, why did they not accept the Partition Plan?”

        Ben Gurion said that those who rejected partition were right to do so. He said that Palestine was one economic, and geographical unit that could not be divided.

        Does that mean Ben Gurion did not want a state?

    • talknic
      October 14, 2013, 12:34 am

      @ Mayhem
      “it cannot be denied that the maps depicted are valid”

      They’re ENTIRELY irrelevant. The State of Israel was proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 and recognized thus. Israel has not since legally acquired ANY further territory.

      “If the Palestinians had wanted a state, as I have said was there for the taking in 1947, why did they not accept the Partition Plan?”

      If foreigners wanted to divide Israel now and give half of it to the Inuit you’d be OK with that?

      “That act of abnegation in itself demonstrated any willingness of the Arabs to accept a significant Jewish presence in the region

      Jews living in the region for 2,000 years or so between the Roman era and the beginning of the Zionist Federation push to colonize Palestine demonstrates otherwise

      “That is why Netanyahu keeps on insisting that the Palestinians today acknowledge Israel’s right to be a Jewish state”

      Makes no difference to there being a Jewish State. It’s a nonsense demand with no legal basis. States plead to be recognized. They do not demand. And no state has recognized the State of Israel by anything other than its OFFICIAL NAME, the State of Israel

    • talknic
      October 14, 2013, 12:47 am

      @ mayhem Israel today is not exclusively Jewish and has never intended itself to be exclusively Jewish. Its Declaration of Independence states

      WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

      As if they didn’t know Jewish forces were already razing non-Jewish homes both in the territory slated for the Jewish state and in territory not slated for the Jewish state.

      The Declaration also said they intended there to be a constitution ..

      The Declaration also enshrined UNGA res 181

      The Declaration also said the State of Israel was the official name

      The Declaration also said the State of Israel would adhere to the UN Charter

      The Jewish state, the State of Israel has failed to adhere to its word.

  28. Nevada Ned
    October 13, 2013, 12:33 am

    What’s downright weird is the claim by StandWithUS that because some ancestors of modern Jews existed thousands of years ago in the area of modern Israel and Palestine, “therefore” the only people with any right to be there are Jews.
    The ancestors of the modern Palestinians lived in that area also, as noted in the Bible (where they were called Philistines or Canaanites). What about the Palestinians? Their claim to the land is at least as strong as the Jewish claim, IMHO. Palestinians had ancestors there in Biblical times, and have lived in modern Palestine for centuries or millennia.

    But to StandByUs, there is only one group with any right to live there: Jews, but not Palestinians, who are the wrong race.

    One of the pro-Israel trolls, Mayhem, claims that the Palestinians should have accepted partition in 1947. Why did the Palestinians reject an exclusively Jewish state? Because it meant the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, as both Palestinians and the Zionists understood.

    To clarify:
    Suppose that the US were to proclaim itself to be “the sovereign state of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) People.” Anyone who objects is “denying the US right to exist as a WASP state”, or maybe just “threatening the US right to exist”, and therefore “threatening to throw the WASPS into the sea”. Etc etc,.

    As it happens, just over 50 years ago, Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream”
    speech, during the 1963 March on Washington. King was a revolutionary who overthrew the Southern Way of Life and its alleged virtues. Instead of proclaiming that Alabama and Mississippi and the other former Confederate States had a “right to exist as White states”, King held out as a goal the overcoming of racism, and the overcoming of the deeply entrenched system of Jim Crow segregation.
    Most southern whites supported the Jim Crow racist system.
    The people who most resemble yesterday’s southern racists are today’s Israeli Jews. Both southern whites and today’s Israeli Jews are upholding systems of racial oppression, in both cases with the support of religious authority.
    Of course, not all Israeli Jews support the oppression of the Palestinians, but most do.
    Just as not all southern whites supported Jim Crow, but most did.

    • Misterioso
      October 13, 2013, 4:22 pm

      Let’s not forget that the United Kingdom of Israel lasted a mere 73 years, less than a blip in the history of Canaan/Palestine. BTW, thus far, there is no archaeological proof (or more importantly in the writings of contemporaneous civilizations) that David or Solomon ever existed.

  29. Citizen
    October 13, 2013, 2:58 am

    This StandWithUs poster is a good example of what is known as “The Big Lie.”

    As far as I know, Hitler, in ’23 or ’24, first set this manipulative action (to gain hearts and minds) down in print:

    All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true in itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

    –Mein Kampf, Chapter 10
    link to gutenberg.net.au

    Goebbels embellished on this, adding the operating propaganda principle that the Big Lie had to be constantly repeated. And his other mentor, Bernays, relative of Freud, developed it de facto in his invention of modern Marketing techniques, e.g., those long-legged beauties smoking cigarettes.

    It goes almost without saying (although Hitler spelled it out, again, in Mein Kampf–dividing the human audience into three types) that all three men had a very low opinion of the average human.

    • NickJOCW
      October 13, 2013, 12:32 pm

      You might like to add this to the list:

      Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Herman Goering, the Nuremberg Trials 1948

      • Citizen
        October 13, 2013, 4:15 pm

        @ NickJOCW
        Yep. Herman Goering’s ghost must have had a lot of belly laughs looking at how Americans have so energetically supported his POV in the last dozen years or so.

  30. Citizen
    October 13, 2013, 4:12 am

    The Big Lie can also be seen in the way the US mainstream media frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–context given: like an endless boxing match between two evenly matched contenders for the title: link to counterpunch.org

  31. Misterioso
    October 13, 2013, 4:19 pm

    This pathetic attempt by the Zionists to invent history is unbelievable, nonsensical, and so easy to refute.

    Just a few facts:
    Jordan (referred to as Transjordan by the Allies after WWI) was not part of Palestine. As Ottoman maps attest, today’s Jordan was administered separately from Palestine, the dividing line being the Jordan River. Known to locals as Al Baqa, the area east of the Jordan River, which became the Emirate of Transjordan in 1923 (as partial fulfillment of Britain’s pledge in the July 1915 to March 1916 Hussein/McMahon correspondence to grant the Arabs independence – including Palestine – in exchange for what proved to be their invaluable assistance in defeating the Turks during WWI) was part of the Turkish vilayet (province) of Syria. The area west of the river was governed by the Ottomans as three sanjaks (sub provinces), two of which (Acre and Nablus) formed part of the vilayet of Beirut, while the third was the independent sanjak of Jerusalem.

    The 1922 League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate,
    i. e, Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule. By incorporating the Balfour Declaration the mandate did facilitate Jewish immigration to “secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home,” but it did not call for the creation of a sovereign Jewish state or homeland in Palestine or any form of partition. This was made very clear in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”

    Furthermore, regarding the British Mandate, as approved by the Council of the League of Nations, the British government declared: “His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.” (Command Paper, 1922)

  32. Abdul-Rahman
    October 13, 2013, 7:37 pm

    These Zionist propagandists are indeed very “special” people!

    Reality versus their lies:

    “Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine’s ‘first partition’ has become part of the concept of ‘Greater Israel’ and of the ideology of Jabotinsky’s Revisionist movement.” Wasserstein, Bernard (2004). Israel and Palestine: Why They Fight and Can They Stop?, pp. 105–106.

    So basically these Zionist propagandist clowns are trying to play around with modern history that is really just involving how the modern Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan came into being (which is a separate history from this same general era of European colonialism in the region drawing the map of the modern Middle East we see today. Importantly that is a different specific “question”, than that of the “question” of Palestine that the British also were “grappling with” post ww2)

    Some relevant links there:

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Avi Shlaim “Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine” link to amazon.com

    etc.

    And to continue with the real history, we can note the mythology book in question (with a talking snake, talking trees, etc.) says the Canaanites where there in Canaan “first” anyway!

    Shlomo Sand “The Invention of the Jewish People” link to rafapal.com

    Shlomo Sand “The Invention of the Land of Israel” link to youtube.com

    Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik (link to eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org) “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses” link to gbe.oxfordjournals.org

    From Dr. Eran Elhaik’s Haaretz interview (of December 28, 2012) “The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. We are talking here about groups that are very heterogeneous and which are connected solely by religion.”

    “The majority of Jews do not have the Middle Eastern genetic component in the quantity we would expect to find if they were descendants of the Jews of antiquity.”

    link to salem-news.com (a copy of the original Haaretz article)

    And from October 8, 2013, University of Huddersfield (in the UK) geneticist Dr. Martin Richards (link to hud.ac.uk) “A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages” link to nature.com

    link to forward.com

    Jewish Women’s Genes Traced Mostly to Europe — Not Israel
    Study Hits Claim Ashkenazi Jews Migrated From Holy Land

    Dr. Eran Elhaik gave is own response to this very interesting new paper by Dr. Martin Richards and company (Costa et al. 2013) link to khazardnaproject.wordpress.com

    “Only autosomal analysis can be used to investigate recent events during which Judaism was formed. Jews and non-Jews residing in the regions of Khazaria are underrepresented, which biases the results toward Europe as we have seen in many other studies. The authors’ insistence on providing a single origin to all European Jews causes them to ignore major differences between Eastern and Central-Western European Jews and non-Jews that hinder a more complex explanation.” (the Khazar hypothesis there link to gbe.oxfordjournals.org)

    As for that supposed “migration” or as it is more commonly called the alleged “exile”, which is a MYTH! See the following:

    link to muse.jhu.edu “The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship” Professor Jacob Yuval

    link to jeremiahhaber.com “No, Rivkele, The Jews Weren’t Driven into Exile by the Romans”

    As Professor Sand correctly noted (and as Dr. Eran Elhaik confirmed) “But if there was no exile after 70 AD, where did all the Jews who have populated the Mediterranean since antiquity come from? The smokescreen of national historiography hides an astonishing reality. From the Maccabean revolt of the mid-2nd century BC to the Bar Kokhba revolt of the 2nd century AD, Judaism was the most actively proselytising religion. The Judeo-Hellenic Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans of southern Judea and the Itureans of Galilee and incorporated them into the people of Israel. Judaism spread across the Middle East and round the Mediterranean. The 1st century AD saw the emergence in modern Kurdistan of the Jewish kingdom of Adiabene, just one of many that converted.

    The writings of Flavius Josephus are not the only evidence of the proselytising zeal of the Jews. Horace, Seneca, Juvenal and Tacitus were among the Roman writers who feared it. The Mishnah and the Talmud (3) authorised conversion, even if the wise men of the Talmudic tradition expressed reservations in the face of the mounting pressure from Christianity.

    Although the early 4th century triumph of Christianity did not mark the end of Jewish expansion, it relegated Jewish proselytism to the margins of the Christian cultural world. During the 5th century, in modern Yemen, a vigorous Jewish kingdom emerged in Himyar, whose descendants preserved their faith through the Islamic conquest and down to the present day. Arab chronicles tell of the existence, during the 7th century, of Judaised Berber tribes; and at the end of the century the legendary Jewish queen Dihya contested the Arab advance into northwest Africa. Jewish Berbers participated in the conquest of the Iberian peninsula and helped establish the unique symbiosis between Jews and Muslims that characterised Hispano-Arabic culture.

    The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas. The expansion of Judaism from the Caucasus into modern Ukraine created a multiplicity of communities, many of which retreated from the 13th century Mongol invasions into eastern Europe. There, with Jews from the Slavic lands to the south and from what is now modern Germany, they formed the basis of Yiddish culture (4).”

    The pathetic propaganda of the Zionist buffoons over at “standwithus” really is only “appealing” to clowns like this: link to youtube.com

    “Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour” by Max Blumenthal

    Showing how analysis like this has much truth behind it in many ways: link to middleeastmonitor.com

  33. JohnAdamTurnbull
    October 13, 2013, 8:20 pm

    My current favorite fantasy map:

    link to chabadinfo.com

    He works in Ohio so I guess he likes the straight-line approach.

  34. Woody Tanaka
    October 13, 2013, 8:25 pm

    The zio picture is a joke. The first is a myth. The second is a lie (and, in fact, even if it reflected truth, the League of Nations actions were a crime against humanity anyway as ir had no right to give away Palestinian land to a bunch of Jews). The third’s use of “disputed” to label Palestine is the same as Holocaust denial.

  35. Talkback
    October 14, 2013, 8:28 am

    Woody Tanaka says: “The third’s use of “disputed” to label Palestine is the same as Holocaust denial.”

    All of historic Palestine is “disputed”. The Hasbarats only want to suggest that what they have conqured until 1967 isn’t.

  36. German Lefty
    October 14, 2013, 4:07 pm

    I didn’t read all of the comments. So, apologies if someone else already posted these hasbara maps:
    link to lh6.googleusercontent.com
    link to 1.bp.blogspot.com
    link to commons.wikimedia.org

    Some maps with explanations:
    link to hateandanger.files.wordpress.com
    link to i.stack.imgur.com

  37. Kathleen
    October 14, 2013, 6:42 pm

    Real Estate Company: Century 2000 B.C.
    Realtor: Yahweh
    Only Jews may apply

    What a bunch of bs.

Leave a Reply