210 Responses

  1. FreddyV
    January 10, 2014, 2:35 pm

    I bought a 1927 Palestine 5 Mil coin on Ebay. I keep it in my wallet.

    I’m just waiting for some Zionist to pull the “currency” question out of their arse from the Dry Bones Palestine Quiz.

    link to drybonesproject.com

    A guy called Tony Malone made a great rebuttal to this Hasbara nonsense here:

    link to dissidentvoice.org

    • Obsidian
      January 10, 2014, 4:25 pm

      I found a 5o mil coin near Palmahim using my metal detector ($120 on Ebay).

      The hebrew letters in parenthesis stand for Eretz Yisroel.

      • FreddyV
        January 11, 2014, 5:24 am

        Thanks for that, but what’s your point Obsidian? It says Eretz Yisroel AND Palestine. One certainly doesn’t negate the other. The various documents and instruments (Balfour / LON / Churchill White Paper, etc) would suggest that a dual name (similar to as it is currently known by those of good concience as Israel / Palestine) may have been a good solution to provide a homeland for the Jewish people without prejudicing the indigenous people already living there.

        I don’t think the problem lies with who lives there or what its called. The problem is with Zionism’s racist infrastructure demanding all the land and the disappearance of those who lived there before. That’s where they screwed up.

      • Obsidian
        January 11, 2014, 1:31 pm

        No it says Palestine (Eretz Yisroel).
        You know what parenthesis mean.

      • FreddyV
        January 11, 2014, 4:05 pm

        Yes, I’m fine with that. I live in the U.K. Some people define themselves as British, others are highly offended by that definition and wish to be called English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.

        My point is that Israelis could say they’re from Israel and Palestinians could say they’re from Palestine whilst they’re talking about the same place. Its only nomenclature…

      • James Canning
        January 12, 2014, 7:24 pm

        A Scot is a Brit. A Muslim Israeli is an Israeli, not a Palestinian. He or she might like to hope someday to be a Palestinian.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 4:19 pm

        No it says Palestine (Eretz Yisroel).
        You know what parenthesis mean.

        No, the use of the term Eretz Israel in any form or combination was specifically rejected by Herbert Samuel. link to mondoweiss.net

        The official Hebrew usage was only “Palestina (Aleph Yod)”. Zionists were thrown a sop as a compromise, deal with it.

      • FreddyV
        January 12, 2014, 11:21 am

        Thanks Hostage.

      • Hostage
        January 13, 2014, 1:23 pm

        A Scot is a Brit. A Muslim Israeli is an Israeli, not a Palestinian.

        The Israeli High Court of Justice begs to differ. There can be no Israeli nationality separate from the Jewish people according to HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26(1) 197). So, it’s something of a non-sequitur that the term “Israeli Arab” doesn’t apply to “the Jews from Arab Lands,” since they are the only possible candidates for that category.

      • ziusudra
        January 13, 2014, 2:10 pm

        Greetings James Canning,
        …. A Scot is a Brit……..
        No, James.
        The Scotti (Roman) & Brits (Gaelic) are gaelic.
        Britain was the land (tribes)of the Tin Diggers, gaelic for Tin.
        Ireland was/is the land (tribes)of the Copper Diggers, gaelic for cooper.
        The Anglo, Saxon & Jute tribes scatter the (male) Brits of Angeland in 441/
        449AD to Wales, Ireland & Scotland keeping the Gaelic meaning of the
        Isle. The DNA of the English today is Germanic/Scandanavian.
        ziusudra

      • James Canning
        January 13, 2014, 6:15 pm

        @Ziusudra – – I was referring to the situation today. A subject of the Queen, born in Scotland, may be called a Scot, and of course he or she is also British.

        On the historical front, the Scots originally were found in Irelend.

  2. marc b.
    January 10, 2014, 2:49 pm

    let me guess: the whole in the center of the coin represents the land without a people.

    • amigo
      January 10, 2014, 5:02 pm

      “let me guess: the whole in the center of the coin represents the land without a people.”marc b

      Or it represents “Zionism”.

      A void.

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2014, 5:31 am

        There was nobody there until 1882 when Theodor Herzl opened the first Toys r us. Fact.
        Anyone who disagrees is a cousin of John Demanjuk.

    • MahaneYehude1
      January 12, 2014, 4:27 pm

      @FredyV;

      My point is that Israelis could say they’re from Israel and Palestinians could say they’re from Palestine whilst they’re talking about the same place. Its only nomenclature…

      I agree with you. It is only nomenclature and both names are legitimate. If only I had your address I would enrich your coin collection. :-)

  3. Shuki
    January 10, 2014, 3:23 pm

    There you go again…

    The Palestinian Pound was issued by the British Government – not the fictitious country of palestine, and was used as currency throughout what is currently Israel AND Jordan.

    Last time I checked, Jordan had exactly zero jewish people living there and is significantly larger than israel. Yet, Israel is the one stealing land and engaging in ethnic cleansing.

    Delusional…

    • doug
      January 10, 2014, 4:04 pm

      Yeah, the British empire issued coins all around the world typically with the local name of the area. They must of pulled “Palestine” out of thin air.

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 10, 2014, 4:16 pm

      “The Palestinian Pound was issued by the British Government – not the fictitious country of Palestine, and was used as currency throughout what is currently Israel Occupied Palestine AND Jordan.”

      There. Fixed it for you, Shuki.

      “Last time I checked, Jordan had exactly zero jewish people living there”

      And if the zionist invaders hadn’t intended to steal the land from its rightful Arab owners, there could be today. Instead, the zios decided go the route of theft and attempted genocide. That the Jordanians pushed the Jews out of the West Bank is primarily the fault of the zionists.

      “Yet, Israel is the one stealing land and engaging in ethnic cleansing.”

      Correct. It is.

    • FreddyV
      January 10, 2014, 4:39 pm

      (FreddyV gets popcorn…..)

    • Hostage
      January 10, 2014, 4:49 pm

      There you go again… The Palestinian Pound was issued by the British Government – not the fictitious country of palestine, and was used as currency throughout what is currently Israel AND Jordan.

      We’ve already established that every single time someone challenged the Statehood of Mandate Palestine in an international court, they ended up on the losing end of the argument. link to mondoweiss.net

      In fact Great Britain didn’t even pay the costs for the paper, metal or manufacturing the Palestinian currency. That was all paid by the local population. See for example Palestine Administration Costs British Exchequer Nothing, Says Ormsby-Gore
      link to jta.org

      Great Britain was just an administering power. The Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne both required the new states that were separated from Turkey to pay a share of the Ottoman Public Debit. Not only did Great Britain refuse to pay, it actually stole the money from the Palestinians that had been collected for that purpose during WWI and made them pay again:
      *During WWI the British occupation administration misappropriated the funds that had been collected for The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt for payments to foreign bondholders. See the verbatim Parliamentary record on the Ottoman Public Debt: Bondholders’ Rights, HL Deb 21 May 1924 vol 57 cc545-56 The British Government recognized the liabilities to the foreign bondholders, including the Americans, but had no money to pay them, since the funds had already been spent elsewhere.

      The UK government went to an arbitration court to claim, among other things, that Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq were separate foreign states under mandate to the UK and that Great Britain was not responsible for their debts. Just so you’ll know, those so-called imaginary states overcame all the difficulties and repaid their debts.
      *Disputes over responsibility for debts, concessions, and the international status of the territories was resolved in a pair of 1925 international court rulings. “The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions” case, 1925.03.26: Judgment No. 5 (PCIJ, Ser. A., No. 5, 1925) and The Ottoman Public Debt case decided on April 18, 1925 by Eugène Borel, of Switzerland, who had been appointed Arbitrator by the Council of the League of Nations pursuant to the provisions of article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
      *The Arbitration case concerned the apportionment of the annuities of the Ottoman Public Debt among the various States whose territories, in whole or in part, had formerly belonged to Turkey and the shared costs of the arbitration under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. The ruling said:

      “The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.” — See Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948), “Affaire de la Dette publique ottomane. Bulgarie, Irak, Palestine, Transjordanie, Grèce, Italie et Turquie. Genève, 18 avril 1925″, pages 529-614

      *In 1962 the British government noted that the taxpayers of the States of Palestine and Jordan had settled their debts, but that Greece never had:

      In addition, the Greeks have a responsibility for a share of the Ottoman debt; for under the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, the successor States of the Ottoman Empire undertook to take their share. With the exception of Greece, all the others, Turkey, Syria, Palestine and Jordan, have, come to satisfactory and far from exigent terms with the Ottoman Debt Council, but negotiations with Greece have never been finalised.

      *The 1925 Judgment No. 5 of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case observed that the international obligations mentioned in the Mandate consisted solely of the Treaty of Lausanne which was applicable to Palestine:

      The provision, therefore, contained in Article 9 of Protocol XII, to the effect that Palestine is subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of contracting Powers other than Turkey, who are beneficiaries under the concessionary contracts entered into with the Ottoman authorities before October 29th, 1914, is applicable to M. Mavrommatis’ concessions.” …”The Mavrommatis concessions, having been recognized as valid, must, if they are to hold good as against the successor State in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol XII, be held by a subject of a contracting Power other than Turkey. Now it is common ground that M. Mavrommatis is a Greek subject and that Greece is one of the Contracting Powers in question.”

      • pabelmont
        January 10, 2014, 6:25 pm

        Good grief! UK confiscated money collected for another purpose (other than being confiscated)? Oh no! Shame, shame! What a bad example, and nowadays Israel confiscates so much — following UK’s example.

        If “Palestine” paid its debt twice, does this mean that there WAS a Palestine to pay the debt (twice)? And was it the Arab people (of that land without a people) who paid the debt (twice), or was it the newly arriving Jews? Who had the money to pay the debt (twice)?

        I knew a man who played oboe in the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, an orchestra whose players were only — or chiefly — Jews. What a funny name! “Palestine” orchestra. Who dreamed that up? Oh dear, oh dear. Palestine, a land without a people but with a symphony orchestra.

        Play them as they lie.

      • Hostage
        January 10, 2014, 7:11 pm

        If “Palestine” paid its debt twice, does this mean that there WAS a Palestine to pay the debt (twice)? And was it the Arab people who paid the debt (twice), or was it the newly arriving Jews? Who had the money to pay the debt (twice)?

        Turkey went bankrupt and the foreign bondholders set themselves up as the Ottoman Empire’s tax collector for the public debt. When the British took over Palestine, they didn’t shutdown the local office of public debt, but took custody of its assets. Payments were frozen, because some of the bondholders were citizens of enemy states. The money that was collected was spent elsewhere, so the Palestinians had to pay the assessment for the missing years once again.

        Of course this means that Palestine was a state from March of 1920 onward. The Arab agricultural sector was the main source of revenue at that time. Greece never paid it’s debt (and still gives bondholders haircuts today), but nobody questions its statehood.

      • abu afak
        January 11, 2014, 6:47 pm

        Hostage, you Conspicuously didn’t answer him
        Again:

        If “Palestine” paid its debt twice, does this mean that there WAS a Palestine to pay the debt (twice)? And was it the Arab people who paid the debt (twice), or was it the newly arriving Jews? Who had the money to pay the debt (twice)?

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 10:43 pm

        Hostage, you Conspicuously didn’t answer him
        Again: If “Palestine” paid its debt twice, does this mean that there WAS a Palestine to pay the debt (twice)?

        @ January 10, 2014 at 7:11 pm I very conspicuous answered in the affirmative: Of course this means that Palestine was a state from March of 1920 onward.

        And was it the Arab people who paid the debt (twice), or was it the newly arriving Jews?

        @ January 10, 2014 at 7:11 pm I very conspicuous answered: The Arab agricultural sector was the main source of revenue at that time.

        You should probably get your parents to explain that, if it still isn’t clear enough for you. The rest of us have moved on.

      • asherpat
        January 14, 2014, 4:16 am

        @Hostage,

        “The Arab agricultural sector was the main source of revenue at that time.” – care to show proof to this claim?

      • Hostage
        January 14, 2014, 8:48 am

        @Hostage, “The Arab agricultural sector was the main source of revenue at that time.” – care to show proof to this claim?

        Yes, I was talking about the period after the Armistice of Moudros was signed when the British were occupying the country and seized the assets of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration and the early post-war years.

        I already gave you links which explain that there are no reliable figures, because the statistical systems employed did not gather data by ethnicity. But I’ll give you some links to other sources. The majority of the population of the country was Arab and the majority supported themselves through agriculture. The main sources of revenue were customs fees, which included fees on exports of various agricultural products and income taxes and tithes on houses, animals, and lands.

        Barbara Jean Smith [editor], The Roots of Separatism in Palestine: British Economic Policy, 1920-1929 says:

        Recent Israeli academic work has subjected an admittedly unreliable and incomplete statistical data base to rigorous econometric analysis and arrived at calculations attempting to show the exact incidence of government revenue and expenditure between Arabs and Jews and of the more general contribution to growth of the two communities. On the revenue side, these show clearly that in the mid-1920s, although Jewish taxation per capita was three times as high as Arab taxation per capita, the Arab population still contributed some 60 percent of all revenues.[51] At the time, however, the picture was much less clear.

        link to books.google.com

        William McCrackan, “The New Palestine: An Authoritative Account of Palestine Since the Great War” discusses the collection of the Ottoman Public Debt and says

        In the mean time it was interesting to note that fully 85 per centum of the land was in the hands of the Moslem and Fellahin who, through the real estate tax, the animal tax, and the tithes, paid by far the greatest part of the taxes, exclusive of customs duties, and made it possible to make the Palestine budget balance.

        link to books.google.com

        Jacob Metzer, The Divided Economy of Mandatory Palestine says:

        Although citriculture played a relatively minor role in Arab agriculture, groves owned by Arabs had generated more than half (63 percent) of Palestine’s citrus crop in the beginning of the Mandate period. Over the years massive Jewish investment in the field, which were almost twice as large as those of the Arabs (P £ 12,000 versus P£6,7 0 0 in 1936 prices between 1922 and 1939), enabled Jewish planted area and crops to catch up with those of the Arabs in the early 1930s, and then surpass them. By the end of the decade the initial proportions had been reversed, and Jews produced about 62 percent of all citrus fruit (tables A .6-A.9; Metzer and Kaplan, 1990, chapter 1).

        link to books.google.com

        Smith devoted an entire chapter to British protectionist policies that benefited Jewish labor and industry, raised the cost of living, and were damaging to Arab agriculture. There is a summary here: link to books.google.com

      • Walid
        January 11, 2014, 12:00 am

        “Good grief! UK confiscated money collected for another purpose (other than being confiscated)?”

        Happens in the worst of families, pabelmont, Israeli openly did it in wild west manner on the West Bank in 2004 and 2006. It was outright robbery that at the time was reported by Haaretz, the IHT and others:

        “IDF raids W. Bank bureaux de change, confiscates millions
        By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent, and the Associated Press

        Israeli security forces raided five foreign exchange bureaux in the West Bank early Wednesday, confiscating millions of shekels Israel suspects is earmarked for terrorism.

        Two money changers were arrested in the operation. At least some of the money is believed to have originated in Lebanon and Syria, security sources said.

        The troops entered the cities of Nablus, Jenin, Tul Karm and Ramallah overnight, pulling money changers from their homes and forcing them to open their businesses, two Jenin money changers said.

        The IDF refused to give details of the operation, saying only that forces operated in Nablus overnight targeting “funds that serve terrorism and the terrorist infrastructure.”

        The courts must now determine whether the money can be used as evidence. Otherwise it will be returned to the business owners.

        Alongside the IDF, representatives from the Shin Bet security service also participated in the operation, as well as members of Israel Police and the Civil Administration.

        A police officer was present at every financial institution to ensure the money’s safe transfer into the hands of the state.

        Mohammed Assar, a money changer in the West Bank town of Jenin, said troops made off with $254,000 and destroyed his business.

        “They took me from my house and forced me to open the door and took everything I have: money, checks, dollars, shekels,” Assar said. “They didn’t leave me anything except for the rubble.”

        Hussein Yunis, another money changer in Jenin, said his son was pulled out of the house in the middle of the night and dragged to their place of business.

        “They took my son and took everything inside,” Yunis said, adding that it was still not clear how much money was missing.

        In 2004, IDF troops raided two banks in the West Bank city of Ramallah, confiscating $9 million believed to have belonged to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups.”

        (actual links to Haaretz and IHT now dead but I remember having read it Haaretz in 2006)

      • abu afak
        January 13, 2014, 3:35 pm

        @ Hostage above

        abu afak: And was it the Arab people who paid the debt (twice), or was it the newly arriving Jews?

        Hostage: @ January 10, 2014 at 7:11 pm I very conspicuous answered: The Arab agricultural sector was the main source of revenue at that time.

        You should probably get your parents to explain that, if it still isn’t clear enough for you. The rest of us have moved on.

        OF course you are at least “wrong” and perhaps Lying

        TRUTH of the matter:

        “..The Jewish Agency and other Jewish organizations and individuals had purchased perhaps a third or even half of the available arable agriculturaland the Jewish sector produced Twice as much in Tax Revenues as the Arab sector, though it accounted for only a third of the population of Palestine. “..”

        link to zionism-israel.com

        In the meantime I will continue to Destroy the other lies, here, Many of them that of ‘Hostage’.

      • Hostage
        January 13, 2014, 6:00 pm

        “..The Jewish Agency and other Jewish organizations and individuals had purchased perhaps a third or even half of the available arable agriculturaland the Jewish sector produced Twice as much in Tax Revenues as the Arab sector, though it accounted for only a third of the population of Palestine. “..”

        link to zionism-israel.com

        The Jewish Agency didn’t even exist during the war years when the British government misappropriated the tithes collected during WWI under the terms of the Decree of Mouharrem of the 20th December 1881. Those were derived through usufruct, from the Sultan’s estates, and state-licensed monopolies on tobacco, salt, grapes, and etc. It was that income, derived mostly from fellaheen, which had initially been mortgaged to obtain the foreign loans – not income from Jewish enterprises. So, it really wasn’t the Jews who were “taxed twice”. See The Ottoman Public Debt, By the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt link to books.google.com

        After the armistice was signed, the handful of Jews living in Ottoman Palestine certainly didn’t own half the arable land either. The revenues for payments were no longer restricted to state monopolies. The Arabs didn’t simply disappear. They still paid 85 percent of the tithes on things like house and land taxes according to the Hope Simpson report (simply because they remained the majority of the population and owned most of the land and houses).

        The fact that Jews gradually increased in numbers starting in the 30s and added to the state’s revenues didn’t pay the yearly assessments on the debt that began accruing on 1 March 1920 either. The sources that you cite don’t provide any year-by-year breakdown for purposes of comparison or say that Arabs were NOT always an essential source of State revenue. I provided you with a link to The Survey of Palestine which indicates that they were. It noted that it was not possible to determine all of Palestine’s sources of revenue and provide a breakdown on the basis of ethnicity.

        So your Zionist hasbara site hardly proves that I’m either wrong or lying about anything that I said.

      • Obsidian
        January 11, 2014, 12:52 am

        @Hostage

        So why did the Mandatory Government see fit to make Eretz Yisroel equivalent (See above) with Palestine on their coinage?

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 3:49 pm

        So why did the Mandatory Government see fit to make Eretz Yisroel equivalent (See above) with Palestine on their coinage?

        The UK government did not actually do that. The official usage in Hebrew of “Palestina (Aleph Yod)” was approved as a compromise, but the use of “Eretz Israel” alone was specifically rejected as an inadequate equivalent as part of the decision adopted by Herbert Samuel during an Advisory Council meeting on November 9, 1920. He thought that if “Eretz-Israel” only were used, it would not be regarded by the outside world as a correct rendering of the word “Palestine”, and in the case of passports or certificates of nationality, it would only cause difficulties. See Memorandum No. 33, “Use of the Name Eretz-Israel’,” in the Report by the Palestine Royal Commission, 1937, Memoranda Prepared by the Government of Palestine, C. O. No. 133.

        Many Jews and Zionists believe “Eretz Israel’ encompassed the entire Middle East. The Mandate instrument left the task of defining the boundaries of “Palestine” to the Allied Powers.

        The UK government actually removed the term “Eretz Israel” from the preamble of the draft mandate:

        I enclose the Zionists’ observations on the last revise, of which I understand you gave Weizmann a copy. He came to see me today and asked me most earnestly to restore the little sentence in the original preamble “recognizing the historical connection…” (but without the words, Eretz Israel, which he agreed to be undesirable). I see no objection to this, and it will enable us to cover our retreat when the further watering [down] of the Mandate takes place.

        –Letter from Hubert Young to Robert Vansittart, June 30,1920, Foreign Office 371/5244; (E7369/4164/44).

        I mentioned the 1925 Court case to have the initials removed in an earlier comment. The Court held that the provisions of Article 22 of the Mandate had not been incorporated into the Law of Palestine by the 1922 Order-in-Council and was therefore unenforceable. It held that it would NOT have applied to an executive act by Samuel in any event and that Article 82 of the Order in Council, which did apply, did not require a literal translation of the English. See Michael McDonnell (ed), The Law Reports of Palestine, High Court No. 55 of 1925, page 50 The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice before the Chief Justice and Corrie J. in the application of Jamal Hussein v. The Government of Palestine.

        So there is no basis on that record to claim that Eretz Israel or the bare initials Aleph Yod were considered a literal or equivalent translation of the term Palestine by the government.

      • just
        January 11, 2014, 4:18 pm

        Many thanks, Hostage.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 5:18 pm

        Many thanks, Hostage.

        You’re welcome. This whole thread simply illustrates the state of denial Zionists have been in for the last 100 years.

        Here is how the Royal Commission summed-up the ludicrous situation:

        Jewish nationalism, indeed, seems sometimes to reject consciously or unconsciously, the very idea of a real Palestinian community. It claims, for example, that, though Palestine is not an Arab word and might therefore fairly serve for Jews as well as Arabs, Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) should be also accepted as the official translation of “Palestine”, and protests that the printing of the Hebrew initials “E . I .” after “Palestine” on every stamp and coin is not enough.

        See page 135 of 474 in the .pdf of:
        CAB 24/270/8
        Record Type: Memorandum
        Former Reference: CP 163 (37)
        Title: Palestine: Report of the Royal Commission, 1936.
        Author: William Ormsby-Gore
        Date: 22 June 1937
        link to discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

      • puppies
        January 13, 2014, 6:18 pm

        @Hostage (no Reply button) – What a researcher, again! The main reason I read this site is to get my daily dose of Adult Ed from your posts.

        I suppose that one thing should have been added. Even if a Jewish (or Mazdean, etc.) “Agency” had existed then and even if it had bought 101% of the land (not unimaginable with the Ottoman administration), how does that confer rights to seize political power for a minority group and pack the place with illegal immigration?

    • talknic
      January 10, 2014, 5:58 pm

      @ Shuki “The Palestinian Pound was issued by the British Government – not the fictitious country of palestine

      Strange… The Lon Mandate FOR Palestine Article 7 link to avalon.law.yale.edu gave Jews the right to PALESTINIAN citizenship and the Palestine Currency Board was only dissolved at the en of the mandate period

      “Last time I checked, Jordan had exactly zero jewish people living there and is significantly larger than israel”

      Guess you must have checked a long long time ago because the Embassy in Jordan is staffed by Jews . Then there’s ” the Naharayim/Baqura area” link to mfa.gov.il I guess they haven’t heard of your weird theory

      • Talkback
        January 10, 2014, 8:03 pm

        Not as a general right for Jews, but making naturalization easier for them than for other immigrants.

    • talknic
      January 10, 2014, 9:41 pm

      @ Shuki January 10, 2014 at 3:23 pm “The Palestinian Pound was issued by the British Government”

      Wrong. It was issued by the Palestine Currency Board.

      “.. the fictitious country of palestine”

      Source for your fictitious claim please. BTW Palestine is a proper noun.

      “and was used as currency throughout what is currently Israel AND Jordan”

      A) Israel is ‘currently’ Internationally recognized only how it asked to be recognized

      “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that 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

      It has been illegal to acquire territory by war, ANY war, since at least 1933 link to pages.citebite.com …. Since proclaiming its sovereign extent as being “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ (ibid), Israel has not legally acquired any further territory

      B) The currency was used in all of Palestine and in Jordan prior to Israeli independence from Palestine

      “Delusional…”

      You description of yourself is the only accurate thing in your post

    • thankgodimatheist
      January 10, 2014, 11:22 pm

      Shuki, I’m glad you brought this up because I have something to water down your excitement . Here:

      Football match Australia versus Palestine in 1939 (Pathe Gazette news reel):

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 10, 2014, 11:27 pm

        I didn’t count how many times the match commenter mentioned “the Palestinians” and ‘Palestine” but you can count yourself.

      • NormanF
        January 11, 2014, 11:17 am

        Yup –

        They sure sound like “Palestinian” Arab names!

        Why do they sound Jewish? Sorry for being so niggling. May Mondoweissers can explain why Palestinian is not always what it appears to be.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 4:00 pm

        Why do they sound Jewish? Sorry for being so niggling.

        Actually you both sound a little illiterate. I’ve pointed out the laws and treaties that conferred Palestinian citizenship on Jews and Arabs alike. It was you who falsely or stupidly claimed that it only applied to Jews. You are obviously trolling the threads at this point, so you best call it a day.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 7:23 am

        @Thanksgod:

        Nice video that supports my argument that also the Jews used the name “Palestine”. Most of the players were Jews from different Jewish football teams in Palestine under British Mandate.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2014, 12:15 pm

        supports my argument that also the Jews used the name “Palestine”

        their passports said ‘palestine’, for everyone. that’s nothing new.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 12:55 pm

        @Annie;

        I know it is not new, so why you don’t address your comment to thanksgodimatheist who uploaded this video?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2014, 11:00 pm

        i’m w/hostage mehane, i think you and norm are trolling the thread. thanksgodimatheist posted a video, you make the point it “supports your argument”. well no one has to tell me (or tgia) everybody referenced palestine as palestine, because it was..Palestine! zionists colonized palestine. you should go take your argument up w/the state of israel and all those who claim palestine and palestinians and palestine didn’t exist until jews rediscovered it or whatever their lame argument is. see joan peters.

        so now, you claim your ‘argument’ is “that also the Jews used the name “Palestine”..who are you arguing with? everyone knows jews used the name palestine. they had the colonialist palestine fund or whatever it was called. they requested a state in palestine.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        and the allegation it was never a “nation” or a “state” by modern day standards is completely irrelevant yet the cornerstone of israel hasbara. because no one claimed a ‘kingdom’ or something. so please do not move the goalposts and act like you’ve got something fresh to sell us.

        sucki referenced ” the fictitious country of palestine”. thanksgodimatheist’s video supports the concept it was more than a “region,” and jews knew damn well it was more than a “region”. the fact they didn’t have ‘statehood’ or “kingdom” in the age of colonialism vs their existence and the palestinian people’s overwhelming existence for thousands of years vs the overwhelming non existence of the vast majority of global jewry during that period , for almost 2 thousand years, makes this ‘dual homeland’ brohau a farce. meet me back here in 4013 and then let’s discuss a jewish ‘right’ to palestine as a ‘homeland’. otherwise, it’s hasbara and there’s lots of brainwashing going on to justify the tahweed of palestine.

        see ya

      • aparatchik
        January 11, 2014, 9:20 am

        Palestinian starting 11:
        Z Fooks
        M Menahem
        S Shulamson
        F Neufeld
        J Sidi
        S Ginsberg
        A Beth-halevy
        J Lieberman
        L Werner
        G Makhlis
        Abraham Reznik

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 12, 2014, 12:29 am

        @Annie:

        so please do not move the goalposts and act like you’ve got something fresh to sell us.

        Could you tell me what fresh things do you all sell us? We show this coin thousands of times and know the arguments behind it. Palestinians in old city of Jerusalem sell replicas of all the set of coins and banknotes on plastic key holder.

        and the allegation it was never a “nation” or a “state” by modern day standards is completely irrelevant yet the cornerstone of Israel hasbara. because no one claimed a ‘kingdom’ or something.

        Sorry, not me. I never wrote “Hasbara” like “no Palestinian nation” etc. actually, I oppose all these Hasbara arguments since they are obstacles for peace. You read many of my comments and you know it well. You can read my comments in this thread and won’t find any Hasbara argument. The new fresh thing I have to sell is peace.

        i think you and norm are trolling the thread.

        I please ask you to explain me why I am trolling the thread. As much as I understand the term “troll” I am acting in opposite way. I try answer to all questions, even hard and not comfortable, I don’t reply to provocative comments, I try to write my sincere opinions and be accurate, I respect each opinion of any reader and never attack people personally. So, are these all fall under the definition of “Troll”? I really ask your explanations.

        See you, Annie, I hope before 4013. Someday all will be behind us.

      • OlegR
        January 13, 2014, 4:37 am

        In Annie speak trolling the thread mean making arguments she can’t or doesn’t want to deal with.

      • Hostage
        January 13, 2014, 1:06 pm

        In Annie speak trolling the thread mean making arguments she can’t or doesn’t want to deal with.

        No it means repeating the same comment that the coin says “Eretz Israel”, when we’ve fully explained that doesn’t, and just adding a few exclamation points.

      • abu afak
        January 13, 2014, 3:45 pm

        @ Annie Robbins above:

        “”…Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)… finds the “population” of Palestine composed of so “widely differing” a group of “inhabitants” — whose “ethnological affinities” create “early in the 20th century a list of no less than 50 languages” (see below) — that “it is therefore no easy task to write concisely … on the ethnology of Palestine.” [......]

        The Disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be “settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years” were in fact a “Heterogeneous” community with No “Palestinian” identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, NO Arab identity either:
        “The people west of the Jordan are Not Arabs, but Only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin…. In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race.” 8 [.....]“”

        link to eretzyisroel.org

      • Shmuel
        January 13, 2014, 3:57 pm

        …Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)…

        Source: “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters, 1984

      • Hostage
        January 13, 2014, 6:45 pm

        It’s pretty pathetic when you resort to counting the languages spoken by Jewish aliens who were spirited into the country by the Western Consuls as their so-called protégés under the regime of the Capitulations in order to beg the question and claim they were a “widely differing” group of “inhabitants” with no Palestinian identity. Just take a gander at the list of 300+ languages spoken in the United States. link to ethnologue.com

        The Census Bureau says there are 15 languages that are each spoken by more than 1 million persons. link to census.gov

        If you care about early 20th century British race theory, they said some pretty stupid things about the Jews too.

        The Ottoman Empire was a multinational, multicultural one, like the United States. That didn’t imply that there was no regional national identity shared by the subjects of the Empire. For example, there was an Ottoman “Governor of Palestine” who ordered all of the Western Consuls to deport the foreign Jews in 1887. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Here is a link to a discussion in the Ottoman Parliament in 1911 in which the two representatives from Jerusalem, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. The two men were very careful to explain that they were not anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Zionist because the Jews in the Parliament were also members of their political party (the CUP) See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq link to books.google.com

      • RoHa
        January 13, 2014, 9:46 pm

        “The people west of the Jordan are Not Arabs, but Only Arabic-speaking.”

        By conventional usage, that makes them Arabs.

        “The Disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be “settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years” were in fact a “Heterogeneous” community with No “Palestinian” identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, NO Arab identity either:”

        Even if this is true, they were living there by right, and were killed or driven out from their homes, farms, and businesses by the Zionists. Wittering about their “ethnological affinities” does not mitigate the injustice in the least.

      • seafoid
        January 13, 2014, 10:51 pm

        Abu Afak off with that crap. Peters was a complete fraud.
        And anyway the land was empty. The so called “Palestinians” only turned up in 1942.

    • ThorsteinVeblen2012
      January 11, 2014, 11:52 am

      If Palestine is a fiction and that somehow delegitimizes the rights of the “Palestinians” what does that say about the Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the African states that were arbitrarily divided up by the Europeans, the United States and the rest of the Americas?

      It seems the criteria for delegitimizing the Palestinians could be used to delegitimizing most any nation or people. It’s a hollow argument that I would have thought disregarded long ago.

      The area was under Ottoman rule and included a varied community of Muslims, Christians and Jews. It would seem Zionism shaped the identity of the remainder of the people when the Jews living there were swept up in the colonial endeavor.

      • MHughes976
        January 11, 2014, 12:33 pm

        Palestine was Palestine long before England was England. However, human rights do indeed depend on humanity rather than on the political status of one’s ancestors.

  4. NormanF
    January 10, 2014, 4:04 pm

    The Hebrew inscription means Eretz Israel – the “Land Of Israel.”

    British Palestine was a Jewish country! Only the Jews were Palestinian and every major company in the country was Jewish.

    The Palestine World’s Fair Pavilion was Jewish.

    • Jeff Klein
      January 10, 2014, 4:31 pm

      It says in Hebrew: “Palestina (EY)”

      The first modern (Arabic) newspaper in Palestine antedated the British Mandate and was founded in 1911 by two Orthodox Christian brothers named ‘Issa (Jesus). It was called al-Falastin.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 10, 2014, 5:05 pm

        @Jeff Klein:

        “EY” (actually, EI) is the abbreviation of Eretz Israel “The land of Israel”. In the last years of the Ottoman Empire and in the time of the British Mandate, also the Jews called this area Palestine (Palestina) and refer to themselves as Palestinians (Palestinaim). The main newspaper of the Jewish community was called “Palestine Post”, name that was changed to “Jerusalem Post” in 1950, two years after the establishment of the state of Israel.

        Speaking on currency, the first banknotes of the state of Israel bears the inscription “The Anglo-Palestine Bank Limited”. These banknotes were legal tender until 1952, four years after the establishment of the state of Israel.

        So, the Jews and the Arabs together used the name Palestine, as Falastin and Palestina, as the coin indicates.

      • talknic
        January 10, 2014, 10:20 pm

        MahaneYehude1 ““EY” (actually, EI) is the abbreviation of Eretz Israel “The land of Israel”. In the last years of the Ottoman Empire and in the time of the British Mandate… etc etc etc “

        Irrelevant to the Internationally recognized legal extent of the State of Israel and Israel’s illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories ( since 12 Aug 1948 link to mfa.gov.il and 1967 link to domino.un.org )

      • puppies
        January 10, 2014, 11:29 pm

        Good. We’ll quote you, instead of the classics and history books, every time one of your fellow invaders has a cow on hearing the word Palestine. An invaluable bona fide Zionist source. Thank you.

        Your English has improved tremendously in a very short time, there’s not a trace of the Solaimaniyah accent left.

      • Talkback
        January 11, 2014, 4:26 am

        So, the Jews and the Arabs together used the name Palestine, as Falastin and Palestina, as the coin indicates.

        The coin is not an indication for their usage.

        It had do to with the mandate for PALESTINE, Art. 22:
        “English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.”

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 6:09 am

        @Talkback:

        The coin is not an indication for their usage.

        Of course, but I wrote more examples of the usage the name “Palestine” by the Jews too. There are hundreds examples.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 7:45 am

        It had do to with the mandate for PALESTINE, Art. 22:
        “English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.”

        FYI, there was an unsuccessful Supreme Court case to have the initials removed, since they were not a translation of anything that appeared in the Arabic. The Zionists didn’t really view “Palestine” and “Land of Israel” as synonyms for the same thing either. For example, no one would agree that the “KY” in Lexington, KY means that Kentucky is located in Lexington. The petitioners argued that Palestine, EY worked the same way.

      • Dave123
        January 10, 2014, 5:27 pm

        Sounds like nothing has changed.

        Filastin was suspended by Ottoman authorities … for what British authorities summarized as “a fulminating and vague threat that when the eyes of the nation were opened to the peril towards which it was drifting it would rise like a roaring flood and a consuming fire and there would be trouble in [store] for the Zionists.” Elsewhere, a historical compendium of antisemitism called the cause for Falastin’s suspension “racist hate propaganda.”

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        By the way, neither brother had any interest in creating a country called Palestine. The paper was in favor of pan-Arabism.

        “Both al-Isas were Greek Orthodox, opponents of British administration, and supporters of pan-Arab unity. “

      • Jeff Klein
        January 10, 2014, 10:05 pm

        Did you even read the Wiki article you cited? Or do you think people are too clueless to even check?

        Here’s the paragraph you selectively quoted:

        “In 1913 and 1914, Filastin was suspended by Ottoman authorities, once for criticism of the Mutasarrif (November 1913) and once for what British authorities summarized as “a fulminating and vague threat that when the eyes of the nation were opened to the peril towards which it was drifting it would rise like a roaring flood and a consuming fire and there would be trouble in [store] for the Zionists.”[3] Elsewhere, a historical compendium of antisemitism called the cause for Falastin’s suspension “racist hate propaganda.”[4] Following the suspension, Falastin issued a circular responding to the government charges that they were “sowing discord between the elements of the Empire,” which stated that “Zionist” was not the same as “Jew” and described the former as “a political party whose aim is to restore Palestine to their nation and concentrate them in it, and to keep it exclusively for them.”[3] The newspaper was supported by Muslim and Christian notables, and a judge annulled the suspension on grounds of freedom of the press.[3]”

        Anyway, the point I made was not to endorse the al-Filastin newspaper, but only to point out that there was a concept of “Palestine” in modern times, even before the British Mandate.

        And yes, I knew that the EY in parentheses after Hebrew “Palestina” abbreviated “Eretz Yisroel” but that isn’t the same as asserting (don’t believe your lying eyes!) that the inscription on the coin “means” Land of Israel instead of Palestine.

      • talknic
        January 10, 2014, 10:11 pm

        Dave123 “By the way, neither brother had any interest in creating a country called Palestine.”

        Why would they? It was already called Palestine. Does the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine ring any bells?

        First line of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine

        Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire … etc link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The LoN Covenant Article 22 says

        Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        “Sounds like nothing has changed.”

        Strange. The State of Israel was created

        ” 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.”

        According to the Israeli Government, at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel was effectively declared independent of Palestine. Israel was subsequently Internationally recognized as the Israeli Government asked to be recognized.

        What remained of Palestine, “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” according to the Israeli Government’s official statement of May 22nd 1948 link to pages.citebite.com was not Israeli. Nor was it Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian or Lebanese. It was and still is, by default of Israel’s official proclamation, Palestine.

        There has not since been an agreement legally ceding any further “territory of Palestine” (ibid) to Israel.

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 10, 2014, 4:36 pm

      “The Hebrew inscription means Eretz Israel – the ‘Land Of Israel.'”

      No, the British used the proper name – Palestine – in English, Arabic and Hebrew, and probably put in the sop to appease the crazy zios.

      “British Palestine was a Jewish country! ”

      Nonsense. First, there was no such thing as “British Palestine.” It was a trust territory for the Palestinian people (until it was stolen by the zionists.) It was never British. Second, it was no way a Jewish country; there were barely any Jews there.

      “Only the Jews were Palestinian”

      LMAO. Except for the vast, vast majority who were Arab Palestinians.

      “The Palestine World’s Fair Pavilion was Jewish.”

      Baloney. There was not “Palestine World’s Fair Pavilion.” There was a “Jewish Palestine Pavilion” which was a bit of zionist propaganda and incitement to war against the British and incitement to genocide and ethnic cleansing of the majority of the people in Palestine. The evil of zionism and the perfidy of zionists were clear even then.

    • gamal
      January 10, 2014, 4:56 pm

      We are the Palestinians, wow Arab Manque, it just gets better and better, I am having very good enjoy Hasbara Day, I blame M1, you should be commended for purblindness NF, what about Jaffa oranges, they surely do not predate “Jewish” companies and were never ever exported prior to Zionist ingress in to the land that was always a “Jewish” country called Palestine (under the British, who are of Roman descent, Romano-Britons if you will), yes its not even there were no Indians, its we are the Indians, this is high level stuff, can I make donation I feel I should at least pay something.

    • Cliff
      January 10, 2014, 5:05 pm

      The country was not Jewish.

      Jews were only a fraction of the population.

      Jews bought most of their land from absentee landlords.

      Jews only owned 7% of the land and property.

      In no way was Palestine, ‘Jewish.’

      You are delusional, AbNormalF.

    • Light
      January 10, 2014, 5:25 pm

      NormanF,
      You obviously can’t read Hebrew. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the language can tell it spells Palestina.

      • yonah fredman
        January 10, 2014, 5:32 pm

        Light, after Palestina, it has in parentheses the initials, alef yud, which stand for eretz yisroel.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 10, 2014, 5:37 pm

        So, yonah, then you agree that NormanF is wrong, because the Hebrew inscription means “Palestine.” The fact that it had a symbolic sop to the zionists by using the initials for their racist dog-whistle name, only goes to refute his lies about Palestine.

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 10, 2014, 11:34 pm

        Not bothered by the lies your friends are spouting, huh Yonah?

    • Hostage
      January 10, 2014, 5:47 pm

      British Palestine was a Jewish country!

      The British government issued a White Paper in 1922 which said it was not.
      link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      Only the Jews were Palestinian

      Several hundred thousand Arabs became Palestinian in exactly the same way the Jews did: by the operation of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. It stipulated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.” FYI, Jews and Arabs became Palestinians and were considered foreign aliens under the British Nationality and Staus of Aliens Act. See R. v. Ketter [1940] 1 K.B. 787.

      The Treaty of Lausanne formalized the de facto situation that existed under the Palestine Order in Council, Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate, and the unratified Treat of Sevres. It was also the legal basis for the Palestine Citizenship Ordinance of 1925 which applied to Arabs and Jews alike.

      Only the Jews were Palestinian and every major company in the country was Jewish.

      In fact the citrus industry was the largest undertaking in the private business sector and the Arabs either dominated it or maintained parity throughout the mandate era. link to palestineremembered.com

      The Palestine World’s Fair Pavilion was Jewish.

      No there was just a Jewish Pavillion from Palestine. Even people who put stock in this sort of thing admit it was a Zionist political propaganda campaign. The 1939-40 World’s Fair was the first one based on cultural exchange versus technology. The Zionists even managed to get other Jewish cultural groups excluded from the fair in order to promote their vision of a unified national home in Palestine.

      Palestinians had already been using Fairs as part of their internal political struggle:

      For most of the history of world’s fairs, Jews were defined as a religious group and were included in parliaments, halls, temples, and exhibitions of religion. . . . With the rise of Jewish national aspirations, Zionists seized the opportunity afforded by the world’s fair to promote a Jewish homeland in Palestine. If, in earlier fairs, the contest for Palestine was a struggle between Christians and Jews for the Holy Land, the competition for Palestine in later fairs was between Jews and Arabs for national sovereignty. By the 1930s the Zionist movement had succeeded in becoming the “official” national and international Jewish presence at the fair, nowhere more clearly than the Jewish Palestine Pavilion at the New York World’s Fair in 1939/1940

      link to nyu.edu

      • bintbiba
        January 10, 2014, 7:23 pm

        Thank you Hostage. You are a fount of knowledge and fair information.
        Your patience and input on this site is invaluable!

      • bintbiba
        January 10, 2014, 7:24 pm

        ‘ correction: ‘your patience and input on this site are invaluable!

      • talknic
        January 10, 2014, 10:23 pm

        ‘ correction: ‘your patience and input on this site is invaluable!

      • Hostage
        January 10, 2014, 7:30 pm

        Thank you too, you’re welcome.

      • gamal
        January 10, 2014, 10:34 pm

        joining everyone else I have to say Hostage your posts are a great act of charity so much appreciated, my main reason for coming here honestly, the giving of wisdom is an unrepayable debt, which i for one have incurred well beyond any possibility of repayment, nor have i a spare pound of flesh, just to preempt any misunderstandings.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 5:10 am

        Thank you too gamal, I always enjoy reading your comments.

    • bintbiba
      January 10, 2014, 7:16 pm

      Back with the lies, eh? NormanF!!!
      My father had founded what became a ‘major company’.,among many a others.We had been, we were , we still are , we will be Palestinians for as long as it takes …

    • thankgodimatheist
      January 10, 2014, 11:31 pm

      NormanF..Watch the video I posted I above. Recommended watching for every Zionist ignoramus still living under a rock.

  5. gamal
    January 10, 2014, 4:45 pm

    “The Palestinian Pound was issued by the British Government – not the fictitious country of palestine,” where was it the legal currency? in a fictitious non-place, have you been reading Auge, if so you may have misconstrued.

    what is the logical connection between the first and last sentences of your final para, is there one, I like the final word, quite so.

  6. Dave123
    January 10, 2014, 5:30 pm

    I don’t think anyone denies that there was once a British protectorate of part of the former Ottoman Empire called the Mandate for Palestine. What exactly is this supposed to prove?

    • gamal
      January 11, 2014, 12:07 am

      “What exactly is this supposed to prove?”

      yeah yeah but wtf was it man, a state, or just an anti-somatic Jew eating conundrum, please if it wasnt a state whats the shit with a little rapine and settler colonialism, or some such, where is the metropolis, its not colonialism when shit you cant remember from who knows where, came from there, you see?

    • Hostage
      January 11, 2014, 6:26 am

      I don’t think anyone denies that there was once a British protectorate of part of the former Ottoman Empire called the Mandate for Palestine.

      The LoN and the PCIJ specifically repudiated the idea that the A mandates were colonial protectorates. They were not savage tribes incapable of internal organization or government, but to the contrary were recognized as independent nations capable of taking-on all the characteristics of states in short order. All of the post-war treaties of peace required the enemy countries from which they were transferred to recognize them as “newly created states” or “new states”.

      For their own part, the mandatories were signatories of all the post-war treaties, and were not permitted to treat them as part of the territories of the British or French Empires. The mandatories were not installed by bi-lateral treaties undertaken on their own behalf, they were under legal obligations to both the inhabitants and to the LoN under the terms of multilateral international legal instruments.

      What exactly is this supposed to prove?

      The legal advisor to the Jewish Agency, Sir Hersh Lauterpacht, was one of the greatest experts on international law of the 20th Century. He wrote an advisory opinion on the legal status of Palestine which explained that the British Law Lords, Simon and Erleigh, had read the arguments and concluded that, unlike a protectorate, Palestine was a “third independent State” for the purposes of the most favored nation clause in the UK’s own commerce treaties. See §22

      The United States also recognized Palestine as a separate foreign state for the purposes of nationality and treaties of commerce. See KLETTER v. DULLES, Secretary of State, United States District Court District Of Columbia (1953)

      For his own part, Lauterpacht’s Annual Reports and International Law reports carried numerous articles on the “Mandated States” which illustrated that they had the same characteristics as normal states, e.g. Case No. 34 Mandated States (Saikaly v. Saikaly) reported in John Fischer Williams and Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), “International Law Reports”, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, page 48 under the heading States as International Persons link to books.google.com

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2014, 9:43 am

        It was clear that the British viewed the term Palestine as a geographic, not an ethnic, definition. That is all.

        The fact is it undermines your position completely in the eyes of anyone who supports the proposition of one person, one state, one vote.

        Great Britain was the mandatory power and it certainly did view Palestine as one state comprised of inhabitants who held Palestinian nationality. It’s a matter of public record that Herbert Samuel rejected requests to put “Eretz Israel” on passports and certificates of nationality.

        British officials told the LoN Permanent Mandates Commission that the Balfour Declaration had called for the establishment of single state solution that they labelled a “Judeo-Arab self-governing commonwealth”. They testified that:

        The view of His Majesty’s Government as to the intentions of the Balfour Declaration was as follows:
        “As is fully recognised by the Commissioners in their historical survey, His Majesty’s Government and their predecessors, since the obligations of the mandate were accepted, had taken the view, which the tenor of the mandate itself implies, that their obligations to Arabs and Jews respectively were not incompatible, on the assumption that in the process of time the two races would so adjust their national aspirations as to render possible the establishment of a single commonwealth under a unitary Government.” . . . We have endeavoured to break down, in spite of difficulties, the mutual suspicion that the one has for the other, and I do believe that the charge that, if the mandate had been properly administered from the beginning, the two races would have come together to form a Judeo-Arab self-governing commonwealth is ill-founded. –

        link to unispal.un.org

        We have seen evidence elsewhere that the Zionist Organization’s partition proposal was really just a tactic to circumvent the 1939 White Paper. It had declared the national home a done deal, but the WZO intended to impose Jewish rule and dominion over the Arab majority and the territory they inhabited anyway.

      • James Canning
        January 12, 2014, 1:54 pm

        And the purpose of the Mandates (for Palestine, and Iraq, and Syria, and Transjordan) was to prepare the people of those territories for self-rule.

  7. Mike_Konrad
    January 10, 2014, 6:51 pm

    Like it or not, given the British attitude, the Palestinian coin proves nothing.

    It was clear that the British viewed the term Palestine as a geographic, not an ethnic, definition. That is all.

    The Nationality Law of 1925 proved that.

    It left thousands of Palestinians stranded in Latin America as stateless people.

    Right or wrong, that ruthless law proves that Palestine, as it was set up, was only meant for Jewish interests. The coin proves nothing.

    Shuki and NormanF are right — and I do not even get along with Norman F; but I am not going to argue against history.

    ======================

    BTW: Why aren’t my posts archived?

  8. talknic
    January 10, 2014, 7:31 pm

    Here’s some morsels from the Zionism & Israel Information Center and the Jewish National & University Library

    Seems the map makers of the time hadn’t heard the bizarre theories being spewed out by apologists for Israeli expansionism

    1480

    1845

    1665

    I wonder just how moronic the idiots for Israel are willing to show themselves to be

    • eljay
      January 10, 2014, 7:47 pm

      >> Seems the map makers of the time hadn’t heard the bizarre theories being spewed out by apologists for Israeli expansionism

      Why did these map-makers hate Jews and the eternal “Jewish State” so much?! :-(

      • Obsidian
        January 11, 2014, 1:07 am

        Why did the map makers (1665) divide land among the tribes of Israel?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2014, 8:19 am

        you mean where it says “MOAB” and “ARABIA PRIMA”?

        link to britannica.com

        i see a lot of designations on that map aside from tribes. and i don’t see it every designation as a “division.”

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 9:30 am

        @Annie;

        For the readers convenient, I copied the information from your link and emphasized the relevant data:

        Moab, Kingdom, ancient Palestine. Located east of the Dead Sea in what is now west-central Jordan, it was bounded by Edom and the land of the Amorites. The Moabites were closely related to the Israelites, and the two were frequently in conflict. The Moabite Stone, found at Dibon, recorded the 9th-century-bc victories of the Moab king Mesha, especially those over Israel. Moab was conquered by the Babylonians in 582 bc.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2014, 11:04 am

        my point mehane, was that the map doesn’t “divide land” per se as obsidian describes. the map labels. furthermore i am not sure the intent of the mapmaker in 1665. maps are made for all sorts of reasons. a translation would be nice. but it would make as much sense to say the water areas, roads or streams divided the land on the map, whereas another might see them as just being there.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 8:43 am

        Why did the map makers (1665) divide land among the tribes of Israel?

        Good question. There’s no corroborating evidence that they ever really existed as such. Even believers, like Rabbi Akiva, said they were never coming back. I always figured, that if they existed at all, they were like the so-called “non-existent Palestinian people” and had never really left or gone anywhere else.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 9:41 am

        @Hostage;

        There’s no corroborating evidence that they ever really existed as such

        Could you, please, bring evidence for the existence of the Philistines? Moabites? Ammonites? Canaanites? any evidence you bring, I promise to bring similar evidence for the existence of the Israelite.

        Look, Hostage, all the attempts by several Israelis to erase the Palestinian history and identity will never succeed as well of all the attempts to erase our history and identity. Both people won’t evaporate and we have to learn to live together. Distortion of the history of both peoples will lead to nothing.

      • yrn
        January 11, 2014, 10:14 am

        Hostage

        You must be more clever then “Rashi” (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki – Considered the greatest commentators on the Bible and the Talmud).

        According to Rashi, Rabbi Akiva’s statement that the Ten Tribes are not going to return, refer to the first generation only. first Exiled generation will not return to Israel, but of future generations and especially their children and their children’s children will return to their place.

        Oop’s you missed it again ignorant.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 1:54 pm

        According to Rashi . . .

        Who was simply a believer commenting a thousand years after the fact, not a reliable witness. As such, he was putting words in Akiva’s mouth. I’m not that ignorant. Please cite passages, from the original source, which say that R Akiva, said the descendants of the 10 tribes would return. That still doesn’t explain how cartographers in the 1600s determined where the cities or boundaries of the ancient tribes were located.

        Could you, please, bring evidence for the existence of the Philistines? Moabites? Ammonites? Canaanites? any evidence you bring, I promise to bring similar evidence for the existence of the Israelite.

        You can barely find extra-biblical evidence to verify the existence of a few Kings of “Israel”, let alone Israel’s boundaries. But I was objecting to a map drawn in the 1600s showing division of the land down to the detail of individual “tribes, as such”. So your job would be to provide an ancient extra-biblical source to corroborate the existence of a tribe called Simeon in those exact parts, and so on.

        The five cities of the Philistines were well known from extra-biblical texts and archeology. The ancient Egyptians have records concerning the cities of the Philistines (P-r-s-t-w) that corroborate the Hebrew cognate accounts about the Pelistim. See also
        * Ann E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann, “The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology”, link to amazon.com
        * Burton MacDonald and Randall W. Younker, “Ancient Ammon” link to amazon.com

        Of course, one of the rare extra-biblical inscriptions that mentions a King of Israel is the Mesha Stele, commissioned by Mesha, King of Moab.

    • MahaneYehude1
      January 11, 2014, 1:21 am

      Thanks for the maps.

      1480 – Indeed, the area is called Palestina but the map depicts also the 12 tribes of Israel territories.

      1665 – The map is called “The Holy Land”. The area of south-western coast (of today Israel and Gaza strip) is called “Philistim Palestini”. The rest depicts the 12 tribes of Israel territories.

      1845 – The area is called Palestine but the map depicts also the 12 tribes of Israel territories.

      So, as I always said again and again: This tiny land is the homeland of the Palestinians and the Jews. The Palestinians don’t need coin to prove it but also we don’t need such coin, with or without EI. The Palestinians call this land Palestine and we call it Eretz Israel. Both names are legitimate and no one of them better than the other. No matter the name, I believe we can share our homeland and live here together in peace and prosperity.

      • eljay
        January 11, 2014, 8:48 am

        >> The Palestinians call this land Palestine and we call it Eretz Israel. Both names are legitimate and no one of them better than the other. No matter the name, I believe we can share our homeland and live here together in peace and prosperity.

        Excellent! So you agree that the entire land can be called Palestine and that all Jews and all Palestinians throughout the world are entitled to “return” to it and share in it equally. No “Palestinian State” or supremacist “Jewish State”, just Palestine – a state of and for all of its citizens, equally.

        Yes? Agreed? Good! :-)

        Or were you just bullshitting again, as is your wont?

      • Sibiriak
        January 11, 2014, 9:24 am

        MahaneYehude1:

        So, as I always said again and again: This tiny land is the homeland of the Palestinians and the Jews

        Non sequitur. The territory in question would indeed be the “homeland” of people who were born and lived there, but why would it necessarily be the the “homeland” for a Jew that was born, say, in Poland or Russia?

      • Obsidian
        January 12, 2014, 1:57 pm

        @Sibiriak

        “why would it necessarily be the the “homeland” for a Jew that was born, say, in Poland or Russia?”

        Because history has shown us that a Jew is more likely to survive in the State of Israel than in Poland or Russia, and survival, my friend, is the name of the game.

      • Sibiriak
        January 13, 2014, 9:52 am

        Obsidian :

        @Sibiriak “why would it necessarily be the the “homeland” for a Jew that was born, say, in Poland or Russia?”

        Because history has shown us that a Jew is more likely to survive in the State of Israel than in Poland or Russia, and survival, my friend, is the name of the game.

        The fact that a Russian Jew would have been safer in Palestine did not make that territory his/her “homeland”. A Russian Jew would also have been safer in New York, but that didn’t make New York his/her “homeland” either.

        It’s quite possible to be unsafe and persecuted in one’s homeland.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 13, 2014, 4:37 pm

        “Because history has shown us that a Jew is more likely to survive in the State of Israel than in Poland or Russia, and survival, my friend, is the name of the game.”

        In other words, might makes right. Gotcha.

      • James Canning
        January 13, 2014, 6:17 pm

        Is a Jew born in Poland, or Russia, in fact in any particular danger? I doubt it.

      • Sibiriak
        January 13, 2014, 10:41 am

        MahaneYehude1:

        This tiny land is the homeland of the Palestinians and the Jews.

        As I’ve already pointed out, you make a fundamental logical error when you go from Palestine (or whatever you wish to call it) being the “homeland” of some Jews (fact) to Palestine being the “homeland” of all Jews (mythology).

        Palestine in 1882 had a small, native migrant religious Jewish community (or yishuv, as Israeli and Western Jewish historians call it) of roughly 24,000 among a population of nearly 500,000 Palestinians.26 The size of the Jewish settler community in Palestine increased, over the period after 1882, through several major waves (called aliyahs by Israeli and Jewish historians) of in-migration.

        The first wave, between 1882 and 1903, totaled about 25,000 Jews, most of Russian origin, and the second, between 1904 and 1914, brought in around 35,000 Jews, most of them eastern Europeans. In the 1922 census conducted by the mandate government, the country had a population of 757,182 (perhaps an undercount, as many observers note), with 89 percent Palestinian Arab and 11 percent Jewish. Most Jews lived in the urban areas of new western Jerusalem and the exclusively Jewish Tel Aviv suburb of Jaffa.

        The number of Jewish settlers increased with the third and subsequent sporadic waves. The third wave, between 1919 and 1923, brought in 35,000 (again, most of them Russian), and the fourth, between 1924 and 1931, added another 85,000 immigrants (most of middle-class Polish28 background). The fifth wave of Jewish immigration, between 1932 and 1938, may have numbered close to 200,000.

        Indeed because of the rise of Nazism, 174,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine between 1932 and 1936, suddenly raising the Jewish population to an estimated 370,000 in 1936, that is, 28 percent of the total population of Palestine, a dramatic increase from the 16 percent reported in the 1931 census. “It was therefore not surprising that the Arab population should have become alarmed at the rapid rate at which the demographic composition of their country was being altered, without their consent and against their will…. This radical change, occurring in the brief span of only five years, must certainly be recognized as an important cause of the [Palestinian] Arab rebellion of 1936.”

        (Samih K. Farsoun; Naseer Aruri “Palestine and the Palestinians: A Social and Political History “)

        Palestine was not the “homeland” of these Jewish immigrant-colonists from Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. They were not born there, nor were they exiled from there, nor were they descendants of a “wandering people” who had been exiled from there. Palestine was not their “ancestral homeland” because their ancestors, by and large, did not come from there.

        But even if Palestine had been an “ancestral homeland”, that fact would not have given them the right to displace the local population in order to establish a state for all the world’s Jews. No group of people has any legal or moral right of national ownership, or the right to displace the existing population, in a territory in which most of its members had not lived for millennia.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 13, 2014, 12:27 pm

        @Sibiriak;

        Homeland is not just numbers and statistic. I wrote many times in a very comprehensive way why Israel is our homeland too. You can read several of my comments to learn more.

        There are about seven millions Jews in Israel. many of them are from Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Since you consider them colonists, I would like to know your solution to the conflict.

      • Sibiriak
        January 13, 2014, 1:19 pm

        MahaneYehude1 :

        I wrote many times in a very comprehensive way why Israel is our homeland too

        Whom does “our” refer to? Israel is now the homeland to Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish– not the homeland of a global Jewish people.

        There are about seven millions Jews in Israel. many of them are from Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

        I don’t think Jewish (and non-Jewish) emigrants from Russia etc. should have been funneled into Israel (many would have preferred to go elsewhere) while Palestinians are denied their individual and collective rights, and while Jewish colonization in the West Bank continues apace.

        Since you consider them colonists…

        If you review my remarks, you will see that I used the word “colonist” in reference to the period before the state of Israel was established.

        I would like to know your solution to the conflict.

        I don’t think there is a solution in the short-medium term.

        The closest possibility would be a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders (w/agreed land swaps), Jerusalem a shared capital, a largely symbolic “right of return” with compensation. etc.–i.e., what was called the “international consensus” for some time.

        I don’t think such a two-state solution is a realistic possibility because Israel is dead set against such a solution and there are no external or internal forces that can compel Israel to accept such a solution. A single state solution is, a fortiori, even less of a possibility.

        I believe Noam Chomsky’s description of where things are heading may be correct (but predictions about the future, of course, are highly uncertain):

        There is a third option [in addition to 2SS and 1SS], the most realistic one: Israel will carry forward its current policies with full U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic support, sprinkled with some mild phrases of disapproval.

        The policies are quite clear. Their roots go back to the 1967 war and they have been pursued with particular dedication since the Oslo Accords of September 1993.

        The Accords determined that Gaza and the West Bank are an indivisible territorial entity. Israel and the U.S. moved at once to separate them, which means that any autonomy Palestinians might gain in the West Bank will have no direct access to the outside world.

        A second step was to carry forward the creation of a vastly expanded Greater Jerusalem, incorporating it within Israel, as its capital. This is in direct violation of Security Council orders and is a serious blow to any hope for a viable Palestinian entity. A corridor to the east of the new Greater Jerusalem incorporates the settler town of Ma’aleh Adumim, established in the 1970s but built primarily after the Oslo Accords, virtually bisecting the West Bank.

        Corridors to the north including other settler towns divide what is to remain under some degree of Palestinian control — “Bantustans,” as they were called by one of the main architects of the policy, Ariel Sharon, in a reference to the territory set aside for black South Africans during the apartheid era.

        Meanwhile Israel is incorporating the territory on the Israeli side of the “separation wall” cutting through the West Bank, taking arable land and water resources and Palestinian villages.

        Included are the settlement blocs that “will remain part of Israel in any possible future peace agreement,” as stated by Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev as the current negotiations were announced.

        The International Court of Justice ruled that all of this is illegal, and the Security Council had already ruled that all of the settlements are illegal. The U.S. joined the world in accepting that conclusion in the early years of the occupation. But under Ronald Reagan, the position was changed to “harmful to peace,” and Barack Obama has weakened it further to “not helpful to peace.”

        Israel has also been clearing the Jordan Valley of Palestinians while establishing Jewish settlements, sinking wells, and otherwise preparing for eventual integration of the region within Israel.

        That will complete the isolation of any West Bank Palestinian entity. Meanwhile huge infrastructure projects throughout the West Bank, from which Palestinians are barred, carry forward the integration to Israel, and presumably eventual annexation.

        The areas that Israel is taking over will be virtually free of Arabs. There will be no new “demographic problem” or civil rights or anti-apartheid struggle, contrary to what many advocates of Palestinian rights anticipate in a single state.

      • Hostage
        January 13, 2014, 3:47 pm

        There are about seven millions Jews in Israel. many of them are from Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Since you consider them colonists, I would like to know your solution to the conflict.

        If they are not infiltrators, then why are the Palestinians in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon called that when they try to enter Israel?

      • LeaNder
        January 11, 2014, 9:37 am

        Nice try, M.Y.1. You cannot imagine that religion shaped the maps at the time? I can vividly imagine that. And if so, what exactly does it prove?

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 13, 2014, 3:42 pm

        @Sibiriak:

        The closest possibility would be a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders (w/agreed land swaps), Jerusalem a shared capital, a largely symbolic “right of return” with compensation. etc.–i.e., what was called the “international consensus” for some time.

        I agree with you and I think this is the best solution. Two state solution, Israel and Palestine, each state can determine its identity. For instance, Israel as a Jewish state. Been Jewish state doesn’t say that the Jews are privileged as many here think, but, as I see it, as a shelter to any Jew in danger. As an independent state, Israel has the right to determine who can enter the state and be civilian as well as the future state of Palestine can decide that any Palestinian in the world has the right to enter Palestine and be a Palestinian citizen.

        I agree for symbolic right of return and, as much as I remember, Israel agreed to accept about 50,000-100,000 Palestinian refugees and give them Israeli citizenship.

        I agree that all refugees, Palestinian refugees and Arab-Jews from Arab countries, will be compensated for their property they left behind. I think that Israel should not demolish the houses of the evacuated settlements, but give them to the refugees as part of the compensations.

        About agreed land swap, I don’t oppose this solution but I think it is not relevant since Israeli-Palestinians oppose it and want remain Israeli citizens. Any way, I don’t like that people call the land swap solution as “transfer solution”, since no one has to leave his home and land, only the border will be changed.

        I don’t think such a two-state solution is a realistic possibility because Israel is dead set against such a solution and there are no external or internal forces that can compel Israel to accept such a solution. A single state solution is, a fortiori, even less of a possibility.

        Well, I don’t know, but in the last years more and more people in Israel support the two-state solution. In contrary, not many support one state solution. Unfortunately, there is no one example of a country in the ME in which two different peoples are living in peace and harmony. I don’t think one state will solve our conflict and the realistic solution is to divide this land.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 13, 2014, 4:40 pm

        “Well, I don’t know, but in the last years more and more people in Israel support the two-state solution. ”

        Oh, baloney. They support one state and one open air Warsaw Ghetto like prison in the West Bank and one in Gaza. Don’t try to blow smoke up everyone’s ass. If you’re not willing to say that the Palestinians get 1/2 of the land, no israeli troops or people on it land, full control of its borders, air space, water resources, electromagnetic spectrum, and no restrictions on its foreign policy and its armaments (up to and including nuclear weapons) then please STFU because you’re fooling no one by saying “two-state”

      • Sibiriak
        January 14, 2014, 7:23 am

        MahaneYehude1 :

        …but in the last years more and more people in Israel support the two-state solution.

        This is a really disappointing, if not disingenuous response. If “more and more people” truly supported a reasonable two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders etc–the erstwhile “international consensus”– why on earth would they keep electing leaders that have no intention whatsoever of pursuing such a solution? And that’s the bottom line: Israel’s political/military elites have followed a consistent Greater Israel policy for decades, if not since the inception of the Israeli state.

        What is the point of your liberal Zionist call for “two states for two peoples” if the government of Israel is dead set against any reasonable two-state settlement? Without any basis in reality, how can such a liberal Zionist position serve any other function than that of a distraction, a cover, a sham “feel-good” soporific?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 11, 2014, 10:12 am

        “I believe we can share our homeland and live here together in peace and prosperity.”

        So then you favor a single, bi-national state? Because that and some species of judeo-supremacism are the only options…

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 14, 2014, 11:07 am

        @Sibiriak:

        This is a really disappointing, if not disingenuous response.

        Sorry? what do you mean by “disappointing” and “disingenuous” response? I am not writing here to satisfy people. I wrote my personal opinion about the future solution and how I want my government act. But I am not the Israeli PM nor the Israeli government spokesman, so you can’t be disappointed from my response. I sure you also don’t like many actions your government takes. My little power is my vote and I always vote for party that supports my views. I think it is unfair from your side to write that my response is disingenuous response. I am going to reply the rest of your comment, but I tell you in advance that you will read my personal opinions and the truth as I see it as an Israeli citizen.

        why on earth would they keep electing leaders that have no intention whatsoever of pursuing such a solution?

        To the point: Israel, like other Western countries, has a lot of problems behind the security problem and the future of the peace process. People here, when voting, deal with many issues. In the last elections, the Israeli economy and the standards of livings were the main issue, one reason why Lapid’s party succeeded. In addition, many here vote in traditionally manner. For instance, many religious people vote for the religious parties, no matter their position, many Israeli-Palestinians vote for Arab parties etc. That’s the main reason why the government doesn’t always reflects the common public opinion about the IP conflict.

        Is really the Israeli public opinion changing? slow, but yes!! 20-25 years ago, few offered to divide Jerusalem or to share it as common capital of both states. Jerusalem was a “Holy Cow”. Those who offered this solution were regarded by most Israelis as extreme leftists. Today, many support this idea as well as they support the idea of independent Palestine. (Today, the people who are against this solution are…the EJ Palestinians, most of them don’t want to be part of Palestine. I hope I won’t receive ugly responses for saying that).

        Israel’s political/military elites have followed a consistent Greater Israel policy for decades, if not since the inception of the Israeli state.

        No, you are wrong. Their is no “Greater Israel” policy. Look, Sibiriak, As I wrote many times, when you want to do peace, both sides have to compromise. Israel already recognized the Palestinians, but all the Israeli demands (part of them I oppose) are not a consequence of “Greater Israel” policy, but the fear that our enemies planted inside us. Israel must take measures to keep Israeli security. I believe that with time, when real peace will reign between us, Israel will ease its demands for security. It is very hard to convince people that are living for decades under wars, missile attacks and terror, to give up and give the Palestinians all their requirements at once. It will take time, but if both sides have real intentions for peace, and I believe Israel has, real peace will come.

        What is the point of your liberal Zionist call for “two states for two peoples” if the government of Israel is dead set against any reasonable two-state settlement? Without any basis in reality, how can such a liberal Zionist position serve any other function than that of a distraction, a cover, a sham “feel-good” soporific?

        I think my above opinions answer your question. I must say that your question surprises me: Am I the first person you ever met that declares himself Zionist but supports two-state solution? What about Meretz party’s members or Labor party members? Are they also support two states solution in order to distract, as a cover or maybe as a sham “feel-good” soporific?

        BTW, your question reminds me those Israelis that believe that the Arab proposal for peace is a cover and distraction and it is only the first step to destroy Israel. I sure they all are wrong.

        I hope to receive your sincere response.

      • jon s
        January 11, 2014, 10:19 am

        MahaneYehuda1,
        My sentiments, exactly , you “took the words out of my mouth”. Kol Hakavod for the comment and shavua tov.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 10:44 am

        @Jon:

        Thanks. It is nice to receive such positive comment. A-Gitte Woche to you too.

      • eljay
        January 11, 2014, 1:01 pm

        >> MahaneYehuda1, My sentiments, exactly , you “took the words out of my mouth”.

        So, you agree with MYn that the entire land can be called Palestine and that all Jews and all Palestinians throughout the world are entitled to “return” to it and share in it equally. No “Palestinian State” or supremacist “Jewish State”, just Palestine – a state of and for all of its citizens, equally.

        This is good news! :-)

        Unless, of course, you’re both full of it… :-(

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 3:21 pm

        @Hostage;

        you can barely find extra-biblical evidence to verify the existence of a few Kings of “Israel”, let alone Israel’s boundaries.

        My original question was:

        Could you, please, bring evidence for the existence of the Philistines? Moabites? Ammonites? Canaanites? any evidence you bring, I promise to bring similar evidence for the existence of the Israelite.

        I understood that you objected the tribes boundaries on the map, so I wrote my question because I think we must object the other peoples boundaries. I agree with you that it is hard to find evidence to the exact Israel’s boundaries and to Israel Kings, but also to Moab, Ammon, Pleshet and actually other Biblical people’s boundaries and Kings. I believe that the cartographers drew the lines using the biblical clues to the boundaries of the tribes. The same we can say about the boundaries of the Philistines. I don’t believe there is one 3000 years old entity on earth that you can draw their exact boundaries.

        No matter the exact boundaries, the archaeological findings you mentioned, like the Egyptian text and Mesha Stele (that I intended to mention), are among the few proofs that both the Israelite and the Philistines inhabited this land. In addition to Mesha Stele, Hezekiah is mentioned in Sennacherib annales and Uziyahu is mentioned on gravestone. In addition to the Egyptian text, there is also Assyrian text that mentions the Philistines (Palashtoo).

        My point, Hostage, is very simple. There is no need to “compete” for the history of this land. I personally, don’t need any “proofs” like Mesha Stele, archaeological findings or a coin. I think the common memory of the people is enough as I wrote here in the past. I think most Palestinians will agree with me. I hope you too agree with me.

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2014, 1:12 pm

        I understood that you objected the tribes boundaries on the map, so I wrote my question because I think we must object the other peoples boundaries.

        The Mesha Stele does not confirm the existence of the 12 tribes or the idea that Judea and Israel were ever “a people”. There are actually scholars who theorize that the ancient Jews pulled the same number on their neighbors, the Israelis, that they pulled on the Palestinians in the 20th century. They simply claimed another people’s legends were their own, and only their own, and revised the historical annals to give themselves credit for being more ancient and more important in the region than they actually were.

        I don’t dispute that the Palestinians and some Jews have lived in the region for hundreds of years. I just don’t credit irredentist claims from modern Jews of foreign origins with as much weight as the indigenous Palestinian Arab and Jewish ones.

      • James Canning
        January 12, 2014, 1:23 pm

        Claiming ancient ancestry etc to obtain advantage in terms of current standing (social, political, intellectual etc) is not unusual. One would expect it, perhaps.

      • abu afak
        January 14, 2014, 1:04 am

        Mesha Stele is Just One small evidence and NOT the oldest:

        allaboutarchaeology.org
        link to allaboutarchaeology.org

        The Merneptah Stele (also known as the Israel Stele) is an upright stone slab measuring over seven feet tall that contains carved hieroglyphic text dating to approximately 1230 BC. The Egyptian stele describes the military victories of Pharaoh Merneptah and includes the earliest mention of “Israel” outside the Bible. Although the specific battles covered by the stele are not included in the Bible, the stele **establishes Extra-Biblical Evidence that the Israelites were already living as a people in ancient Canaan by 1230 BC**.

        In addition to the Stele, a large wall picture was discovered in the great Karnak Temple of Luxor (ancient Thebes), which shows battle scenes between the Egyptians and Israelites. These scenes have also been attributed to Pharaoh Merneptah and date to approximately 1209 BC. The Karnak Temple also contains records of Pharaoh Shishak’smilitary victories about 280 years later. Specifically, the Shishak Relief depicts Egypt’s victory over King Rehoboam in about 925 BC……”

        Outside Egypt, we also discover a Wealth of evidence for the early Israelites. The Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele) is a three-foot stone slab discovered near Dibon, East of the Dead Sea, that describes the reign of Mesha, King of Moab, around 850 BC. According to Genesis 19, the Moabites were neighbors of the Israelites. The stele covers victories by King Omri and Ahab of Israel against Moab, and Mesha’s later victories on behalf of Moab against King Ahab’s descendants….. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser is a seven-foot, four-sided pillar of basalt that describes the victories of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria. Dated to about 841 BC, the Obelisk was discovered in the ancient palace of Nimrud and shows Israel’s King Jehu kneeling before the Assyrian king in humble tribute….”

        The House of David and Solomon’s Temple

        Biblical archaeology covering ancient Israeli kings and culture received a huge lift in 1994 when archaeologists discovered a stone inscription at the ancient city of Dan, which refers to the “House of David.” The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) is important because it’s the first ancient reference to King David outside the Bible. Specifically, the stone is a victory pillar of a King in Damascus dated about 250 years after David’s reign, which mentions a “king of Israel” (probably Joram, son of Ahab) and a king of the “House of David” (probably Ahaziah of Judah).

        Another important find is the House of Yahweh Ostracon, which is a pottery shard dated to about 800 BC that contains a written receipt for a donation of silver shekels to Solomon’s Temple. Written approximately 130 years after the completion of the Temple, this appears to be the earliest mention of Solomon’s Temple outside the Bible…””

      • talknic
        January 11, 2014, 5:51 pm

        @ MahaneYehude1 “1480 – Indeed, the area is called Palestina” …. “1665 – The map is called “The Holy Land”. The area of south-western coast (of today Israel and Gaza strip) is called “Philistim Palestini”” …. “1845 – The area is called Palestine”

        Indeed. Idiots for Israeli expansionism are wrong.

        the maps depict “also the 12 tribes of Israel territories.”

        Uh huh. The coordinates for each please

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 11, 2014, 5:57 pm

        @talknic:

        I will send you the coordinates when you send the coordinates of Philistim Palestini. Next time don’t send sources that don’t support your arguments.

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2014, 11:03 am

        I will send you the coordinates when you send the coordinates of Philistim Palestini.

        The Israeli government itself has sponsored archaeological digs that confirm the existence of the Philistine city states. You haven’t established there is any difference or distinction between Philistim and Palestini people.

      • talknic
        January 12, 2014, 1:30 pm

        MahaneYehude1 “Next time don’t send sources that don’t support your argument”

        YOU confirmed my argument “1480 – Indeed, the area is called Palestina” …. “1665 – The map is called “The Holy Land”. The area of south-western coast (of today Israel and Gaza strip) is called “Philistim Palestini”” …. “1845 – The area is called Palestine”

        Short term memory problems seem to plague Hasbarristers

  9. James Canning
    January 10, 2014, 7:42 pm

    Great photo.

    • MahaneYehude1
      January 12, 2014, 11:54 am

      Hostage;

      The Israeli government itself has sponsored archaeological digs that confirm the existence of the Philistine city states.

      This information tells a lot.

      You haven’t established there is any difference or distinction between Philistim and Palestini people.

      I agree, and I didn’t say there is such distinction so I don’t have to make effort to find distinction. Talknic asked for coordinates (meaning, there is no real borders) so I ask for coordinates to say that the cartographers didn’t draw any real borders to the Israeli tribes nor to the Philistim.

      Hostage, let’s leave all this ping pong between us. I repeat again: both people don’t need any Stone or one word written by Egyptian clerk. Both people are here and I don’t think we have to erase the history, tradition and narrative of each other. I believe that this land is the Palestinians homeland and I don’t need coin to prove it as well as I don’t need Stele to prove that we are in our homeland. I sure that any Palestinian won’t use a coin issued by colonialists (GB) to prove that he is on his land.

    • MahaneYehude1
      January 13, 2014, 1:08 am

      @talknic:

      Short term memory problems seem to plague Hasbarristers

      OK, let me try again and I hope you won’t pretend that you don’t understand me. I enclose a map depicts “Humans spread out of Africa later”. It is about human migration events occurred 20,000 years ago. Now, is this map a proof that Africa was called “Africa” in those days? No, it is written Africa in the title because today it is the name of this continent and it is comfortable to us to refer it as Africa.

      link to nhm.ac.uk

      So, this is my point and try to understand me. All three maps you uploaded are called “map of Palestine” because, since the Roman Empire changed the name to Palestina, this is the common name of the area and people, including the cartographers, used to call it in this name. The important thing to our discussion is the content of the maps, not the name of the maps: All three maps show that both, Israelite and Philistines, inhabited this land (beside other peoples). The Philistines in the south-western coastal area and the Israelite in the center area. In all three maps you won’t find the name Pelashet (or Palestina, Philistim, Palestine etc. ) all over the area only in the south area. This supports my argument that this tiny land was inhabited by both peoples.

      • Hostage
        January 13, 2014, 2:11 pm

        Now, is this map a proof that Africa was called “Africa” in those days?

        No, and the Hebrew scriptures are full of anachronisms too. They don’t constitute strong evidence that the territory was called the “Land of Israel” or “Judah” back in the Iron Age.

        All three maps you uploaded are called “map of Palestine” because, since the Roman Empire changed the name to Palestina,

        No the works of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, that have come down to us, speak about a district in Syria called Palestine. Roman’s, like Ovid, continued to write about it during the Hasmonean era. There’s a great deal of evidence, including its use by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria and the Jewish historian Josephus, that authors always employed the term Palestine when they were writing for general audiences. I don’t think that people who cite Hadian’s decrees banning Jews from Aelia Capitolina ever present any solid evidence that Palestine wasn’t employed in everyday usage all along.

      • MHughes976
        January 13, 2014, 4:10 pm

        Absolutely true – Aristotle’s reference to the Dead Sea as in Palestine might be mentioned too. There’s a remarkable lack of attestation in Biblical or other sources for any ancient geographical term for modern Palestine other than Palestine.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 13, 2014, 4:53 pm

        @MHughes976;

        I have the filling that we all wrote too much till we forget the main point of this post. So, again, and I hope for the last time:

        You all correct that people also called this area Palestine several thousands years ago. I agree!!! But, on this area there where several independent states (the term state maybe different from the modern term) like Peleshet, Israel and Judea.

        Indeed, Aristotle called this area Palestine, but for more than 2,000 years Jews pray for Eretz Israel, Zion and Jerusalem. It is impossible that millions of people in all around the world call this land Israel for more than 2,000 years, if this name was never in use.

        Please, don’t try to erase our identity, to distort our history and to disconnect the Jews from the land of Israel as well as I oppose the efforts of several Jews to erase the Palestinian identity and distort their history and tradition.

      • eljay
        January 13, 2014, 2:22 pm

        >> All three maps show that both, Israelite and Philistines, inhabited this land (beside other peoples). … In all three maps you won’t find the name Pelashet (or Palestina, Philistim, Palestine etc.)

        1. Nowhere will you find supremacist “Jewish State”, either.
        2. Are you prepared to give parts of Israel to the “other peoples” to whom those parts belong? Or are you going to be a hypocrite yet again?

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 13, 2014, 5:11 pm

        @eljay:

        Are you prepared to give parts of Israel to the “other peoples” to whom those parts belong?

        Yes.

      • eljay
        January 14, 2014, 7:25 am

        >> Yes.

        Excellent. I’m sincerely glad to hear that you support, among other things, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands inside Israel.

      • eljay
        January 13, 2014, 5:24 pm

        >> Please, don’t try to erase our identity, to distort our history and to disconnect the Jews from the land of Israel …

        Please, stop insisting that this history and connection in any way entitled or entitles people of the Jewish faith, living in countries around the world, to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      • talknic
        January 13, 2014, 6:10 pm

        @ MahaneYehude1 ["I enclose a map depicts “Humans spread out of Africa later”. It is about human migration events occurred 20,000 years ago. Now, is this map a proof that Africa was called “Africa” in those days? No, it is written Africa in the title because today it is the name of this continent and it is comfortable to us to refer it as Africa" ] .. today

        Uh huh. It is a modern drawing. It depicts what we call Africa today as Africa. WOW!!

        Exactly what were you trying to convey? Because the maps from the Zionism & Israel Information Center and the Jewish National & University Library were drawn in 1480, 1845 and 1665, naming Palestine in 1480, 1845 and 1665, as it was known to the cartographers in 1480, 1845 and 1665

        “In all three maps you won’t find the name Pelashet (or Palestina, Philistim, Palestine etc. ) all over the area only in the south area”

        The maps were drawn in 1480, 1845 and 1665 and are of the all over area of Palestina, Philistim Palestini, Palestine as they were known in 1480, 1845 and 1665 that’s why the maps are named as they are.

        “This supports my argument that this tiny land was inhabited by both peoples”

        I understand. You’re arguing against idiots for Israeli expansionism, who claim there was no Palestine, no Palestinians etc

        “This supports my argument that this tiny land was inhabited by both peoples”

        Q) Were Jews at any time a majority?

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 13, 2014, 11:31 pm

        @talknic:

        My example about “Africa” is very clear and I am sorry you pretend you don’t understand it.

        Please, read all my comments in this thread, you won’t find one comment that I said that “there was no Palestine, no Palestinians etc”. in contrary, I wrote countless of times that this land was inhabited by both peoples.

        Majority? only one thing I know: from the many peoples inhabited this land called Palestine or Eretz Israel only one people declared Jerusalem as the capital of his state (twice in history) and only one people pray for this land for more than 2,000 years. You, talknic, belongs to this people.

      • Sibiriak
        January 14, 2014, 7:11 am

        MahaneYehude1:

        [talknic: "Were Jews at any time a majority?"] Majority? only one thing I know:

        How can you not know the answer to that question? Why feign ignorance? It’s hard to believe you are sincere when you make such glib, evasive responses to serious questions.

        In another post I presented hard numbers showing that Jews made up only a tiny portion of the population of Palestine when the Zionist project began in earnest and Jews with “homelands” elsewhere began to colonize Palestine. You dismissed those facts as mere “statistics”, but when it comes to democracy and self-determination, the fact that Arab Palestinians constituted an overwhelming majority of the population is an absolutely fundamental consideration.

        …from the many peoples inhabited this land called Palestine or Eretz Israel only one people declared Jerusalem as the capital of his state (twice in history)

        So what? Ancient history did not give Jewish colonists from Russia, Poland, etc. the right to dispossess Arab Palestinians of their land and deny them their right of self-determination.

        and only one people pray for this land for more than 2,000 years.

        That’s your belief, your modern nationalist mythology—but even if were true, the fact that a group of people prayed for something did not give them the right to engage in dispossession, ethnic cleansing, politicide, apartheid, and all the other crimes against humanity that were required to create a new Jewish state, peopled by foreign Jews with homelands elsewhere, in a territory where Arab Palestinians made up the vast majority of residents.

      • MHughes976
        January 14, 2014, 5:49 am

        Though there are questions of definition I would think it reasonable to say that during the era of the Hasmonean/Herodian kingdom Jewish people – ie followers of the religion centred the Jerusalem Temple – formed the majority, but there were always others as well. The name ‘Judaea’ was encouraged at that time, particularly I suppose by the dynasties’ Jewish and Roman supporters, but never really caught on as a name for the whole area. Shlomo Sand (Land, p.86) shows that some Jewish theologians of a somewhat later date thought that the right term for the land was still ‘Canaan’. This presumably follows the usage of Numbers 34 ‘the inheritance of the children of Israel in the land of Canaan’. Usage that is theological, legal or revolutionary (like the ‘Israel’ coinage of the 66 Revolt) does not necessarily enter ordinary speech. Whereas Palestine was part of ordinary speech, Jewish and other, all along.
        Not that ancient history should be used to disinherit the Jewish people of today, only to recall the multicultural reality of ancient Palestine.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 14, 2014, 12:46 pm

        @Sibiriak and MHughes976:

        Look, all the issue of this post is about history. Many people here try to disconnect the relation between the Jewish people and the land of Israel (You may call it Palestine, it really doesn’t matter) and distort our history by bringing “findings” that support their arguments.

        My response was to one of the readers that participated in those efforts. Indeed, many different peoples inhabited this land in the past including the people of Israel (If in this point you think it is mythology, please, don’t read the rest) but only one people preserved the memories of this land day by day, year by year for more than 2,000 years. The fact is that only Jews pray to Zion and Jerusalem and I don’t know a similar prayer like “Next year in Ashkelon”, one of the Philistines cities (that I believe inhabited this land, it is not mythology). Only Jews fasting on Tisha B’Av commemorates the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. I don’t know other people fasting for destruction of any Temple existed in Palestine. So, all the attempts to disconnect us from the land of Israel are no more than pathetic attempts and I sure will be failed. This is not to say that Palestine is not the homeland of the Palestinians, no, it is their homeland too and they have rights on this land.

        Indeed, I also believe, as I wrote several times, lots of mythological stories are in any religion and tradition, but the story background can be truth. Take the stories about Jesus, most of them mythology I believe, but the background like the Judea Kingdom, the Roman rulers, the Temple – are not mythology at all.

        That’s your belief, your modern nationalist mythology—but even if were true, the fact that a group of people prayed for something did not give them the right to engage in dispossession, ethnic cleansing, politicide, apartheid, and all the other crimes against humanity that were required to create a new Jewish state,

        Now, it is your turn. Look at this paragraph you wrote and find the mythological parts in it.

    • Hostage
      January 13, 2014, 3:44 pm

      Hostage, let’s leave all this ping pong between us. I repeat again: both people don’t need any Stone or one word written by Egyptian clerk. Both people are here and I don’t think we have to erase the history, tradition and narrative of each other.

      That depends upon how you define the term “here”. Both people aren’t really there, since Israel is waiting for the refugees of 48 and 67 to die in exile while claiming that they won’t repatriate even one of them.

  10. Talkback
    January 10, 2014, 7:46 pm

    It seems that Shuki and NormanF are suffering another compulsive lying seizure.

    • ToivoS
      January 10, 2014, 9:07 pm

      I don’t think it is necessary to accuse them of lying. I met these types before — they genuinely believe in what they say. After all, if Gold Meir, Dershowitz and Joan Peters told them there is not such thing as a Palestinian then who are they to question that assertion. What I find strange is that they repeat the assertion and have it soundly slapped down by a number of incredibly knowledgeable observers (and especially thanks to Hostage yet again) and they have nothing to say.

      What is even stranger they will completely forget the complete slap down and will likely repeat the assertion at some future time. Still, I don’t think this is conscious lying but has a deeper psychological explanation in the area of denial and delusions with a trace of cognitive dissonance. Without doubt they think they are promoting Israel’s case and are totally oblivious that they leave the average reader scratching their head after completely dismissing their arguments and wondering if they are pathological liars or just psychologically maladjusted.

      • Ron Edwards
        January 10, 2014, 10:15 pm

        I think of it as ping pong, or rather, that their model of dialogue is based on ping pong. Behind them, they think, is death: horrible genocidal death. So they have to bat the ball back as hard as possible, to keep it from going there. It doesn’t matter if it misses the table on the other side (makes sense) – just bat it, hard, keep it from going past. It’s literally impossible to have a discussion because they don’t care exactly or actually what they say or how it looks to anyone else in terms of logic or response – what matters, they think, is that people see them responding at all, in the negative in some (any) way. To them, that means they whacked the ball and kept it from going past, and persisting in that, no matter what, is their goal. In fact, the less logic the better, because fervor is the selling point: “See, I’m going to stay here and keeping batting these balls back no matter what!” That’s also why they don’t care about being refuted; they only care about new balls and the exchange implied by staying with one of them is absolutely what they want to avoid. No exchange: just bat each new scary thing being said away, it’s an attempt at murder after all. Again, to them, it’s about avoiding plain and simple death; they’re that scared. That’s why they repeat old nonsense, because they perceive it to have worked last time. That’s why they uncritically seize new talking-points whenever they’re provided, because they are exhausted and frantic, keeping this going. Since they aren’t literally insane, they know how much lying and bad-faith talking they’re doing, so it makes them ashamed, and soon, persisting in this action while in a state of shame makes them mean.

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2014, 7:02 am

        Great comment, Ron.
        They have been indoctrinated to think it’s Zionism or Auschwitz .
        And it isn’t.
        Zionism is monstrous now and they can’t admit it.

      • Ron Edwards
        January 11, 2014, 10:30 am

        Thanks seafoid. Looking over the post, I should clarify that I’m mainly talking about Americans who see themselves as “representing” for Israel. Most of them are informed mainly through the J-Post, their extended families which may have ties to Israeli interests, and organizations like Hillel International or Stand With Us, which they perceive to be grass-roots. Their general view is that there are “two sides,” in two different places. They might even admit privately that the “other” side has “some right” to it, but consider it also to be primitive, savage, and murderous; whereas although maybe (their idealized) Israel did something sort of bad long ago, it is now a liberal free-thinking almost rarefied society, and bad-ass too which is cool. (The parallel to the U.S. portrait of the idealized former West Germany during the 1960s is almost too perfect, including the fake “economic miracle.”) They don’t know anything about ethnicities among Israelis, religions among Palestinians or other people in the Levant, or the circumstances of the state’s origin except as related in Exodus. They’ve been told, and they believe it, that they must represent in this way, and that no one else can do it.

      • talknic
        January 10, 2014, 10:35 pm

        ToivoS “I met these types before — they genuinely believe in what they say”

        No they don’t. They have been shown time and again by the very documents they cite, i.e., the Balfour Declaration, the LoN Covenant & the LoN Mandate for Palestine and BTW by the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, that what they claim is complete bullsh*t. They are propagandists.

        “What is even stranger they will completely forget the complete slap down and will likely repeat the assertion at some future time. “

        Nothing strange about it. They’re propagandists.

        “…they leave the average reader scratching their head after completely dismissing their arguments and wondering if they are pathological liars or just psychologically maladjusted.”

        Psychological maladjustment and pathological lying is a prerequisite for a propagandist for Israel. They simply don’t care.

      • Talkback
        January 11, 2014, 4:18 am

        ToivoiS: I don’t think it is necessary to accuse them of lying. I met these types before — they genuinely believe in what they say.

        I disagree with you and totally agree with talknic. I rarely accuse someone of lying, but I have encountered far to many many of them who repeated the same BS over and over again ignoring any counter argument or fact. They just drop out of the conversation and then repeat their lies again somewhere else. They don’t care about lying. They don’t care if proven to be liars. They just lie over and over again and see it as a legitimate way of defending Israel in an information war.

        Only nine days ago, the very same NormanF said the very same: “Palestine up to the 1940s was associated with Zionism and the Jews – the Palestinian nationals in those days were Jews as was the gamut of Palestinian companies, societies, etc. … British Palestine was a Jewish country, period.”
        link to mondoweiss.net

        And what is it anything else than a blatant lie to claim that “The Hebrew inscription means Eretz Israel – the “Land Of Israel.” if it reads “Palestine” followed by an abbreviation of “Eretz Israel” in brackets?

      • just
        January 11, 2014, 7:33 am

        I agree Talkback.

        I wonder how a ‘state’ can survive when so many Zionists and fervent, blinded adherents are bound to the enormous lies piled upon so many crimes. They are doing tremendous damage to their religion, and to the many good people who practice it. Many people who say that the US is a “Christian Nation” are not taken at all seriously by lots of folks who believe in the Constitution……

        I do wonder about my own country as well….. I could go on and on, but this hurts. This “war on terror” was the most ill- founded and stupid thing that any WH ever came up with………Nobody bothered to look in the mirror. Not here and not in Israel. Our misguided and eternal support for the criminals in Israel is a HUGE liability for us, for the indigenous people of Palestine and all over the region, and puts our national security at risk.

        People die for this. Why is our and Israel’s ‘security’ more important that the security of others? That is a question that I would like answered.

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2014, 7:43 am

        It can’t survive. The lies are so see-through and it’s up to young Jews now to stand up and say “not in my name”.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 7:57 am

        People die for this. Why is our and Israel’s ‘security’ more important that the security of others?

        I agree with everything you said Just.

      • Donald
        January 13, 2014, 9:08 am

        “I have encountered far to many many of them who repeated the same BS over and over again ignoring any counter argument or fact. They just drop out of the conversation and then repeat their lies again somewhere else. They don’t care about lying. They don’t care if proven to be liars.”

        There are probably different sorts of psychology involved among the people who act that way. Some people are just conscious, calculating liars, but others deceive themselves first and are perfectly capable of blocking out facts and arguments they don’t want to hear. You see this in all areas, not just the I/P conflict. Someone who is heavily invested in a particular set of beliefs, whether religious or political or about their own personal behavior, may find it extremely difficult to face up to the truth and if you refute them with facts and logic it will just bounce off them. There have been studies on this, but I won’t look them up. I’ve read in some cases presenting facts that refute a position actually ends up strengthening it in the minds of those who hold that refuted position. People can be very perverse.

        As for whether it does any good to call someone a liar, I don’ t know. I do know that people who aren’t as heavily invested in a given topic can be turned off by heated arguments and think that the person who becomes uncivil is the person who has lost the argument, unfair as that is. In fact, I think that for those who are consciously lying that’s part of the calculation.
        Among those who are self-deceived they probably feel virtuous if they stay calm and you get angry.

      • Sibiriak
        January 11, 2014, 9:38 am

        ToivoS :

        I don’t think it is necessary to accuse them of lying. I met these types before — they genuinely believe in what they say.

        Some believe; some are unsure but hold on to beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance; some lie. But I agree–accusations of lying are not necessary. On the one hand, to demonstrate mendacity one has to prove intention, which is very difficult. On the other hand, if an assertion can be shown to be false using facts and logic, that’s all that really matters.

      • Talkback
        January 12, 2014, 5:04 am

        Sibiriak: But I agree–accusations of lying are not necessary. On the one hand, to demonstrate mendacity one has to prove intention, which is very difficult. On the other hand, if an assertion can be shown to be false using facts and logic, that’s all that really matters.

        On the one hand, you never see them complaining about the accusation. On the other hand they don’t care about their “false using facts and logic” and repeat their BS over and over again. Why? Because they lie.

      • Sibiriak
        January 12, 2014, 6:44 am

        Talkback:

        …they don’t care about their “false using facts and logic” and repeat their BS over and over again. Why? Because they lie.

        The point is: if you think someone is an inveterate liar, then clearly you are not posting comments in order to persuade that liar. You are trying to persuade other readers. Therefore, all that matters is that you reveal falsehoods for what they are via facts and logic. That will be persuasive to your wider audience, not accusations of lying, however, truthful.

      • Talkback
        January 13, 2014, 8:51 am

        @ Sibiriak

        Hostages and others have allready written “persuasive” answers many times. I have lost my patience with Zionist liars long time ago. And I really don’t have any problem with calling them what they are.

    • Mike_Konrad
      January 10, 2014, 9:59 pm

      They are not lying.

      Palestine was seen as a geographic, not a national, designation by the British.

      Right or wrong, you cannot use the Palestine Mandate as a case for Palestinian nationality.

      You CAN claim the Mandate provided for Arab civil rights. I would argue that those CIVIL RIGHTS included voting. Others do not. Others deny the Palestinian Arabs had voting rights at all.

      What is clear is that the Mandate did NOT allow for the Arabs to change the terms of the Mandate – in other words: undo its Jewish character.

      1919, Balfour to Curzon‘The weak point of our position is of course that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination.’

      1919 Curzon, to Balfour warns: Weizmann contemplates a Jewish state, a Jewish nation, a subordinate population of Arabs, [and that Weizmann was]…trying to effect this behind the screen and under the shelter of British trusteeship. Ingram p58

      1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land………. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate. Ingram p73 See Nutting

      Now, this means the Mandate had a self-contradiction. How could one award Arabs Civil Rights – including voting – if they could NOT under the Jewish character?

      The 1939 British White Paper finally decided and … said Arab majoritarian voting rights trumped the Jewish character – and the British stopped Jewish immigration. Legally, the British had a point; though in 1939, when the Jews needed an escape the most, it was a despicable time to come to that interpretation. The White Paper was legal, but despicable.

      But no matter what side you are on, one cannot say the Palestinian Mandate proves a Palestinian nationality since the Mandate was set up with a Jewish character in mind.

      NormanF and Shuki are right on the point.

      Palestinian nationality will have to come from something other than the artifacts of a Mandate that defined itself as a caretaker for Zionism.

      If – and that is a big IF – there is an original sin to Zionism, it is that it decidedly planned to impose itself on Arabs who did not want it. All the founding documents say that.

      Balfour admitted that they were not going to consult the Arabs

      However this is not unique to Zionism. North Africa was once all Christian. Islamic marauders imposed – and violently so – Islam on the natives.

      Are upset by that?

      There were regular massacres of Jews throughout history.

      Whenever there was peace, the Jews slowly started returning to the land. Inevitably, the Crusaders or the Muslims would expel the Jews once a critical mass was obtained. Had they not been expelled the Jews would have been a majority centuries ago.

      • Talkback
        January 12, 2014, 6:28 am

        They are not lying.

        Palestine was seen as a geographic, not a national, designation by the British.

        Right or wrong, you cannot use the Palestine Mandate as a case for Palestinian nationality. … But no matter what side you are on, one cannot say the Palestinian Mandate proves a Palestinian nationality since the Mandate was set up with a Jewish character in mind.

        No let’s see, if you are a liar, too, or only ignorant regarding all the commentes of Hostage and others on this subject.

        The Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations (paraphrased, Minutes of 1937):
        “For the Mandates Commission, Palestine … was one of those territories which, under the terms of the Covenant, might be regarded as “provisionally independent”. … Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; …”
        link to unispal.un.org

        So what is your response, Mike_Konrad? I bet, that you won’t answer at all.

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2014, 7:29 am

        Palestine was seen as a geographic, not a national, designation by the British.

        Nonsense. It was the British government itself that forced the Council of the League of Nations to convene a special court of arbitration to address precisely that legal question. It successfully argued that Palestine was one of the new states that had been separated from Turkey by protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne and that it was Palestine and the other mandated states who were responsible for repaying the foreign bondholders represented by the Office of the Ottoman Public Debt.

        Under the terms of Article 47 of the Treaty the decisions of the arbitrator were final. The expenses for adjudicating the case were set by the Council. It had decided that the state parties to the Article 47 dispute were responsible for paying equal shares of the costs.

        The UK argued that Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq were separate “States under Mandate to Great Britain” with their own international legal personality. It argued that they, not the United Kingdom, were subject to any revenue collection by the Council of the League of Nations to pay the respective state shares of the annual charges for the Ottoman Public Debt under the terms of the Treaty.

        The UK wasn’t even required to pay a share of the fees for the arbitration that it had initiated. The arbitrator’s final ruling said:

        “The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.” — See Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948), “Affaire de la Dette publique ottomane. Bulgarie, Irak, Palestine, Transjordanie, Grèce, Italie et Turquie. Genève, 18 avril 1925″, pages 529-614

      • Talkback
        January 13, 2014, 8:56 am

        And the Permanent International Court of Justice who based their ruling in the case of the Mavrommatis concession on the fact that Palestine was a successor state of the Ottoman Empire.

      • James Canning
        January 12, 2014, 7:18 pm

        Purpose of Mandate for Palestine: to prepare the Palestinians for self-government.

      • Talkback
        January 14, 2014, 10:38 am

        Unfortunately that was only the second purpose in line, because the British mandate for Palestine was a perversion of the mandate system and the right to self determination.

      • James Canning
        January 14, 2014, 6:33 pm

        No question: some rich and powerful English Jews did not want the rules complied with, as to Mandate for Palestine.

      • Talkback
        January 14, 2014, 10:39 am

        So no answer by Mike_Konrad either. My conclusion: Just another liar.

      • Cliff
        January 14, 2014, 10:51 am

        What do you expect?

        Christian Zionists are the lowest rung of the Zionist totempole of scumbaggery.

      • eljay
        January 14, 2014, 10:50 am

        >> But no matter what side you are on, one cannot say the Palestinian Mandate proves a Palestinian nationality since the Mandate was set up with a Jewish character in mind.

        So…when is Jewish going to be come the bureaucratic nationality of all citizens of, refugees from and immigrants to the geographic area allocated to “Jewish State”?

      • James Canning
        January 14, 2014, 1:39 pm

        Purpose of a League of Nations Mandate was to prepare the people of that territory, for self-rule. Christians and Muslims were in the majority when the Mandate for Palestine was created.

  11. Daniel Rich
    January 11, 2014, 2:35 am

    Would it be fair to say that the Apartheid state didn’t actually wait for a proper thumbs up, but updated its regional conflict to a conflivt between states?

    “The 1948 Arab–Israeli War or the First Arab–Israeli War was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. This war was the second stage of the 1948 Palestine war, known in Arabic as al-Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, “The Catastrophe”) and in Hebrew as the Milkhemet Ha’atzma’ut (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות‎, “War of Independence”) or Milkhemet Hashikhrur (Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎ “War of Liberation”).

    There had been tension and conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, and between each of them and the British forces ever since the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1920 creation of the British Mandate of Palestine. Both the Arabs and the Jews were dissatisfied with British policies. The Arabs opposition developed into the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. The Jewish resistance developed into the Jewish insurgency in Palestine, These ongoing tensions erupted on 30 November 1947 into the civil war between the Arab and Jewish populations in response to the UN Partition Plan to divide Palestine into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.

    On 14 May 1948, the ongoing civil war transformed into a state conflict between Israel and the Arab states. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq entered Palestine. They took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[10][11][12] The 10 months of fightings separated by several truce periods took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[13]

    As a result of the war, the State of Israel retained the area that had been recommended by the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 for the proposed Jewish state and took control of almost 60% of the area allocated for the proposed Arab state,[14] including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road, West Jerusalem, and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip. No Arab Palestinian state was created. Armistice agreements were signed between all the belligerents except the Iraqis and the Palestinians, with the Armistice Lines forming Israel’s internationally recognised borders.

    The conflict triggered important demographic changes in the country and the Middle East. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees.[15] The war and the creation of Israel also triggered the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews residing elsewhere in the Middle East fled or were expelled from their countries, with many of those Jewish refugees migrating to Israel.[16]

    LINK

  12. yrn
    January 11, 2014, 7:06 am

    Talkback talknic ToivoS

    The 3T’s
    Point is that you are not convincing anyone, that’s why only you and some here maybe adjust to your propaganda.
    I guess you got to try harder if you want to achieve some interest.
    At that point you lost the game.
    But you have time to investigate and invest, so try harder maybe it will work for you someday.
    but do it quick as once there is going to be peace, all your hard work will be non relevant.

    • talknic
      January 12, 2014, 1:44 pm

      yrn “Point is that you are not convincing anyone, that’s why only you and some here maybe adjust to your propaganda”

      Sme propaganda!!! The sources are OFFICIAL Israeli Government documents and statements on the OFFICIAL record!

      I know I’m not convincing you. It’s not in a propagandist for Israel’s brief to be convinced of anything. Your job is to propagate the nonsense of the Hasbara, at all costs.

      You afford the opportunity to show honest readers just how pathetic Israel’s apologists are

    • Talkback
      January 14, 2014, 10:51 am

      The 3T’s
      Point is that you are not convincing anyone, that’s why only you and some here maybe adjust to your propaganda.
      I guess you got to try harder if you want to achieve some interest.
      At that point you lost the game.
      But you have time to investigate and invest, so try harder maybe it will work for you someday.
      but do it quick as once there is going to be peace, all your hard work will be non relevant.

      It seems that yrn is suffering a lying seizure, too.

      I remember the first time I confronted Hasbara idiots with the fact that to the Permanent International Court of Justice, the League of Nation’s Mandate commission, the Mandatory and all states who signed bi- and multi lateral state treaties with Palestine (and not with Britain) that Palestine (as all other A class mandates) where states under mandates and Palestinians were a nation. I provided evidence, sources, etc. They just went on claiming that I didn’t prove anything and that this was only my opinion or propaganda, etc. I realized that they are pathological liars. And Yrn, you are not different from them.

  13. seafoid
    January 11, 2014, 7:44 am

    Sharon is dead.

    Ma sha allah

    link to theguardian.com

    Zionism pissed the years away
    Oh Ari boy, Ari boy

    Reminds me of this

    • seafoid
      January 11, 2014, 7:49 am

      link to counterpunch.org

      Weekend Edition September 14-16, 2007

      At least 1,700 Palestinians were slaughtered on Israel’s say-so, 25 years ago this week

      A Letter to Janet About Sabra-Shatilla

      by FRANKLIN LAMB

      Dearest Janet,

      It’s a very beautiful fall day here in Beirut today. Twenty-five years ago this week since the massacre at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra-Shatilla. Bright blue sky and a fall breeze. It actually rained last night. Enough to clean out some of the humidity and dust. Fortunately not enough to make the usual rain created swamp of sewage and filth on Rue Sabra, or flood the grassless burial ground of the mass grave (the camp residents named it Martyrs Square, one of several so named memorials now in Lebanon) where you once told me that on Sunday September 19, 1982, you watched, sickened, as families and Red Crescent workers created a subterranean mountain of butchered and bullet-riddled victims from those 48 hours of slaughter. Some of the bodies had limbs and heads chopped off, some boys castrated, Christian crosses carved into some of the bodies.

      As you later wrote to me in your perfect cursive:

      “I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an ally wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles.”

      Today Martyr’s Square is not much of a Memorial to the upwards of 1,700 mainly women and children, who were murdered between Sept. 15-18. You would not be pleased. A couple of faded posters and a misspelled banner that reads: “1982: Saba Massacer”, hang near the center of the 20 by 40 yard area which for years following the mass burial was a garbage dump. Today, roaming around the grassless plot of ground is a large old yellow dog that ignores a couple of chicken hens and six pullets scratching and pecking around.

      Since you went away, the main facts of the massacre remain the same as your research uncovered in the months that followed. At that time your findings were the most detailed and accurate as to what occurred and who was responsible.

      The old 7-storey Kuwaiti Embassy from where Sharon, Eytan, Yaron, Elie Hobeika, Fradi Frem and others maintained radio contact and monitored the 48 hours of carnage with a clear view into the camps was torn down years ago. A new one has been built and they are still constructing a mosque on its grounds.

      I am sorry to report that today in Lebanon, the families of the victims of the massacre daily sink deeper into the abyss. No where on earth do the Palestinians live in such filth and squalor. ‘Worse than Gaza!” a journalist recently in Palestine exclaims.

      A 2005 Lebanese law that was to open up access to some of the 77 professions the Palestinians have been barred from in Lebanon had no effect. Their social, economic, political, and legal status continues to worsen.

      “It’s a hopeless situation here now,” according to Jamile Ibrahim Shehade, the head of one of 12 social centers in the camp. “There are 15,000 people living in one square kilometer,” Jamile runs a center which provides basic facilities such as a dental clinic and a nursery for children. It receives assistance from Norwegian People’s Aid and the Lebanese NGO, PARD. “This whole area was nothing before the camps were here and there has been very little done in terms of building infrastructure,” Shehade explained.

      Continued misery in the camps has taken a heavy psychological toll on the residents of Sabra and Shatilla, aid workers here say. Tempers run high as a result of frustration from the daily grind in the decrepit housing complex. In all 12 Palestinian camps in Lebanon tensions and tempers rise with increasing family, neighborhood, and sect conflicts. Salafist and other militant groups are forming in and around Lebanon’s Palestinian camps but not so much here in the Hezbollah controlled areas where security is better.

      In Sabra-Shatilla schools will run double shifts when they open at the end of this month and electricity and water are still a big problem.According to a 1999 survey by the local NGO Najdeh (Help), 29 percent of 550 women surveyed in seven of the 12 official refugee camps scattered across Lebanon, have admitted being victims of physical violence. Cocaine and hashish use are becoming a concern to the community.

      There is some new information about the Sabra-Shatilla massacre that has come to light over the years. Few Israelis but many of the Christian Lebanese Forces, following the national amnesty, wanted to make their peace and have confessed to their role. I have spoken with a few of them.

      Remember that fellow you once screamed at and called a butcher outside of Phalange HQ in East Beirut, Joseph Haddad? At the time he denied everything as he looked you straight in the eye and made the sign of the cross. Well, he did finally confess 22 years later, around the time of his youngest daughter’s confirmation in his local parish. Your suspicions were indeed correct. His unit, the second to enter the camp, had been supplied with cocaine, hashish and alcohol to increase their courage. He and others gave their stories to Der Spiegel and various documentary film makers.

      Many of the killers now freely admit that they conducted a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, as many as 3,500 they claim, possibly more, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a crime for which Israel will be condemned for eternity.

      Your friend, Um Ahmad, still lives in the same house where she lost her husband, four sons and a daughter when Joseph, a thick-set militiaman carrying an assault rifle bundled everyone into one room of their hovel and opened fire. She still explains like it was yesterday, how the condoned slaughter unfolded, recalling each of her four sons by name, Nizar, Shadi, Farid and Nidal. I asked Joseph if he wanted to sit with Um Ahmad and seek forgiveness and possible redemption since has now become a lay cleric in his Parish. He declined but sent his condolences with flowers.

      Do you remember Janet, how we used to walk down Rue Sabra from Gaza Hospital to Akka Hospital during the 75-day Israeli siege in ’82, as you used to say “to see my people”? Gaza Hospital is gone now. Occupied and stripped by the Syrian-backed Amal militia during the Camp Wars of ’85-87. Its remaining rooms are now packed with refugees. One old lady who ended up there recited how it’s her 4th home since being forced from Palestine in 1948. She survived the Phalangist attack on and destruction of Tel a Zaatar camp in 1976 fled from the Fatah al Islam Salafists in Nahr al Bared Camp in May of this year and wore out her welcome at the teeming and overwhelmed Bedawi camp near Tripoli last month.

      Most of your friends who worked with the Palestine Red Crescent Society are gone from Lebanon. Our cherished friend, Hadla Ayubi has semi-retired in Amman, Um Walid, Director of Akkar Hosptial, finally did return to Palestine following Oslo, still with the PRCS. And its President, Dr. Fathi Arafat, your good friend, passed away in December of 2004 in Cairo less than a month after his brother Abu Ammar died in Paris. They both loved you for all you had done for their people.

      That trash dump near the Sabra Mosque is now a mountain. Yesterday I did a double take as I walked by because I saw three young girls-as sweet and pretty as ever I have seen — maybe 7 to 9 years old in rags picking thru the nasty garbage. Their arms were covered with white chemical paste. Apparently whoever sent to scavenge sought to protect them from disease. As I climbed thru the filth to give them my last 6,000 LL ($4) they managed a smile and giggle when I slipped on a broken thin plastic bag of juicy cactus fruit skins and plunged to my knees.

      In some areas of the camps there are mainly Syrians. Selling cheap ‘tax free’ goods. Still some Arafat loyalists. Mainly among the older generation. Palpable stress among just about everyone it seems. One young Palestinian explained to me his worry that with the upcoming Parliamentary election to choose a new President scheduled for September 25, there may be fighting and his October 6 SAT exams may be cancelled and he won’t be able to continue his studies.

      When you and I last spoke Janet, it was on April 16 of that year and I was en route to the Athens Airport to catch a flight to Beirut to be with you, you told me you were working on evidence to convict Sharon and others of war crimes.

      Twenty years later, lawyers representing two dozen victims and other relatives attempted to have Ariel Sharon tried for the massacre under Belgian legislation, which grants its courts “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes.There had been great expectations about the case among the Palestinians and their friends, since as you remember, Sharon had already been found to bear “personal responsibility” in the massacres by an Israeli commission of inquiry which concluded he shouldn’t ever again hold public office. But hopes were dashed when the Belgium Court, under US and Israeli pressure, decided the case was inadmissible.I regret to report that all those who perpetrated the Massacre at Sabra-Shatilla escaped justice. None of the hundreds of Phalange and Haddad militia who carried out the slaughter were ever punished. In fact they got a blanket amnesty from the Lebanese government.

      As for the main organizers and facilitators, their massacre at Sabra-Shatilla turned out to be excellent career moves for virtually all of them.

      Arial Sharon, found by the Israeli Kahan Commission Inquiry ” to bear personal responsibility ” for allowing the Sabra-Shatilla massacre resigned as Minister of Defense but retained his Cabinet position in Begin’s Government and over the next 16 years held four more ministerial posts, including that of Foreign Minister, before becoming Prime Minister in February, 2001. Following the Jenin rampage US President Bush anointed him “a man of peace.”

      Rafel Eytan, Israeli Chief of Staff, who shared Sharon’s decision to send in the Phalange killers and helped direct the operation was elected to the Knesset as leader of the small ultra rightwing party, Tzomet. In 1984 he was named Agriculture Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in 1996. He currently serves as head of Tzomet and is jockeying for another Cabinet position in the next government.

      Major-General Yehoshua Saguy, Army Chief of Intelligence: found by the Kahan Commission to have made “extremely serious omissions” in handling the Sabra-Shatilla affair later became a right-wing Member of the Knesset and is now mayor of the ultra-rightist community of Bat-Yam, a little town near Tel Aviv.

      Major-General Amir Drori, Chief of Israel’s Northern Command: found not to have done enough to stop the massacre, a “breach of duty”, recently was named as head of the Israeli Antiquities Commission.

      Brigadier-General Amos Yaron, the divisional commander whose troops sealed the camps to prevent victims from escaping and helped direct the operation along with Sharon and Eitan was found to have” committed a breach of duty”. He was immediately promoted Major-General and made head of Manpower in the army, served as Director-General of the Israeli Defense Ministry and Military Attaches at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. He is currently working for various Israeli lobby groups as a scholar in ‘think thanks’.

      Elie Hobeika, the Chief of Lebanese Forces Intelligence, who along with Sharon master-minded the actual massacre fell out with the Phalange in 1980s under suspicion that he was involved in killing their leader, Bachir Gemayal.

      He defected to the Syrians, acquired three Ministerial posts in post-civil war Lebanon Governments, including Minister of the Displaced (many thought he know a lot about this subject) of Electricity and Water and in 1996, Social Affairs.

      On January 24, 2002, twenty years after his involvement at Sabra-Shatilla he was blown up in a car bomb attack in East Beirut. Two of his associates who were also rumored to be planning to ‘come clean’ regarding Sharon’s role were assassinated in separate incidents. A few days before Hobeika’s death he stated that he might reveal more about the massacre and those responsible and according to Beirut’s Daily Star staff who interviewed him, Hobeika told them that his lawyers had copies of his files implicating Sharon in much more than had become public. These files are now is the possession of his son who, following Sharon’s death, may release the files.

      They still remember you in Burj al Buragne camp. A few weeks ago one old man told me: “Janet Stevens? No, I didn’t know her. He paused and then said, .Oh!..you mean Miss Janet! She spoke Arabic…I think she was American. Of course I remember her! We called her the little drummer girl. She had so much energy. She cared about the Palestinians. That was so long ago. She stopped coming to visit us. I don’t know why. How is she?”

      And so, Dearest Janet, I will be waiting for you at Sabra-Shatilla , at Martyrs Square, on Saturday, September 15, 2007.

      You will find me patting and mumbling to that old yellow dog. He and I have become friends and we will pay our respects to the dead and I will reflect on these past 25 years and we will watch for and wait for you. You will find us behind the straggly rose bushes on the right as you enter.

      Come to us, Janet. We need you. The camp residents need you, one of their brightest lights, on this 25th anniversary of one of their darkest hours. You were always their mediator and advocate…and until today you are their majorette for Justice and Return to their sacred Palestine.

      Forever, Franklin

      Janet Lee Stevens was born in 1951 and died on April 18, 1983, at the age of 32, at the instant of the explosion which destroyed the American Embassy in Beirut. Twenty minutes before the blast, Janet had arrived at the Embassy to meet with US A.I.D. official Bill McIntyre because she wanted to advocate for more aid to the Shia of South Lebanon and for the Palestinians at Sabra, Shatilla, and Burg al Burajneh camps, stemming from Israel’s 1982 invasion and the September 15-18 massacre. As they sat at a table in the cafeteria, where she had planned to ask why the US government has never even lodged a protest following the Israeli invasion or the Massacre, a van stolen from the Embassy the previous June arrived and parked just in front of the Embassy. Almost directly in front of the cafeteria. It contained 2,000 pounds of explosives. It was detonated by remote control and tons of concrete pancaked on top of Janet and Bill, killing 63 and wounding 120. Remains of Janet’s body were found two days later, unidentified in the basement morgue of the American University of Beirut Hospital by the author. She was pregnant with our son, Clyde Chester Lamb III. Had he lived he would be 24 years old. Hopefully taking after his mother he would, no doubt, be a prince of a young man.

      FRANKLIN LAMB’s book on the Sabra-Shatilla Massacre, now out of print, was published in 1983, following Janet’s death and was dedicated to Janet Lee Stevens.Lamb, Franklin P.: International legal responsibility for the Sabra-Shatilla-massacre / Franklin P. Lamb – Montreuil: Imp. Tipe, 1983 – 157 S. Ill., Kt.He can be reached at [email protected].

      • just
        January 11, 2014, 8:01 am

        Please tell me that neither our President, VP, nor our SOS will attend the Butcher’s services.

        Please. A state funeral says an awful lot about the Zionists– none of it good.

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2014, 9:32 am

        This is from the Guardian obituary. It’s about Sharon but it’s also about hasbara.

        link to theguardian.com

        “A remarkable blend of maverick and mainstay, he fought in all of Israel’s main wars and gave the impression of having been involved in every political development since the nation’s birth in 1948. He was left in a persistent vegetative state by a massive stroke in January 2006.”

        Look at Regev now 5 years later

        link to youtube.com

        Hasbara is dead.

      • Sumud
        January 11, 2014, 11:00 am

        From the Guardian obit:

        In 1970-71, he crushed dissent in occupied Gaza by relocating 160,000 refugees, killing 100 Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) suspects, and arresting another 700.

        Anyone know what happened in Gaza in ’70-71?

        I know between ’67 and 1973 the largest IDF mobilisation was aerial bombing of Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon (and ground troops into Lebanon) after Munich in 1972 but “relocating 160k refugees” in Gaza must have been a very large operation. Never heard of it until today.

      • amigo
        January 11, 2014, 9:08 am

        Seafoid, it is at times like this that I wish I still believed in Hell.

        But this is a good start to 2014 and let,s hope we can look forward to more pleasant events.

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2014, 11:35 am

        @ Amigo

        Unforeseen consequences are the next best thing to hell.

    • Sumud
      January 11, 2014, 9:25 am

      Sharon is dead.

      Very sad.

      I’d been hoping for a full recovery for Sharon – wanted so much for him to be around to witness the apartheid state implode.

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2014, 9:27 am

        His 2005 master strategy – the evacuation from Gaza to save YESHA in the West Bank- is in bits now that BDS is flying and hasbara is dying.

  14. talknic
    January 11, 2014, 10:15 am

    Quite frankly Sharon did nothing towards peace and he was a grossly overweight big arsed blimp who had well deserved stroke.

  15. MahaneYehude1
    January 11, 2014, 1:09 pm

    Friends,

    You show us coin – but it is also contains Hebrew “Palestine – Eretz Israel”!!
    You uploaded different maps – oooops!! they depict the tribes of Israel territories.
    You uploaded nice football video – Huuup!! the players are Jews from Palestine.
    You linked to Britannica’s definition for “Moab” – it mentions Israel and Israelite.

    So, what else do we need to learn that this land is the homeland of both – Jews and Palestinians? Maybe we all stop our silly attempts to erase the identity and history of each other? If only one reader here agree with me – I made my day. Peace and reconciliation are the only solutions in this land. Their day will come.

    • Hostage
      January 11, 2014, 8:39 pm

      You show us coin – but it is also contains Hebrew “Palestine – Eretz Israel”!!

      At this point, it doesn’t help to repeat the same falsehoods over and over again and add exclamation points. It simply makes you look like a person who is incapable of telling the truth.

      I’ve already cited the official British government documents, which explained that the coins did NOT say Eretz Israel because that wasn’t a translation of Palestine and that it was undesirable for them to use that terminology. The Royal Commission reported that Zionist nationalists protested that printing Aleph Yod after Palestine was not sufficient. See the comments and citations here:
      * link to mondoweiss.net
      * link to mondoweiss.net

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2014, 9:51 pm

        It claims, for example,…..Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) should be also accepted as the official translation of “Palestine”,

        ha!

    • Hostage
      January 11, 2014, 9:12 pm

      You uploaded different maps – oooops!! they depict the tribes of Israel territories.
      You uploaded nice football video – Huuup!! the players are Jews from Palestine.
      You linked to Britannica’s definition for “Moab” – it mentions Israel and Israelite.

      So, what else do we need to learn that this land is the homeland of both – Jews and Palestinians?

      We need to learn why you didn’t just tell NormanF that Palestine was a home to both Arabs and Jews during the Mandate era in the first place? It was your side that made these ignorant claims of Jewish exclusivity.

      FYI, the maps from the 1600s bearing labels for the ancient mythical tribes are unverified information added in order to appeal to the popular imagination of the Christian and Jewish faithful.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 12, 2014, 12:38 am

        @Hostage:

        Look, I don’t have to tell NormanF and I don’t like you say “your side”. You are too intelligent person to know that we are here as individual persons. Norman can write his opinions, some I agree some not but I always respect, and I can write my opinions (BTW, I never wrote about Jewish exclusivity, never). We are different persons, don’t know each other and have no “common side” as well as I sure you and talknic and Amigo are different persons holding different views. So, please, stop see us all as a bunch of people with the same views and opinions.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 12, 2014, 12:44 am

        @Hostage;

        FYI, the maps from the 1600s bearing labels for the ancient mythical tribes are unverified information added in order to appeal to the popular imagination of the Christian and Jewish faithful.

        I agree, But the map also depicts Philistim Palestini.

    • Sibiriak
      January 11, 2014, 9:23 pm

      MahaneYehude1 :

      So, what else do we need to learn that this land is the homeland of both – Jews and Palestinians?

      Palestine was the “homeland” of only a very small number of Palestinian Jews in comparison to a large population of Palestinian Arabs. It was not the “homeland” of Jews all around the world.

      Zionism, however, brought in millions of non-Palestinian Jews– with “homelands” elsewhere— as colonists to create a new Jewish State, and in doing so they displaced and oppressed Palestinian Arabs and denied them their right of self-determination–and they have continued displacing and oppressing and denying rights to this day.

  16. irishmoses
    January 12, 2014, 10:41 pm

    For an extremely thorough discussion of Palestinian statehood, I recommend The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict (2010, Cambridge University Press) by John Quigley, an renowned scholar of international law and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Quigley’s book is devoted solely to the issue of Palestinian statehood which he shows has existed since the beginning of the Mandate period and meets all the legal criteria for statehood despite Palestine’s decades-long belligerent occupancy by Israel.

    Quigley also wrote The Case for Palestine: an International Law Perspective (2005, Duke University Press) in which he thoroughly reviews the history of the conflict while analyzing the actions and legal claims of the parties from a legal, international law perspective.

    Hostage, you have the patience of Job. I don’t know how you do it. What do you think of Quigley and his writings?

  17. Hostage
    January 13, 2014, 9:47 am

    For an extremely thorough discussion of Palestinian statehood, I recommend The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict (2010, Cambridge University Press) by John Quigley, an renowned scholar of international law and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Yes, I do too. I’ve repeatedly plugged and cited that book + Rutgers Articles on the subject, his “Case for Palestine”, and “Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel” here at Mondoweiss.

    What do you think of Quigley and his writings?

    I’m an great admirer. He and I have participated in a few online chats and have actually exchanged a couple of emails over the Statehood of Palestine book. He included a British case: R. v. Ketter [1940] 1 K.B. 787 in the Table of Authorities, but didn’t include any reference to Kletter (aka Ketter) v Dulles Secretary of State. I’ve mentioned it here on number of occasions. It was a case involving the very same individual and a much clearer example of the point he was trying to illustrate. The D.C. District Court explicitly affirmed the State Department’s arguments that the Executive branch had formally recognized the State of Palestine in 1932 through its treaties of commerce. So I contacted him about it, in case there might be a 2nd edition. He explained that he had read it when he was researching the book, as the facts were quite unique, but had somehow forgotten to include it in the discussion of the 1932 MFN episode.

    I’ve emailed him about the ICC Prosecutor’s letter regarding the Palestine situation too. The Rome Statute is governed by the rules of the Vienna Convention, because it’s a treaty constituting an international organization. The offer extended to third party states in Article 12(3) is also governed by the rules in section VI of the Vienna Convention regarding acceptance in writing by third states. The rules require the Prosecutor to obtain the consent of all the contracting parties, before an agreement accepted in writing by a third state can be rejected or terminated. The Prosecutor didn’t do that, and offered the lame excuse that he was not empowered by the statute to make determinations regarding statehood. That’s true enough, but the Court is required to respect agreements between members and any entity they consider a third state under the terms of Article 98. The other ICC members of the Arab League had provided Ocampo with a list of treaties in force between themselves and the State of Palestine in order to dispose of any such questions regarding its legal status. If the Court ever does take up the situation in Palestine, those treaties on extradition for acts of terror will certainly come into play as a means to obtain custody of the accused.

  18. abu afak
    January 13, 2014, 3:49 pm

    Some basics, 1.
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    “…The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, “until such time as they are able to stand alone.”[5] The mandate document formalised the division of Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.[1] “”””

    Hmmmm
    So where was an Arab Palestine?
    See my next.

    • Hostage
      January 13, 2014, 8:32 pm

      Hmmmm
      So where was an Arab Palestine?
      See my next.

      Declassified British Cabinet Papers illustrate that the Foreign Minister, Lord Curzon, had complained about the text of the initial draft of the instrument and the fact it engaged in semantics to conceal the presence of the Arab majority. The attempt to establish a Jewish commonwealth was deleted from the final version:

      Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 30,000 or is it 60,000 Jews (by no means all Zionists). Acting upon the noble principles of self-determination and ending with a splendid appeal to the League of Nations, we then proceed to draw up a document which reeks of Judaism in every paragraph and is a avowed Constitution for a Jewish State.

      Even the poor Arabs are only allowed to look through the keyhole as a non-Jewish community. It is quite clear that this Mandate has been drawn up by someone reeling under the fumes of Zionism. If we are all to submit to that intoxicant, this draft is all right.
      Perhaps there is no alternative.
      But I confess that I should like to see something worded differently.

      C 20/3/20 (PRO FO 371/1599) cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 96-97

      So it’s really remarkable that Jim Wales runs an Encyclopedia in the 21st century that doesn’t even mention the fact that the mandate was an attempt to establish ethnic minority rule over Arab Palestine, but then he admits that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

      • James Canning
        January 14, 2014, 6:53 pm

        Jewish interests wanted to distort the correct use of the Mandate for Palestine, to achieve a state run by Jews.

        Prior to the First World War, most upper-class English Jews were anti-Zionist.

    • Sibiriak
      January 13, 2014, 10:45 pm

      abu afak :

      So where was an Arab Palestine?

      It’s very simple:

      1) The Mandate recognized a state of Palestine to be under British administration until it became fully independent.

      2) Jews made up a very small minority of the population of that Palestinian state. Arabs made up the vast majority.

      3) Since Arabs made up the vast majority of the population, mandatory Palestine was an Arab state.

      A few more points:

      4) The Mandate included the Balfour Declaration which called for the:

      establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people 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…

      It did not declare that Palestine was to be a Jewish state . Everything in the Balfour declaration was intentional: the expression “Jewish national home” was intentionally vague.

      5) If the vast majority of the population–Arab Palestinians–were to have their civil rights respected, Jews, obviously, could not democratically control a government of Palestine. Palestine was an Arab-majority state; it could only have been transformed into a Jewish state by violating the rights of that Arab Palestinian majority.

      6) The Mandate simply represented the consensus of the Western imperial powers as to the disposition of the Ottoman territory. Those imperialist powers had no moral right to establish by force a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, let alone a Jewish state, against the will of the vast majority of the population.

      The Western imperial arrogance, anti-democratic impulses, and anti-Arab prejudice were clearly spelled out by Lord Balfour himself:

      For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country…

      Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.

      (Memorandum, August 11, 1919)

      That judgment simply represents a continuation of long-standing British imperial policy of, in Ilan Pappe’s words, “replacing indigenous people with others, deemed superior!”

      • James Canning
        January 14, 2014, 6:45 pm

        A number of English leaders welcomed the idea of Jews relocating in Palestine, from England.

  19. abu afak
    January 13, 2014, 4:03 pm

    Basics 2.
    What do they mean ‘Palestine’ in 1920?
    They mean the JEWISH State Palestine.
    Here is a/the agreement BETWEEN the JEWISH State/PALESTINE… and the Arab one.
    I love how the ‘Lausanne’ etc, droppers always leave this one out

    The Weizmann-Faisal Agreement
    January 1919

    His Royal Highness the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ, AND Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine,, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following articles:

    Article I

    The Arab State and Palestine
    in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.

    Article II

    Immediately following the completion of deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

    Article III

    In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration-SEH).

    Article IV

    All necessary measures will be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasants and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
    [............]

    – – – — – – – — — – — – — — – — – — – — —
    link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org Or any link, It’s generic.

    So ‘Palestine’ it seems, in 1920 at least, meant Jewish Palestine.
    The Agreement was NOT carried out but is posted for State of mind/terms of the Time.
    The Arab state ‘palestine’ still/ever MIA.

    • James Canning
      January 13, 2014, 7:10 pm

      Faisal was representing the Hejaz. No one was representing Palestine, in that agreement.

      • Sibiriak
        January 13, 2014, 11:02 pm

        abu afak says:

        Here is a/the agreement BETWEEN the JEWISH State/PALESTINE… and the Arab one.

        Nonsense. Weizmann was, as the document you cite states, “representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization”–there was no Jewish state at the time.

        The Agreement was NOT carried out but is posted for State of mind/terms of the Time.

        The “state of mind” of a Zionist leader and an Arab Emir does not alter the the fact that Jews made up a very tiny portion of the population of Palestine. It was not a Jewish state at the time, even if some people wished to transform it into one.

      • abu afak
        January 14, 2014, 1:18 am

        False.

        Faisal “represented” the Arab world AT the Time.

        Faisal got the Arabs “Jordan”/77% Of the Mandate (and 70% ‘palestinian’), to be ruled by a Saudi/Sunni/Hashemite Prince (Abdullah), and Much more Including ‘Iraq': 3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire to also be ruled by a Prince of the Same Vintage .
        Who “Represented” the Kurds?
        LOL

        There were no plebiscites at the time, there barely are now!
        Faisal was as good as it got and the Arabs, by and large, did very well in the Ottoman aportionment, getting perhaps 110% of their range.

        Lebanon was Gerrymandered from the French Mandate to have a Christian Majority.

        But hey, no one has any problem except Tiny Israel (1% of the Ottoman lands) of which was given only HALF+ of the Leftover Palestine (23%) after Jordan got 77%.
        And Half of the Jews Half+ was the Sparse/Thought Useless Negev Desert.

        Noblesse oblige

      • Hostage
        January 14, 2014, 6:49 am

        Faisal “represented” the Arab world AT the Time.

        Faisal got the Arabs “Jordan”

        False. General Allenby’s two very brief raids across the Jordan were repulsed and ended in failure. It was the forces under Faisal’s command that liberated the interior. In any event, the Arabs already “had Transjordan”, because they inhabited it. The Jordan river had been the western limit of the pre-war Vilayet of Damascus. The territory lying to the east of that line had always been included in the area designated by the McMahon-Hussein and Sykes-Picot agreements for an Arab state or Confederation of Arab states. That had been an iron-clad condition for Hashemite endorsement and participation in the Arab revolt. That’s why the region had been placed under Faisal’s OETA administration in Damascus. The British had never occupied Transjordan. See Yoav Alon, “The Making of Jordan”, I.B.Tauris, 2007, pages 20-22. It explains that the first British – Tribal encounter occurred in August 1920, long after the San Remo Conference (April 1920), the Battle of Maysalun, and the subsequent collapse of Faisal’s Syrian government in July of 1920. Herbert Samuel only left three British officers behind at that time to assist the local notables, but was ordered by Curzon, with backing from the War Cabinet, NOT to setup a British administration there.

    • talknic
      January 14, 2014, 7:29 am

      @ abu afak “Here is a/the agreement BETWEEN the JEWISH State/PALESTINE… and the Arab one.
      ….
      The Weizmann-Faisal Agreement
      January 1919″

      Problem with you stupid theory… The Jewish state didn’t exist until it was proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 according to the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT at the time! link to trumanlibrary.org

      Maybe they got it wrong?

  20. Hostage
    January 13, 2014, 10:23 pm

    What do they mean ‘Palestine’ in 1920?

    Not what you’re suggesting. Nothing in the treaty says that Palestine was, or ever would become a Jewish state as a whole or that the Hashemites intended to cede it to the Jewish people. At the time, the applicable treaties stipulated that the Holy sites weren’t even considered to be a part of “Palestine” (see below) and that the Hashemites had to be consulted on its form of government. The agreement with Weizmann simply called for implementation of a British Declaration that safeguarded the existing rights of the Arab majority, while expressing sympathy for the establishment of a Jewish national home in part of the territory.

    Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace conference outlining the fact that 1) French territorial interests in Syria; 2) British interests in Mesopotamia; and 3) Palestine were separate geographical areas. He also lamented the fact that the Allies had agreed to let the Arabs establish any borders for themselves – which is why Weizmann had to go to Faisal and negotiate a treaty in the first place:

    They [Sykes and Picot] started from the view that France had ancient interests and aspirations in Western Syria; that Britain had obvious claims in Baghdad and Southern Mesopotamia; that Palestine had a unique historic position; and that if these three areas were to be separately controlled, it was obviously expedient that none of the vast and vague territory lying between them [i.e. Transjordan], which had no national organisation, should be under any other foreign influences. . . . In our promises with regard to the frontiers of the new Arab States we do not seem to have been more fortunate than in our promises about their independence. In 1915 it was the Sharif of Mecca to whom the task of delimitation was to have been confided, nor were any restrictions placed upon his discretion in this matter, except certain reservations intended to protect French interests in Western Syria and Cilicia.

    –See Nº. 242. Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia’ [132187/2117/44A] link to scribd.com

    In the 19th Century Palestine was an area governed by Muslim authorities and eight western Consuls, which had established sizable enclaves of their own citizens and protégés, with immunity from many Ottoman laws and taxes. They even operated their own consular, magistrate courts under the regime of Capitulations. Some of them, like France, openly declared their own “Protectorates” over the district of Jerusalem. The Jewish communities also operated their own courts and enjoyed a limited degree of autonomy. The Sykes Picot Agreement designated Palestine as an “International Condominium” aimed at preserving the status quo, with the Hashemites replacing the Ottoman Caliphate. For their own part, the Zionist Organization intended to take over the roles of the Hakham Bashi and the leadership of the Old Yishuv under their agreement with the Hashemites.

    Article 3 of the Sykes-Picot agreement of May 1916 specifically required the British and French to consult the Russians, the other Allies (Italy), and the Sharif of Mecca on the form of government that was to be adopted in Palestine. link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

    Lord Curzon had chaired a War Cabinet meeting of the Eastern Committee attended by Balfour and a great many others on 5 December 1918. The agenda was devoted to a discussion of a memorandum and maps that were distributed by Lord Balfour on the subjects of Syria and Palestine. It also envisioned an international condominium in Palestine. During the morning session on Syria Curzon said:

    “First, as regards the facts of the case. The various pledges are given in the Foreign Office paper* [E.C. 2201] which has been circulated, and I need only refer to them in the briefest possible words. In their bearing on Syria they are the following: First there was the letter to King Hussein from Sir Henry McMahon of the 24th October 1915, in which we gave him the assurance that the Hedjaz, the red area which we commonly call Mesopotamia, the brown area or Palestine, the Acre-Haifa enclave, the big Arab areas (A) and (B), and the whole of the Arabian peninsula down to Aden should be Arab and independent.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 6).

    In the second half of the meeting on the subject of Palestine he said:
    “The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . the United Kingdom and France – Italy subsequently agreeing – committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr. Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine ‘should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done – and this, of course, was a most important proviso – to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 16)

    E.C. 2201 contained two documents:
    Former Reference: GT 6506A
    Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
    Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
    Date 21 November 1918
    Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
    link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
    Former Reference: GT 6506
    Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
    Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
    Date 21 November 1918
    Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
    link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

    Furthermore, British Cabinet papers reveal that the Muslim Holy Places in Hebron and Jerusalem had been completely excluded from the territory of the brown, Palestinian International Enclave, shown on the map attached to the Sykes-Picot Agreement in accordance with the Government of India’s Proclamation No. 4 to the Arab and Indian Sheikhs and the Sharif of Mecca. The remainder of Palestine was included in the area pledged for Arab Independence. See for example paragraph 4 (c) on pp 4 (pdf page 5) and paragraph 6 (a), (d), & (e) on pp 8-9 (pdf page 9-10) CAB 24/72, “The Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula” (Former Reference: GT 6506) , 21 November 1918 and the collection of small and large detailed maps of Palestine in CAB 24/72 “Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula”, (Former Reference: GT 6506A) 21 November 1918.
    Former Reference: GT 6506A
    Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
    Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
    Date 21 November 1918
    Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
    link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
    Former Reference: GT 6506
    Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
    Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
    Date 21 November 1918
    Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
    link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

    Lloyd George insisted that the LoN mandates could not be used to violate the treaty agreements concluded with the Hashemites during a meeting of the Council of Four. He also stated the McMahon-Hussein agreement had been the basis of the Sykes-Picot treaty. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
    The British Cabinet papers regarding the commitments to Hussein note that the Sharif advised both Picot and Sykes during the negotiations that he would only agree to British or French advisors on the understanding that they would have no executive authority whatsoever.
    * See pdf file page 9 of 21 in:
    Former Reference: GT 6185
    Title: British Commitments to King Husein.
    Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
    Date November 1918
    Catalogue reference CAB 24/68
    link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

    That provision was also one of the conditions added to the agreement with Weizmann and prevented it from ever entering into force.

    In 1920, the provisional 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″. It 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. That area did not include Transjordan. The memoire also 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 – which abrogated the agreement with Weizmann. 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.

    • abu afak
      January 14, 2014, 1:24 am

      Hostage with the usual Irrelevant Link Dump trying to Bury opponents with seemingly coherent volume/authority, but cannot even summarize his point.
      Ever.
      (the above posted/Pasted/Dumped here at least 8 times
      link to google.com..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22The+memo+is+available+in+the+FRUS+and+in+J.+C.+Hurewitz+collection.%22&safe=active
      What’s your point relative to mine?
      Can you say it in 2-3 sentences?
      Can you then prove THAT point, not a Deflective one: your usual baffle em with BS. The same BS in fact you’ve dumped om MW 8 times.

      • Hostage
        January 14, 2014, 2:40 am

        Hostage with the usual Irrelevant Link Dump trying to Bury opponents with seemingly coherent volume/authority, but cannot even summarize his point.
        Ever.

        Well you copied and pasted the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement and failed to make any point. Then you asked what Palestine meant in 1920?

        I supplied you with the 1) the documentary history of it’s intended meaning in international law at the time the Faisal-Weizmann agreement was concluded: an international condominium, minus the Holy Sites, wherein the Sharif of Mecca and the other Allied powers had to be consulted regarding the form of government.

        I also provided 2) the documentary history of its meaning in actual practice under the provisional terms of the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″, i.e. The territories actually occupied by British troops after the withdrawal from Syria were Palestine, defined in accordance with its ancient boundaries of Dan to Beersheba; and 3) the verbatim minutes of the meeting of the Council of Four where Lloyd George said that the ultimate decision on the Mandates could not be used to break the treaty agreements with the Hashemites.

        FYI, years after the French overthrow of Faisal’s regime in Damascus, the British government still viewed the Sharif of Mecca as one of the Allied parties who had to be consulted regarding the government of Palestine:

        “Negotiations have been in progress for about a year for the conclusion of a treaty with King Hussein of the Hejaz, who is the person to whom the McMahon promises of 1915 (see paragraph 5 of the office memorandum) were given. A draft of the treaty was actually initialed in London in April 1923, but difficulties have since arisen, particularly in regard to Article 2 of the draft, which deals with our position in the Mandated States of Iraq, Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

        See:
        Former Reference: CP 121 (24)
        Title: Palestine.
        Author: James H Thomas
        Date 19 February 1924
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/165
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        If you are not intelligent enough to follow along, I’ll save you the time and effort. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement didn’t mean that Palestine was going to be a Jewish State or that Weizmann was going to have the final say. That’s why it contained a compromissory clause that required third-party arbitration of any dispute:

        Article IX

        Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

        [Translation]
        Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [ in relation to the demands in the Memorandum] I shall not be bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever.

        link to unispal.un.org

      • talknic
        January 14, 2014, 5:34 am

        @ abu afak

        Your ridiculous nonsense is completely irrelevant. Israel no right to any territory outside of Israel’s self proclaimed and internationally recognized sovereign extent.

        According to the Israeli Government at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect

        “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that 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

        According to the Israeli Government on the 22nd May 1948 the 1948 war was fought in territories “outside the State of Israel” ..”in Palestine” link to pages.citebite.com

        It has been illegal from at least 1933 to acquire territory by war, ANY war

        ARTICLE 11

        The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. link to pages.citebite.com

        The Israeli Government attempted to claim territories “outside the State of Israel” (ibid) on the 31st Aug 1949 link to unispal.un.org The demand was refused link to domino.un.org

        Since proclaiming and being recognized and admitted to the UN within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 Israel has not since legally acquired, through any agreement, any further territory.

        Thanks for appearing though, your feeble attempts afford the opportunity to show readers just how empty, ill informed and ridiculous your claims can be.

        Keep up the good work

      • puppies
        January 14, 2014, 6:36 am

        “no right to any territory outside of Israel’s self proclaimed and internationally recognized sovereign extent.”
        Hold it there again.
        You are confusing international recognition, which does exist for the 48 partition proposal area (or, in other interpretations, to the 48 aggression and conquest area) with a territory that state would have a right to.
        But that territory is also annexed by conquest. Zionists have no right over any portion of the territory; it’s all squatters’ (or, rather, thieves’ and murderers’) rights.

Leave a Reply