Hamas says committed to mutual truce with Israel (Page 7)

hahaha100
hahaha100: it's just a religious issue as desertlady declared in her previous comment, the idea of the (( chosen people )) and the promise.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: A piece of history conveniently left out from haha's post:


Samuel, an orthodox Jew, was appointed first high commissioner of Palestine. His appointment made him the first Jew to govern in the Land of Israel in 2,000 years. Anxious to serve his country well, Samuel made it clear that his policy was to unite all dissenting groups under the British flag.

Attempting to appease the Arabs in Palestine, Samuel made several significant concessions. It was he who appointed Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a noted Arab nationalist extremist, to be Mufti of Jerusalem.

In addition, he slowed the pace of Jewish immigration to Palestine, much to the distress of the Zionists. In attempting to prove his impartiality, the Zionists claimed that he had gone too far, and had damaged the Zionist cause. Many Zionists were ultimately disappointed by Samuel, who they felt did not live up to the high expectations they had of him.

.
12 years ago Report
0
hahaha100
hahaha100:
David

when a country occupies another country, and when occupier decides to leave that occupied country, the occupier must handover the country to its existing people, not to immigrants who came from Britain and other countries whom Samuel played a major rule in their immigration to Palestine (( as you mentioned )) with the help of league of nations.

you are telling me the history of Samuel, but I wanted to point out that league of nations and Britain voted to establish the Zionist country without even considering the Arab countries votes or the Arabs who were in Palestine, because simply most of Arab countries were under the British/french occupation. they just took that land and give it to those immigrants to establish the Zionist empire.
12 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: The Turks did not leave the Middle East willingly. They were driven out by Britain and France. That was why Britain and France considered themselves to have rights in the region. When Britain created the Emirate of Trans-Jordan on 80% of the Mandate, where over 90% of the Arabs lived, they were doing more for the Arabs of the region than the Turks had done for 400 years. So they figured they hadn't done too badly by them.

There were indeed about 600, 000 Arabs living on the west side of the Jordan River, but that was certainly underpopulation, and the area was totally undeveloped. That was why both Britain AND the League of Nations saw no interference with anyone's rights in providing for the creation of a Jewish country there.

Even some ARAB leaders were in favour of it, most notably Faisal ibn al-Hussein, the leader of the Arab Revolt against Turkey and King of Iraq, who declared, when signing an agreement on the implementation of the Balfour Declaration with Chaim Weizman: "We wish the Jews a hearty welcome home". Faisal saw no interference with anyone's rights in declaring that, and he was well aware that the entire region would benefit from an influx of Jewish skill, enterprise, and money - which it did.

Nevertheless, not all Arabs were in favour, and when they made their dislike of the project plain, the British sent out a commission of enquiry which recommended that the Arabs be given 70% of Palestine. They turned it down flat, and killed as many people as they could in the process. They did the same thing ten years later when the U.N. recommended they get 50% of Palestine.

That's not a very good way to demonstrate your readiness to take your place among the world's duly constituted nations. It IS a good way, though, to cause offers of land and statehood to dry up like rain pools in a desert.
12 years ago Report
0
hahaha100
hahaha100:
I am talking about an OCCUPIED LAND that was given to ZIONISTS IMMIGRANTS by the occupier << BRITAIN >>.

12 years ago Report
1
hahaha100
hahaha100:
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
12 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: Britain recognized the rights of the Arabs of Palestine from the start of its support for Zionism. The League of Nations recognized their rights. The United Nations recognized their rights. No one had any intention of leaving the Arabs out of the loop. The intention was to include them.

And, once again, Britain did not GIVE anything to anybody. The Zionists BOUGHT the lands they settled in the 1920s and 30s.

As for your reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, nothing could make plainer, or more revolting, where you are coming from.

Racist anti-semitic filth that was forged by the Russian secret service is not relevant to discussions about Zionism.
12 years ago Report
0
dksjfhweuiwe
(Post deleted by staff 12 years ago)
dfhgerfher
(Post deleted by staff 12 years ago)
chronology
chronology: shadowline. It really is depressing the way Iran continues to print copies of the 'Protocols' and endorses that twisted booklet as truth. The 'Protocols' does nothing but spread hatred against Jewish people. And Iran often wonders why so many people are fed up with them.
12 years ago Report
0
hahaha100
hahaha100:
what I read in the protocols is what is really happening to us, and to the whole world.
12 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: hahaha100 The 'Protocols' were just Psy Warfare cooked up to split the Left Wing Reform Movement in Eastern Europe. It was hoped they would make Reform people suspect Jews as having a hidden agenda, and rip their movement apart with in fighting. It is really strange people today use the Protocols to demonize rich Wall Street Zionist Bankers when the Protocols were originally cooked up to Demonize Left Wing Jews fighting the Russian Czarist State.
12 years ago Report
0
hahaha100
hahaha100:
ohh I though they played in the right wing like dani alves, zionists demonised prophets and insulted them and then called themselves the chosen ones, the protocols is in action to take over the world and I advise everyone to read it and then judge, and please don't demonize me by calling me anti-semistic cause I am Semitic.

12 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: Uh, I don't mean to sound like a school ma'rm, hahaha, but, I'm guessing that this post is supposed to say something like: "Oh, I thought they played the right, like Dani Alves. Zionists demonize prophets and insult them, and then call themselves the chosen ones. The Protocols describe a plan to take over the world, and I advise everyone to read them and judge for themselves. And please don't demonize me by calling me anti-semitic, because I am Semitic."

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were concocted by the Russian secret police at a time when Russia was hardening its line against Jews in response to the assassination of Czar Alexander II. No historian regards the Protocols as anything other than forgery and propaganda.
They do indeed describe a plan to take over the world, but, so does The Lord of the Rings. I wouldn't put too much stock in that, if I were you.

Exactly what prophets are "demonized" by Zionists I would be interested to know. I've never heard of any such thing. Unless you mean that anything other than falling at the feet of Muhammad and becoming a Muslim is "demonizing" him, but that doesn't make much sense.

And "anti-semitic" is, in common usage, a term meaning "anti-Jewish". That's just what it means. Perhaps it is too loose a term, but, most educated people know what it means. Trying to deny that an Arab can be anti-semitic because he is a Semite himself is just cavilling and saying nothing.
12 years ago Report
0
reefghrt
(Post deleted by staff 12 years ago)
hahaha100
hahaha100: Shadowline if you would like to know how they demonized the prophets review Jesus story.

from the term they came up with it shows that being Semitic is only limited to Zionists and their ideas, And anyone who disagree Zionist opinions and their ideas is anti-Semitic, they always connect it to bloodlines, I see this is racist, doesn't need education and special university to understand what it means shadowline.

Palestine was given to the Zionists by the occupier Britain, just look at israel declaration date 14 May 1948 the day before British mandate expired, britain was there when israel was declared.

12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Minor historical correction hahaha,

There was no Palestine, there was the British mandate, and the British did not give the Zionists the land, the UN determined the land which was evenly distributed to the Zionists and the Arabs. The Arabs did not like the deal, and the very next day, May 15th, 1948, tried to destroy the Israeli's. However, the Israeli's won the 1948 war and the 1956, 1967, 1973 wars as well.

.
12 years ago Report
0
hahaha100
hahaha100:
david,

before the declaration date Palestine was called was called the ((British Mandate of Palestine)), if you didn't know that then it's OK, but don't make up things and refer to it as history !!

12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

There was no Palestine as in the modern term Palestinians.

A quick historical review of where the name Palestine evolved from....



The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north.

The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.

The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.

From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name.

In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.

This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.

The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River.

The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina".



The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity.

http://208.84.118.121/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

.
12 years ago Report
0
hahaha100
hahaha100:
you said the land was not called Palestine but then you proved that it was called Palestine, thank you very much.

and this 's not about how different people and tribes pronounce "Palestine", it's about the nation who lived there and were kicked and displaced by Zionist with the help of Britain and league of nations.

as I told you before Britain << the occupier >> was there when Israel was declared by one day !!

if you want to talk about human rights and right of existence, then the majority of the people who were on Palestine should declare their state in 1948. not the Zionists immigrants.

think about it,

I would like to end this with a debate from quote on you tube.

YouTube
12 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: You're being a bit loose, hahaha. I'm not sure why you are so determined to make Britain complicit in the declaration of Israeli nationhood. Britain had been policing entry to Palestine since the war (WWII) and did not hesitate to kill people to do so. Partition of Palestine and the declaration of Israeli nationhood became possible precisely because Britian handed off its Mandatory powers there to the United Nations and withdrew from the region.

As far as the right to nationhood of the majority of the people of Palestine is concerned, that is exactly what the international decision of 1947 was trying to acknowledge. Respect for that international decision would have resulted in a Palestinian country. The Palestinian preference for war resulted in statelessness. There are no guarantees in war.
12 years ago Report
0
Page: First ... 234567