Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit kpr37's column >>

KPR37

Lan Astaslem ( لن استسلم‎ ) ‎ never submit
Articles Posted: 36  Links Seeded: 2913
Member Since: 6/2008  Last Seen: 5/20/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Journalism is dead,what you should know about the Israeli -Arab conflict but do not

Fri Dec 9, 2011 11:35 AM EST
world-news, gaza, west-bank, jordan, judea, samaria, israel-palestine
By kpr37
Advertise | AdChoices

We begin with the Balfour declaration, shortly before world war one ends in victory for the Americans, French, English,and other allied European powers,who fought against the Germans and the Ottoman Turks.  A theocratic  Islamic empire founded on the principle of submission.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp

November 2nd, 1917

Dear

Lord Rothschild

,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

 

 

The Ottoman Empire lost WW 1 ,as they were on the German side.The international community did in fact let the English decide the fate of the land.Winning a war sometimes grants that privilege. Not always, but in this case they did. France was given Lebanon, and Syria, other parts of the theocratic Ottoman empire. Map showing the extant of the Ottoman empire. Many of the Jewish inhabitants from this Empire,settled in modern Israel.They are the forgotten refugees.

From the international law library of Yale University

 

Palestine mandate.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp(ie) is to be the homeland of the Jewish people.This league of nation document has never been ruled out of date.It's international law.

 

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that theMandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

It's quite clear in it's intent.( Jewish national home land)

 

and please remember over 70% of said land,(map of the British mandate of palestine) was given to the non-Jewish inhabitants, becoming the nation of Jordan.This comes in to play after reading the the covenant of the PLO. The PLO was founded,before the occupation of the west bank of the Jordan river. It was only renamed the west bank after it's occupation by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan occupied it. Prior to that it was known by it historical name Judea and Samaria, part of the Palestine mandate, given to the Jewish people in the above listed documents.

 

British White Paper of 1939

In the statement on Palestine, issued on 9 November, 1938, His Majesty's Government announced their intention to invite representatives of the Arabs of Palestine, of certain neighboring countries and of the Jewish Agency to confer with them in London regarding future policy. It was their sincere hope that, as
a result of full, free and frank discussions, some understanding might be reached. Conferences recently took place with Arab and Jewish delegations, lasting for a period of several weeks, and served the purpose of a complete exchange of views between British Ministers and the Arab and Jewish representatives. In the light of the discussions as well as of the situation in Palestine and of the Reports of the Royal Commission and the Partition Commission, certain proposals were formulated by His Majesty's Government and were laid before the Arab and Jewish Delegations as the basis of an agreed settlement. Neither the Arab nor the Jewish delegation felt able to accept these proposals, and the conferences therefore did not result in an agreement.
Accordingly His Majesty's Government are free to formulate their own policy, and after careful consideration they have decided to adhere generally to the proposals which were finally submitted to and discussed with the Arab and Jewish delegations.

 

The Mandate for Palestine, the terms of which were confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, has governed the
policy of successive British Governments for nearly 20 years. It embodies the Balfour Declaration and imposes on the Mandatory four
main obligations. These obligations are set out in Article 2, 6and 13 of the Mandate. There is no dispute regarding the interpretation of one of these obligations, that touching the protection of and access to the Holy Places and religious building or sites. The other three main obligations are generally as follows:

 

To place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People. To facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions, and to encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement by Jews on the Land.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp

 

 

History tells us,Israel was an independent nation, until the Roman Emperor Hadrian ( in a unprecedented display of European colonialism) conquered, and then renamed it, in 135 AD.

no other country has existed there as a nation,until modern Israel returned. why that is ? This, I can not tell you. But I will say, that it is an undisputed  a fact.

1000–900 B.C.
Solomon succeeds King David, builds Jerusalem temple.
After Solomon's death, kingdom divided into Israel and Judah.

Between the two Great wars, the Jewish question, was on many minds. America (before political correctness)Put forth:House resolution number 360 in the year 1922, and the Palestinian people,that it references, are Jewish. Part 1 Part 2

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp recognition of the modern nation state of Israel becomes fact in 1947.it was determined at this time ,that due to the Jewish peoples connection to the land they,the Jewish inhabitants  had the right of self determination.

 

Palestinian liberation origination (PLO)  charter  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

 

Text of the Charter:

Article 1:

Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2:

Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

 

 

Not only does this reject Israel's right to exist, it objects to  the nation State of Jordan's existence as well. America considers Jordan as a friendly nation.Why do we, as nation fund the PLO when it goal is the out right elimination of two of our allied nations ?

 

The charter of Hamas is even more to the point. It calls for the genocide of the Jewish people.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

 

The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Seven:

As a result of the fact that those Moslems who adhere to the ways of the Islamic Resistance Movement spread all over the world, rally support for it andits stands, strive towards enhancing its struggle, the Movement is a universal one. It is well-equipped for that because of the clarity of its ideology, the nobility of its aim and the loftiness of its objectives.

On this basis, the Movement should be viewed and evaluated, and its role be recognised. He who denies its right, evades supporting it and turns a blind eye to facts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, would awaken to see that events have overtaken him and with no logic to justify his attitude. One should certainly learn from past examples.

The injustice of next-of-kin is harder to bear than the smite of the Indian sword.

"We have also sent down unto thee the book of the Koran with truth, confirming that scripture which was revealed before it; and preserving the same safe from corruption. Judge therefore between them according to that which Allah hath revealed; and follow not their desires, by swerving from the truth which hath come unto thee. Unto every of you have we given a law, and an open path; and if Allah had pleased, he had surely made you one people; but he hath thought it fit to give you different laws, that he might try you in that which he hath given you respectively. Therefore strive to excel each other in good works; unto Allah shall ye all return, and then will he declare unto you that concerning which ye have disagreed." (The Table, verse 48).

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out andbecome one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslemsfight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkadtree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

(this is the same statement found in the Muslim brotherhood's statement of purpose.)

 

Having real verifiable information,can lead to one conclusion. None of this is about peace or land it is about submission. Islam is submission. As a non-submitter, I reject this call to usurp the rights of the Jewish people for theocratic  reasons.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • kpr37's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Historical Vine, Israel Talk, JewNews, Justice for Israel, rightwingers, Writers, ZionVine
  • Regions: Jordan , Israel , Palestinian State
  • Public Discussion (33)
kpr37

While reality may be a bitch,it's no reason to reject it

  • 13 votes
#1 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 11:36 AM EST
bluearcher

...and please remember over 70% of said land, was given to the non-Jewish inhabitants,becoming the nation of Jordan

A too often over-looked fact.

Intolerant Arab Muslims couldn't settle for anything less than everything. Just like with all peace efforts with the Palestinians.

  • 12 votes
#1.1 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 12:41 PM EST
kpr37

thank you for the comment bluearcher

Many of the Jewish inhabitants from this Empire,settled in modern Israel.They are the forgotten refugees.

this is forgotten as well

  • 11 votes
#1.2 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 12:44 PM EST
kpr37

UN Resolution #242

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/UN%20Security%20Council%20Resolution%20242

and an explanation of UN Resolution #242

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/un_resolution_242_for_dummies.html

It all surrounds the use (or non-use) of one simple article "the."

The Arabs and their supporters say that 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from "the" territories taken during the Six Day War. The resolution actually says that 'Israel should withdraw from territories' taken during the war (no article). If include that "the" would mean all territories.

It was no accident "the" was left out. Diplomats are very exact in their language. During the negotiations to create resolution 242, Arab governments tried three times to have "the" inserted into the resolution and their request was rejected. But, by repeating what they wanted the resolution to say all these years, the Arabs succeed in convincing many people to accept their distorted interpretation of 242.

But, if you read the statements of the drafters of the resolution there is no ambiguity about what they meant. Below are those statements by country and participant:

United Kingdom

Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:

"... the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)

Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear; the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... "

Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."

Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:

"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."

  • 8 votes
#1.3 - Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:12 PM EST
krishna-167929

A too often over-looked fact.

Intolerant Arab Muslims couldn't settle for anything less than everything. Just like with all peace efforts with the Palestinians.

Exactly.

When they say "peace'-- they mean peace-- but with a judenfrei middle east!

  • 10 votes
#1.4 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:21 PM EST
krishna-167929

Here are some Palestinian maps of the area-- note that Israel has been disappeared-- they show it all as part of a newly invented country to be called "Palestine".

  • 9 votes
#1.5 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:29 PM EST
kpr37

a very good Pat Condell video.http://youtu.be/j1N1zhUm84w

  • 5 votes
#1.6 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:05 AM EST
Bob Nelson.

Why does Condell uselessly alienate liberals? I am both staunchly liberal and staunchly pro-Israel. There is no contradiction there.

Condell's blanket condemnation of liberals is counter-productive.

  • 4 votes
#1.7 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:20 AM EST
kpr37

I am both staunchly liberal and staunchly pro-Israel

on newsvine you are in the minority

At one time, before I joined newsvine, I considered myself a "liberal".

Only to discover, that on newsvine, I am to the right of Attila the Hun. I am still a registered Democrat, but I voted Brown for Senate, my first Republican vote in my life. It surely will not be my last.

The word "Liberal" is distasteful, because people(self described) like that, can be found commenting on this article, have "hijacked" the term,bringing it shame and discredit.

I am a "Classic secular liberal" unaffected by the new religion, named, "political correctness", it's dogmas are just as destructive,if not more so, than some traditional faiths.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/19/1056337/-How-and-Why-Loonwatchcom-is-a-Terrorist-Spin-Control-Network- it's modern liberals who attack,fact, with nonsense or "liberal dogma"( thoughts, ideas, that can not be observed in a common reality).

kpr37 with a pagan's perspective.

Pat has a video explaining why he doesn't like the term any longer.

Modern liberals cover up the truth of the misogynist, anti semitic Muslim brotherhood. I read a great deal, it's "liberals"who defend them.It's the democratic Administration who think we can deal with them.

how is it the liberal" thing to do, to legitimatize , a fascist theocratic origination, who wants to kill Jews and subjugate women ?

if you search the web, looking for groups attempting to put an end to modern slavery, you will be hard pressed to call them "liberal".

on newsvine, you will find "liberals" using the word "Zionist" as a term for a world wide conspiracy, strait out of the protocols of the elders of Zion.

Call me what you wish, just not a "modern" liberal.

  • 4 votes
#1.8 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:20 PM EST
Bob Nelson.

Your reasoning is circular, I'm afraid. You first ascribe a dogma to liberals (which they themselves may or may not in fact support)... and then you condemn them for holding that dogma.

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:26 PM EST
kpr37

Your reasoning is circular,

How so ?

I'm afraid. You first ascribe a dogma to liberals

No, I notice a dogma ( a thought or idea, unsupported by a common reality) prevalent among liberals. At no point, do I ascribe it to all liberals. the writer of the article, is a self described liberal. He clearly does not subscribe to the dogma, as the comment section of the article is full of liberal dogma in hostile opposition with his described reality.

(which they themselves may or may not in fact support)... and then you condemn them for holding that dogma.

and why should I not condemn them, as I would any other religious fanatic, holding on to a dogma as opposed with recognizing reality ?

If you take the time to read the article,and comments, reality and dogma are crystal clear.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/19/1056337/-How-and-Why-Loonwatchcom-is-a-Terrorist-Spin-Control-Network-

The author of the article is describing an unpleasant reality, he is met with many comments (not all) unrelated with reality, they are liberal talking points (dogma) unrelated with a common observable reality.

A common liberal dogma is that all cultures are equally valid and should be folded into the fabric of society.

In western society we debate gay marriage, in Islamic societies, they debate the proper method of killing homosexuals.

They are clearly not equal if you are gay. They mix like oil and water.

  • 5 votes
#1.10 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:21 PM EST
Bob Nelson.

Oh.

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:49 PM EST
kpr37

A great Bill Clinton video about the Arab, Israeli, peace process

http://youtu.be/MGWWOtGXTTU

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 12:18 PM EST
UNA_Lion

In western society we debate gay marriage, in Islamic societies, they debate the proper method of killing homosexuals.

Quite the contrast.

  • 4 votes
#1.13 - Fri Mar 9, 2012 8:59 AM EST
kpr37

Quite the contrast.

and constantly overlooked by the liberal MSM

From the aforementioned verses of the Quran, it is obvious that Allah destroyed the first set of people to embark on this act by turning their towns upside down while they were thereafter pelted with stones.

Since this act is one of the most criminal acts in Islam, equally its punishment is one of the greatest. All Muslim scholars agreed that death is the basic judgement such individuals deserve. This is in line with the saying of Prophet Muhammad as reported by Ibn Abbas: “If anyone is caught committing the act of the people of Lut, kill both the committer and the person with whom the act is committed” (Abu Dawud).

However, there is a divergence of opinions on the methodology to be used in executing the punishment. While some scholars such as Abu bakr and Ali were of the view that such a person should be beheaded and set on fire thereafter,

I"m going to call be-heading, and then burning the body, excessive to the point of sadistic. (EVIL)

Umar and Uthman thought the wall should be fell on him.

The Taliban used this method in it's execution of homosexuals

To Ibn Abbas, he should be taken to the tallest building in the town, thrown upside down while some men stand on the ground waiting to meet him with stone in replication of the destruction done to the people of Lut by Allah.

http://kpr37.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/10/10092771-homosexuality-the-islamic-viewpoint

I can find no redeeming value, in this religious "aid, or guide, to society" known as sharia law.

*2*Chapter P17.0: Sodomy and Lesbianism

@P17.1In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot's people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among

both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.

@P17.2Allah Most High says:

"Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you?

But you are a people who transgress" (Koran 26:165-66).

@P17.3The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

-1- "Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him."

there is no consensus on the manner of killing,but all are unpleasant. Thrown from a great height, or crushed by having a masonry wall fall on them.

-2- "May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did."

and 'allah" and or Mohammad, was dumb as @!$%# , Lot's people did not want anal sex forced upon them. It was the people of Sodom, who wanted to force anal sex on the visitors to Lot's place of residence.

-3- "Lesbianism by women is adultery between them."

adultery is harshly punished, 100 lashes with a bullwhip.or stoning

*2*Chapter P18.0: Charging a Woman Who Could Be Chaste (def: o13.2) With Adultery

http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~omnafees/temp/Reliance-of-the-Traveller.pdf

  • 4 votes
#1.14 - Fri Mar 9, 2012 9:47 AM EST
kpr37

from hurriyet daily news turkey

Hardly a day passes in the Islamic world (or in the western intellectual world) without people standing up against and decrying the occupation of “al-Quds” (otherwise known as Jerusalem). In this column I have often argued otherwise: A counter-occupation is no occupation.

Now, dear Islamists, I have a “witness” whom I guess you could hardly refute. Forget my words and listen to what Turkey’s top Muslim cleric, Professor Mehmet Görmez, had to say just last week: “After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds he was invited to pray at a church (since there were no mosques in Jerusalem). But he politely refused because he was worried that the (conquering) Muslims could turn the church into a mosque after he prayed there.”

Now, read that line once again, or a thousand times if you wish to: “After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds…” And think about why there were no mosques in Jerusalem at the time of the conquest. Still no clue? Allow me to explain: Because Jerusalem was not a Muslim city. And now you claim it back because it is under “Jewish occupation!”

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-nazi-teen-and-the-occupation-of-jerusalem-.aspx?pageID=449&nID=18844&NewsCatID=398

    #1.15 - Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:17 AM EDT
    kpr37

    JERUSALEM — A Hamas leader said Thursday that if his militant group came to power in a future Palestinian state, it would not abide by any previous Palestinian peace deals with Israel.

    Moussa Abu Marzouk, the Islamic militant group’s number two figure, said any potential deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, even if ratified in a Palestinian referendum, would be considered only as a temporary truce.

    Used to gain time, and ultimately to commit a genocide against people of the Jewish faith. As the Hamas charter clearly states.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/senior-hamas-leader-tells-jewish-publication-his-group-wont-accept-any-peace-deal-with-israel/2012/04/20/gIQAXjGyUT_story.html

    • 1 vote
    #1.16 - Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:59 AM EDT
    Reply
    Jalmeno

    This is the only conflict in the history of the world where the vanquished get a majority voice in handling the outcome.

    • 12 votes
    Reply#2 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 12:29 PM EST
    kpr37

    where the vanquished get a majority voice in handling the outcome.

    yes, being rewarded for starting genocidal wars of aggression, sets a bad precedent

    • 12 votes
    #2.1 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 12:36 PM EST
    Reply
    Jalmeno

    One of the red herrings that the Arabs put forth is the alleged sovereignty of Judea/Samaria and right of return, based upon their status as lessees and not land owners in Israel. Most of the land was owned by Lebanese absentee landlords. When the land was PURCHASED by the Zionists from these landlords, the tenants were removed by the landlord. Not by any imperialist band of land grabbers, as is repeated over and over by Arab propagandists and their Newsvine sympathizers.

    The original Declaration and subsequent Mandate gave the Zionists all of the territory from Jordan to the Mediterranean. Then Jordan was given to the Arabs, leaving the Zionists with 21% of the original parcel. As the Arabs continue to be given voice to this conflict, the 21% will shrink further because the these false claims, which are repeated until everyone believes that they are factual.

    There is no cultural distinction between the Arabs of Judea/Samaria and the Arabs of Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. There is no reason for these nations to continue their mistreatment of their 'brothers'. Only to the extent that it perpetuates the conflict between Arab and Jew - yes, Jew; not 'Israeli', not Zionist - do this manufactured 'people' have any value to the Arab world. They are pawns in the game. Their use of human beings in this manner is unprecedented.

    • 10 votes
    Reply#3 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 12:49 PM EST
    kpr37

    Between the two Great wars, the Jewish question, was on many minds. America (before political correctness)Put forth:House resolution number 360 in the year 1922, and the Palestinian people,that it references, are Jewish. Part 1Part 2

    this link from the Congressional record, states very clearly who the Palestinian people are. That was the most difficult link to find. I was looking for it, using Jewish instead of Palestinian.

    At that time in history the Palestinians were all Jewish. Or that was the term used to describe the Jewish inhabitants.

    Arab Palestinians are in fact a modern invention,that does not relate to the historical record,in any way shape or form

    • 9 votes
    #3.1 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 12:58 PM EST
    kpr37

    The Struggle with the Jews Is Not Political but Religious

    Page 91 reads: "Whoever studies the nature of the conflict between the Muslims and the Jews understands an important fact, [namely that] this is a religious conflict, not a dispute about politics or nationality, or a conflict between races or tribes, or a fight over land or country, as some describe it. This is a deeply rooted enmity, a conflict between truth and falsehood, between monotheism and polytheism, between heresy and faith. The enmity between us and the Jews will not cease under any circumstances until one of two things [happens]: either they join our religion and become Muslims, or we abandon our religion, God forbid. [Allah], may He be exalted, said [in the Koran]: 'They [the Jews] will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can' [Koran 2:217]; 'And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians, until you follow their religion' [Koran 2:120].

    "They are jealous of the fact that the Seal of the Prophets [i.e., Muhammad] came from among the Arabs and not from among the Children of Israel, and [because] they know well that our master, Muhammad, Allah's prayer be upon him, was the Prophet of Allah... [As it says in the Koran:] 'Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it)' [Koran 2:146]. Once we realize the essence of this conflict, and that this enmity cannot cease, we understand how much those who say the conflict can be settled are misleading [us].

    "Our conflict with the Jews clearly began following the hijra of our master, Muhammad, Allah's prayer be upon him, to Medina. It was then that the plots and schemes against the first Muslims began. [These Muslims waged] prolonged jihad against [the Jews], who were expelled from Medina in stages. The Banu Qaynuqa' [tribe] was the first to be expelled, following the incident of the Muslim woman.[1] Afterward, the members of the Banu Al-Nadir tribe were expelled, having tried to assassinate the Prophet, Allah's prayer be upon him, and then, the Banu Qurayza [tribe], who breached their covenant with the Muslims and joined the camps [of Muhammad's Meccan enemies] in the Battle of the Trench [in 627 CE]."

    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5896.htm

    • 7 votes
    #3.2 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:58 PM EST
    kpr37

    not only in Saudi Arabia is such vile tenants of a "religion" preached, England as well.

    I wonder no more why some refer to it as Londonistan

    haven’t written about that self-proclaimed haven of moderation and tolerance, the East London Mosque, for a few weeks. After having their tolerance of hatred and extremism repeatedly exposed, they’ve been keeping their heads down. But now normal service is back.

    Last Friday, according to publicity material (above) and its Facebook page, the mosque was due to host that conspicuous moderate, Sheikh Saad al-Beraik, who has reportedly stated: “Muslim brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100122775/east-london-mosque-hosts-speaker-who-has-called-for-jewish-women-to-be-enslaved-and-pillaged/

    • 7 votes
    #3.3 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 3:12 PM EST
    Reply
    Bob Nelson.

    Nice recap.

    A couple nits:
    - The Balfour Declaration (1917) was promulgated before the end of WWI (November, 1918).
    - There was in fact an independent kingdom in Palestine for almost two centuries, 1099-1291. Of course... it was a Christian kingdom, so I'm not sure that as a precedent, it is of any great interest to today's debate... ;-)))

    You might be interested by a series I did a while back:

    - Historical Background
    - Jordan
    - Black September
    - Quandary

    • 8 votes
    Reply#4 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 5:35 PM EST
    kpr37

    A couple nits:
    - The Balfour Declaration (1917) was promulgated before the end of WWI (November, 1918).

    "We begin with the Balfour declaration, shortly after world war one ends" My mistake

    thank you for the correction. I do want to be, as accurate as I can.

    - Historical Background
    - Jordan
    - Black September
    - Quandary

    read them all, and voted them up.Very well done !

    I found this a little time ago. Thought it would fit nice here.This is often forgotten as well

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

    Mohsen himself was in fact both a leader of the Syrian Ba'ath party controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the PLO and a Palestinian member of the Syrian Ba'ath party's own National Command in the present day nation of Syria itself. Making Zuheir Mohsen uniquely both a PLO leader and an official in the ideologically Pan-Arabist Syrian Ba'ath party at the same time. As such, he stated that there were "no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese", though Palestinian identity would be emphasised for political reasons. This originated in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:[5]

    "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

    "For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

    • 10 votes
    #4.1 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 5:46 PM EST
    Bob Nelson.

    Good find!

    • 8 votes
    #4.2 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 7:08 PM EST
    bluearcher

    You might be interested by a series I did a while back:

    - Historical Background
    - Jordan
    - Black September
    - Quandary

    Excellent articles Mr. Nelson. I had forgotten that you were the author. Certainly worth reading again.

    • 8 votes
    #4.3 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 7:56 PM EST
    Bob Nelson.

    ô¿ô

    • 6 votes
    #4.4 - Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:26 AM EST
    Reply
    pjwbur

    Regarding the borders:

    ...they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... "

    Emphasis mine.

    It is telling that the Palestinians and their apologists are quick to ignore the fact that the '67 line was never thought of as the "definitive border".

    But, over time, with constant repetition, this has become accepted as "fact".

    • 8 votes
    Reply#5 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:26 AM EST
    krishna-167929

    '67 line was never thought of as the "definitive border".

    True.

    In fact It was never any kind of border-- definitive or otherwise.

    It was merely a cease fire line that was hoped would be replaced soon by real borders.

    But unfortunately the Arabs refused to make peace, and borders there were never actually established.

    • 6 votes
    #5.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:40 AM EST
    Reply
    Socrates1

    Really nice effort.

    Thought I might also add...

    Even today, according to unofficial sources, there are rumors that some Jews remain in Pakistan, including doctors and members of the free professions, who converted or pass themselves off as members of other religions.

    http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130985&contextid734=130985&contextid735=130984&tabid=130984&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4

    I read elsewhere that no individual lists themselves officially as a "Jew". Does anyone else see the underlying premise in the fact that "Even today....there are rumors that some Jews remain..."?

    "They" want them out of their countries, and they want them out of all "Islamic" Lands. I'd have to ask the same people what they feel about Muslims living in "Christian" lands?

    • 3 votes
    Reply#6 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:29 PM EST
    US Citizen-658112

    Having real verifiable information,can lead to one conclusion.None of this is about peace or land it is about submission.Islam is submission.As a non-submitter, I reject this call to usurp the rights of the Jewish people for theocratic reasons.

    Very interesting. Well stated.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#7 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:34 PM EST
    kpr37

    I looked this up for another article, and now cant find the article.

    I am placing it here for future reference. The claim was AIPAC uses it's vast unlimited amount of money to purchase the loyalty of American politicians

    The best figures I've seen suggest that AIPAC and affiliated groups spent around $3 million dollars in the 2008 campaign. Which sounds like a large figure, until you realize that total political spending amounted to some $5.3 billion. Is .05% a large figure on the planet where you come from?

    http://www.opensecrets.org/lob...

    • 4 votes
    Reply#8 - Fri Mar 9, 2012 8:18 AM EST
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse |
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com