Middle-East terrorism and the Palestine Mandate

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
They didn't.

It was the entire international community that gathered at the 1920 San Remo peace conference that did, and it was they that discussed, voted on and set out the terms of the Mandate for Palestine, that was given to the care of the British to carry out said terms of the mandate.

The international community granted rights to Jews that were set out in the terms of the mandate (along with Arab rights), recognising the Jews' pre-existing rights in Palestine, and their right to reconstitute their national home in Palestine.

A little background on this in the short video below.
roc_ the Western nations did however we are not talking about Western nations. Also you think White Western non-Jewish backed Zionist colonialism out of some high minded ethical vision? Really? They backed the population explosion of Eastern European Jewry who were very often finding it extremely to adopt to modernity which had removed a lot of their privileges from them was creating huge problems across the continent and these people wanted somewhere to dump Jews, get them out of the way- very many even saw Zionism as a way to make Europe Jew free.

How on earth did they have pre-existing rights in Palestine? Do you believe that Swedes and Danes have pre-existing rights to Waterford and Dublin? The very fact of Jews seeking to reconstitute a "national home" (by 3 B.C. something like ten per cent of the Roman Empire was Jewish- do you believe that they all had their origin in Palestine even though than as now Palestinians HATED leaving Palestine long term and when they left it was usually to try and convert the heathen from their idols to belief in Ha Shem?) in the populated homeland of another people not suggest certain things to you?

By the UK State by the way killed per cent of the male indigenous population when they rose up to try and drive out the British-Zionist colonial project- think about what devastation that must have caused.

Also the United Nations as a unit demanded that people have the right of return to their land who were ethnically cleansed by the Jews during the Nabka which you of course see as the height of unjustice.

I honestly wonder of much of the propaganda you come out with you actually believe. The Zionist State has recently enacted a "Basic Law"- the Zionist colonial project for those who don't know has no Constitution, what it uses in place of such are a set of what it calls "Basic Laws"- saying that ONLY Jews have the right to political self determination in the Land of Israel and Jewish settlement of that Land is a national value.

The Land of Israel is an expression for territory not including just the land ruled by the Zionist state but all of Jordan along with significant swathes of Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt- basically all the land promised to Avraham Avinu in Bereshit most of which never had a Jewish State, not even according to the wildest estimates of the United Kingdom of David and Solomon which very many scholars now no longer believed ever existed or if did was a best an insignificant Chiefdom (I know you have no real interest in the Tanakh which is a deep pity because it is a truly fascinating document). So straight there we see that Zionism is planning further slaughter and dispossession of "Arabs".

Doubtless if current trends continue in sixty or seventy years time you will be making out that Iraqis only moved to Iraq in order to spite Jews.
 


Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
I don't doubt that Britain fought Turkey with only purpose to please the Jews. :cool:
Lord Rothschild wanted the Yiddish/Ostjuden out of his hair because he dreaded them bringing a huge disaster on Western European Jewry who's countries they were flooding into- all the other British established Jewish families deeply opposed Zionism because they saw it opening up Jews to accusations to dual loyalty and on top of that they saw Zionism as opening up an opportunity for packing them off to the Levant when they would much rather live in England. This of course forced Lord Rothschild into an alliance with anti-Semites- do some research into Lord Balfour of the infamous Balfour declaration, a humanist or indeed a friend of Jews he was very far from being. What converted British Jewry to Zionism was the Shoah came along and proved Lord Rothschild right.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
My understanding was that they paid top dollar for all land acquired. I seem to recall even the Mufti, the first leader of the Palestinian Arabs, admitting as much in his testimony at the Peel commission of 1937 (in his arguments for reverting the region to Turkish rule, even as he admitted the felaheen had lower taxes, more schools, and so on than they ever had under the Ottomans).
That is a far better representation than my oversimplification in post #99.

In practice, immediately after the Mandate some of the big absentee landowners in Syria and Lebanon disposed of their estates. These were purchased by Jews. By the later 1920s the land-sales were more from the fellahin:
Distressingly poor and ... heavily in debt usurious money lenders, ... no alternative but to sell their land in order to clear themselves of their liabilities.
[Source: High Commissioner Sir John Chancellor, to George V Windsor's private secretary, 27 May 1930. Quoted similarly by James Barr, page 167].​
Two factors enhanced the value of the land:
  • perceived value: the expertise shown by Jewish settlers in improving its quality and output;
  • demand: Hitler's seizure of power, which instantly increased migration of Jews into Palestine, from 9,500 in 1932 to 30,000 in 1933, and to 45,000 in 1934.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,704
... By the later 1920s the land-sales were more from the fellahin:
Distressingly poor and ... heavily in debt usurious money lenders, ... no alternative but to sell their land in order to clear themselves of their liabilities.
[Source: High Commissioner Sir John Chancellor, to George V Windsor's private secretary, 27 May 1930. Quoted similarly by James Barr, page 167]...​
You need to mention here that they were taxed to bits under Ottoman rule, not subsequent to Ottoman rule when their tax became so much lighter, when their conditions so markedly improved.

Under Turkey they had no protection against the tyranny of the tax collector. - By design the Ottoman tax system created a mob of petty lords and tyrants, who usually drove the felaheen to the money-lenders.

Malcolm, you must be aware that because you weren't specific enough that the usual suspects will come on here and read what you posted above as implicating Jews, but that is far from the truth. E.g.

"... Zionism is not a movement inspired by chauvinism or by a sacro egoismo. I am convinced that the great majority of the Jews would refuse to support a movement of that kind. Nor does Zionism aspire to divest anyone in Palestine of any rights or possessions he may enjoy. On the contrary, we are convinced that we shall be able to establish a friendly and constructive co- operation with the kindred Arab race which will be a blessing to both sections of the population materially and spiritually. During the whole of the work of Jewish colonisation not a single Arab has been dispossessed; every acre of land acquired by the Jews has been bought at a price fixed by buyer and seller. Indeed, every visitor has testified to the enormous improvement in the economic and sanitary standard of the Arab population resulting from the Jewish colonisation. Friendly personal relations between the Jewish settlements and the neighbouring Arab villages have been formed throughout the country. Jewish and Arab workers have associated in the trade unions of the Palestine railways, and the standard of living of the Arabs has been raised. Arab scholars can be found working in the great library of the Hebrew University, while the study of the Arabic language and civilisation forms one of the chief subjects of study at this University. Arab workmen have participated in the evening courses conducted at the Jewish Technical Institute at Haifa. The native population has come to realise in an ever growing measure the benefits, economic, sanitary and intellectual, which the Jewish work of reconstruction has bestowed on the whole country and an its inhabitants. Indeed, one of the most comforting features in the present crisis has been the reports of personal protection afforded by Arabs to their Jewish fellow-citizens against the attacks of the fanaticised mob..." (written by Albert Einstein in 1929)
"... One of the most extraordinary features of the Jewish rebuilding of Palestine is that the influx of Jewish pioneers has resulted not in the displacement and impoverishment of the local Arab population, but in its phenomenal increase and greater prosperity..." (written by Albert Einstein in 1947)
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,704
Well, they declared Palestine should be a home for the Jews and they then fought to capture it.
A silly, inane, discriminatory over-simplification and distortion. Here's a decent overview of the history you're referring to:


Watch it through, so you don't come back on here repeating these inanities of yours.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
I don't doubt that Britain fought Turkey with only purpose to please the Jews. :cool:
The precise opposite of the history.

A few minutes usefully spent with David Fromkin should instruct one that British intelligence pre- and during-WW1 was based in Cairo. Its luminaries were Arabists. They came to the conclusion that the Young Turks (the 'Committee of Union and Progress') were heavily infiltrated, even controlled, by Jews. Further, that the CUP involvement with Germany was another Jewish mechanism. Finally, the Bolshevik Revolution (again, more Jews) was part of the same kettle-of-peculiar-fish.

All of which belongs to another thread — except the observation there was little love lost between Arabists in the British diplomatic corps and anything with a whiff of Zionism.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
"... One of the most extraordinary features of the Jewish rebuilding of Palestine is that the influx of Jewish pioneers has resulted not in the displacement and impoverishment of the local Arab population, but in its phenomenal increase and greater prosperity..." (written by Albert Einstein in 1947)
Albert naughty word Einstein, of all people! He was arguably the most fanatically crazed in a murderous Jewish Supremacists of all time- a nutter of the first order who makes even the likes of David Ben Gurion, Rav Yehuda Kook (his father Rav Avraham Kook was actually a peaceful character with an eccentric though at times brilliant intelligence who tragically suffered from mental illness- much like Shabbatai Zvei, another deeply tragic figure in Jewish history- but his son was been successful among Palestinian Jews of promoting a sinister reinterpretation of his father) and Rabbi Meir Kahane (who is the origin actually of a lot of your thinking- it certainly does not it's origins in either Rav Avraham Kook let alone Theodore Herzl).

Of course he wrote the above at a time when Jews were murdered for the "crime" of having ever employed any indigenous Palestinians by Zionist terror gangs who had already begun with the start of the Nabka and it was clear to anyone on the ground that the Zionist colonization had plunged large amounts of the idnigenous population into poverty- and with it even forced emigration. Einstein there was doing what you do hear- lie wildly in the interests of "Hasbara". Remember this was a crazy character who often liked to portray himself as some type of universal humanist while in actual fact he had pretty much a genocidal hatred of non-Jews particularly Europeans and the Chinese (yes the Chinese! I told you the lad was an utter nutter!). Have a wee listen to the below:

 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
The precise opposite of the history.

A few minutes usefully spent with David Fromkin should instruct one that British intelligence pre- and during-WW1 was based in Cairo. Its luminaries were Arabists. They came to the conclusion that the Young Turks (the 'Committee of Union and Progress') were heavily infiltrated, even controlled, by Jews. Further, that the CUP involvement with Germany was another Jewish mechanism. Finally, the Bolshevik Revolution (again, more Jews) was part of the same kettle-of-peculiar-fish.

All of which belongs to another thread — except the observation there was little love lost between Arabists in the British diplomatic corps and anything with a whiff of Zionism.
I do not think it is disputed that the Donmeh who were a particularly fascinating Jewish group played a massive role in the Young Turks and hence in the Armenian genocide and general slaughter of Christians of all denominations with crumbling of the power of the Ottomans which of course Jewish propagandists sometimes will use to fan the flames of hatred for Muslims among Christians. However Armenian genocide denial is the order of the day among Jews in Palestine despite Erdogen who I have really warmed taking Turkey essentially out of the Anglo-Zionist Imperialist camp. That said recently Benny Morris has recently came out with a book basically stating what most of us here knew all along about the Armenian genocide despite having been a fellow denier of it ages of ages. Of course there is a massive implication with this book that if the Turks could get away with it than just maybe Jews could get away genociding the indigenous Palestinians.

The Russian Revolution as a Jewish conspiracy thing is of course wrong- certainly a lot of the Bolshevik leadership came from Jewish backgrounds but they loathed the Bund with a passion no mind the Zionists- they suppressed even the most mild forms of Jewish identity politics. Never the less we cannot ignore the times seething hatred and contempt that Leon Trotsky had for the average Russian peasant almost certainly came from the same attitudes towards the am ha'aretz in general and the Christian am ha'aretz in particular in traditional Jewish cultures- and this very much Jewish aspect of his make up was at the root of the sheer intensity of the brutality of how he ran the Red Army and executed the Civil War. Than of course there is the fact that even among the Orthodox very many of the Ostjuden/Yiddish diaspora in Western Europe and North America did support the Bolsheviks because they as much as the anti-Semites saw them as some Jewish revenge upon Christian Russia. This attitude by the way deeply horrified a large majority of the actual sons and daughters of Ashkenaz.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,704
I do not think it is disputed...
Isn't it just great really.

No need to study history anymore to be a "historian".

You just do a google search on whatever part of history is under discussion to find the conspiracies that implicate Jews in that part of history.

Immediately you are in possession of a superior, "esoteric" knowledge to the historians who have studied their whole lives, you now have a theory to upset the whole historical applecart.


And to boot, you are now a great guru in the eyes of the online neanderthals.

You do not even need to read the original book, or paper, in the above case, the 543-page document entitled The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians (which suggests that it was the "Crypto-Jews" who were the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide) posted on the internet by Christopher Jon Bjerkness, an amateur historian of science.

You just go read the summary of "the best bits" on hate sites like rense.com, e.g. Jews, Zionists Behind Armenian Genocide Holocaust or The Planned, Organized, Executed Genocide Of Armenians

So what's it all about, eh. :rolleyes:

 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
Isn't it just great really.

No need to study history anymore to be a "historian".

You just do a google search on whatever part of history is under discussion to find the conspiracies that implicate Jews in that part of history.

Immediately you are in possession of a superior, "esoteric" knowledge to the historians who have studied their whole lives, you now have a theory to upset the whole historical applecart.
Check out this brilliant study but sadly denialist when it comes to the Armenian Shoah. Yes I am that the followers of Shabbatai Zvei. Check out also a review of it by an actually scholarly Jew in which he criticizes for it's glossing over their role in the whole sale slaughter of the Armenians. By the way I never suggested that they were Zionists.

Amazon.com: The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks (9780804768689): Marc David Baer: Books

Actually I think over all the followers of Shabbatai Zvei were largely a very positive force in Jewish life most of the time especially as regards in Europe. I have even defended Jacob Frank on here. I realize by the way that the Shabbataians especially the Frankists take up a massive place in lula anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as well as lula Jewish conspiracy theories in the worlds of Religious Zionism and Religious Anti-Zionism.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
You do not even need to read the original book, or paper, in the above case, the 543-page document entitled The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians (which suggests that it was the "Crypto-Jews" who were the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide) posted on the internet by Christopher Jon Bjerkness, an amateur historian of science.
He is a nutter- however his books "Warnings to the Jews! Premonitions of the Holocaust" and "Einstein's Racism Exposed!" which are basically made up of reproducing things from other sources are worth checking out. I have not read his book on the Armenian Shoah however I read another book by him which I found to be basically crapped and even showed evidence of a possible derangement. Anyway Jews will go on long drawn out whinging moans about other people never seeming to show much interest in Rabbinic Literature. Christopher Jon Bjerknes is obsessed with the stuff- so here you have a Goy who is fascinated by it and here you are belly aching over the fact! What is Goy to do?
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,859
The precise opposite of the history.

A few minutes usefully spent with David Fromkin should instruct one that British intelligence pre- and during-WW1 was based in Cairo. Its luminaries were Arabists. They came to the conclusion that the Young Turks (the 'Committee of Union and Progress') were heavily infiltrated, even controlled, by Jews. Further, that the CUP involvement with Germany was another Jewish mechanism. Finally, the Bolshevik Revolution (again, more Jews) was part of the same kettle-of-peculiar-fish.

All of which belongs to another thread — except the observation there was little love lost between Arabists in the British diplomatic corps and anything with a whiff of Zionism.
I would assume that it was Lloyd George and his cabinet in London who ultimately decided policy on the middle east.
 

font

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
298
Well, they declared Palestine should be a home for the Jews and they then fought to capture it.
A little problem with your reply is that the Palestine campaign began early in 1917, while the Balfour Declaration was issued in November.
The main problem with your reply is that the capture of Palestine was supposed to secure Britain’s strategic position in the Middle East. The Balfour Declaration was just a political part of this plan.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Last edited:
Last edited:
I would assume that it was Lloyd George and his cabinet in London who ultimately decided policy on the middle east.
Well, yes. Then we'd need to address how we got to that point, and where the 'guidance' was coming from. Which is retreading further back and further away from the original point.

Consider Herzl. What astonished me is how little committed to Judaism he was. He was an assimilated Jewish journalist, at first motivated by the anti-semitism of the Dreyfus case. As the Paris correspondent of an Austro-Hungarian newspaper he was au fait with politicking. It took him some time to recognise that Palestine ('the land of the Philistines') was also 'the Land of Israel'.

Herzl had attempted negotiations with the Sublime Porte, but had to recognise it was no go with Sultan Abdul Hamid II. So he betook himself to meet with Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary: at that stage Herzl's concept of a 'Jewish homeland' was either a bit of Cyprus or Sinai. Chamberlain was only prepared to consider the second of those.

Herzl's representative in London was Leopold Greenberg, and together they recognised the need for a cute and thrusting young lawyer with political nous. Their choice fell upon a certain David Lloyd George (who had the further advantage of being a non-conformist Bible-basher). Arabists in the British bureaucracy in Cairo made sure all these fantastic notion were well and truly squelched, and Herzl had letters (dated 11 June and 16 July 1903) to confirm.

Chamberlain, though, had another card to play. As Colonial Secretary he proposed a settlement in ... wait for it! ... British East Africa (i.e. Uganda). As far as I immediately see, that is whence that hare started running. Balfour was on board with that idea, and HM Government came up with an ambiguous approval in the summer of 1903 — effectively, the first Balfour Declaration.

Herzl took the East Africa proposal to the World Zionist Congress, as a 'holding option' for a homeland. The Congress went very cool on the idea. Within a year Herzl was dead. By 1906 the Liberals were in government, and David Lloyd George was President of the Board of Trade. LG, with a prod from Greenberg, relaunched the Sinai project, and we have Sir Edward Grey's letter (20 March 1906) again rejecting the notion.

Only in 1917-18 was Lloyd George in a position to do the Lord's work in the Middle East.

As for where LG's advice was then coming from, let's note that the assistant secretaries to the War Cabinet were Leo Amery and ... ahem! ... Sir Mark Sykes, the co-author of the Sykes-Picot 'Line in the Sand'. Shimmering grandly, stage far right, was Lord Milner, and Milner had those Cecil in-laws.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,859
Lloyd George's enthusiasm for a campaign in Paletine brought him into conflict with General Sir William Robertson, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

General Robertson strongly objected to British soldiers being diverted to Palestine, thus depriving the western front of reinforcements.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Last edited:
Last edited:
Lloyd George's enthusiasm for a campaign in Paletine brought him into conflict with General Sir William Robertson, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

General Robertson strongly objected to British soldiers being diverted to Palestine, thus depriving the western front of reinforcements.
That was just one grief, among many, of the on-going spat between
  • 'Westerners' (those who reckoned the Central Powers could only be dealt with on the Western Front)
  • and the 'Easterners' (arguing attacking the Central Powers on their vulnerable flanks).
Lloyd George, Churchill and Bonar Law were all 'Easterners'. A further complication was Italians rejecting any interference in 'their' zone of influence.

The 'Easterners' promoted operations such as Gallipoli, Salonika, Palestine and Mesopotamia. Kitchener and Asquith hardly committed themselves either way. 'Easterners' never could match the 'Westerners' (notably Haig and Robertson) in the military high command. There was substantial ''Easterner' opinion in France (for examples, Sarrail and Franchet d'Esperay).

We'd need to consider the position at New Year 1918. Allenby was hovering to take Jerusalem — and Palestine offered the prospect of some fairy-dust to glisten the whole ineffective Allied (read: British) war effort. The Allied Supreme War Council's Joint Note 12 (well worth a visit) was asserting there would be no decisive result on the Western Front before 1919 — thus strengthening the 'Easterners'. What came out of that was a War Cabinet decision to reduce operations in Mesopotamia, while Smuts visited Allenby to urge a 'decisive' drive on Turkey. Haig and Robertson gave some impetus, in that they feared German troops being deployed from a quiescent East into the Western Front. That left an imbalance of Allenby with 112,000 active forces against just 39,000 Germans and Turks in Palestine. Later in 1918 there was a transfer of 60,000 of the sharpest elements in Palestine (being replaced by Indian forces) to prop up the crisis on the Western Front.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,859
That was just one grief, among many, of the on-going spat between
  • 'Westerners' (those who reckoned the Central Powers could only be dealt with on the Western Front)
  • and the 'Easterners' (arguing attacking the Central Powers on their vulnerable flanks).
Lloyd George, Churchill and Bonar Law were all 'Easterners'. A further complication was Italians rejecting any interference in 'their' zone of influence.

The 'Easterners' promoted operations such as Gallipoli, Salonika, Palestine and Mesopotamia. Kitchener and Asquith hardly committed themselves either way. 'Easterners' never could match the 'Westerners' (notably Haig and Robertson) in the military high command. There was substantial ''Easterner' opinion in France (for examples, Sarrail and Franchet d'Esperay).

We'd need to consider the position at New Year 1918. Allenby was hovering to take Jerusalem — and Palestine offered the prospect of some fairy-dust to glisten the whole ineffective Allied (read: British) war effort. The Allied Supreme War Council's Joint Note 12 (well worth a visit) was asserting there would be no decisive result on the Western Front before 1919 — thus strengthening the 'Easterners'. What came out of that was a War Cabinet decision to reduce operations in Mesopotamia, while Smuts visited Allenby to urge a 'decisive' drive on Turkey. Haig and Robertson gave some impetus, in that they feared German troops being deployed from a quiescent East into the Western Front. That left an imbalance of Allenby with 112,000 active forces against just 39,000 Germans and Turks in Palestine. Later in 1918 there was a transfer of 60,000 of the sharpest elements in Palestine (being replaced by Indian forces) to prop up the crisis on the Western Front.
Which would tend to suggest that General Robertson was correct in his misgivings about sending soldiers to Palestine.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom