- This topic has 37 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
2 THINGS TO REMEMBER BEFORE YOU ORDER YOUR PALESTINIAN PASSPORT.
A) if hashem wants the present day of israel to continue, then it will do so, and there is nothing any american president can do to stop that.
B) before the present state was established Eretz Yisroel was in brittish hands, and therefore if it is given back to anyone, it should surely go back to the brittish. If anyone needs help with the passport form, please be in touch with me through YWN. looking forward to seeing all you guys.
It is no different whether a Yid in Eretz Yisroel lives in a State called Israel or in a State called Palestine as long as their is peace. The main thing to daven for is that there be peace.
Sure it makes a difference. The “Palestinian leadership” has already stated that Jews will not be allowed to live in Palestine.
The main thing to daven for is the ???? ????? ??? ???-???
vochindik, “The main thing to daven for is that there be peace”.
Unfortunately, to some powerful inhabitants of this planet, the definition of Peace in the Middle East is seeing Israel in pieces.
Lets see what the newly re-elected big O does with his bechira.
GoldersGreener,
Hashem is Spelled with a capital (uppercase) H.
I don’t mean to nitpick but the word is British.
They should negotiate a compromise where they have one country for all people of all religions, perhaps called Israstine, that is a democracy where every Jew and gentile each get one vote.
goldersgreener: Not like the British ever stopped Jews from coming into Israel ala White Paper laws.
#1- The British claim on Palestine was very weak. It was never even officially annexed to the British Empire (it was a League of Nations mandate, on whose behalf the British administered it). The British had promised Palestine (along with what is now Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabic and Jordan) to the Arabs as a large Arab state under the family of the current ruler of Jordan (whose ancestor was quite willing to have Jewish immigration into this large country), but the Brits double-crossed the Arabs. Had the Brits not broken their deal with the Arabs, The Arabic world east of Suez would be one large country, led by the moderate dynasty now ruling Jordan, with a very large autonomous Jewish population (perhaps extremely large since Hitler would be remembered for the “expulsion” of European Jews).
FYI
The British were responsible for thousands of deaths during the second world war, even intentionally sinking ships full of refugees trying to escape Hitler.
The Palestinians are the ones who rightfully own the land until the messiah comes.
CrazyBrit, Don’t let it get to your head, but thanks for standing up for The Old Blighty, the English language needs your moral and practical support.
I pray for the downfall of Israel and the rise of Bnei Yisrael.
I second PBA.
#Popa_Bar_Abba
Praying is the most important thing.
#crazybrit
Whats up?
Sounds like you have an imitation P5 perhaps. or perhaps a closer ally?
#chassidishY.U.type
Slightly extreme might you say?
#Murphyslaw
You forget, are not most Israeli’s are fellow Jews?
#vochindik
State of Israel is a forced cult. and thanks to them we probably will never be able to get on with the Palestinian neighbors.
#torah613613torah
Was the user name ”torah613” not available?
Groisnaches – “Lets see what the newly re-elected big O does with his bechira.”
As far as I understand, kings/officers (presumably a president would be included) have limited to no bechira in making decisions affecting the nation. ie: Pharaoh
Pharoh has bechira until later on when Hashem took ot away. But normally Kings have bechira.
goldersgreener -“B) before the present state was established Eretz Yisroel was in brittish hands, and therefore if it is given back to anyone, it should surely go back to the brittish.”
It should go back to Turkey, not England.
Number 1: Britain ran out of Palestine, so they gave up any control of the land.
2. Britain caused most of the antisemitism that occurs now in the Middle East, even more than the Zionists.
Learn some History before you post.
akuperma -“#1- The British claim on Palestine was very weak.”
Sorry they have no claim. See my other post.
“It was never even officially annexed to the British Empire (it was a League of Nations mandate, on whose behalf the British administered it). The British had promised Palestine (along with what is now Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabic and Jordan) to the Arabs as a large Arab state under the family of the current ruler of Jordan (whose ancestor was quite willing to have Jewish immigration into this large country), but the Brits double-crossed the Arabs. Had the Brits not broken their deal with the Arabs, The Arabic world east of Suez would be one large country, led by the moderate dynasty now ruling Jordan, with a very large autonomous Jewish population (perhaps extremely large since Hitler would be remembered for the “expulsion” of European Jews).”
I’m surprised that you don’t know history. First of all, it wasn’t supposed to be all one country. Saudi Arabia was never part of the Ottoman Empire. The rest was. The only one Britain double crossed was the Jews. They were supposed to implement the Balfour Declaration and didn’t. The reason why they didn’t because the Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs didn’t agree to it. So they never gave the Jews a land. The Jews took it after the English left. But they gave all the rest of the countries to different Arab rulers -trying to make all the different factions happy.
1. We agree on the British non-claim to Palestine. Actually, so did the British government. Only the original poster thought otherwise.
2. The Ottomans usually claimed and had some control of eastern Arabia (where Mecca is). They nominally claimed the west (from which the Saudi came) but until the oil discoveries, that part was basically “hefker” from the point of view of national governments.
3. Balfour never promised an independent state. At most, contemporaries thought it might involve a self-governing entity similar to what Canada or Australia were at the time (no control over military or foreign affairs, financial matters controlled from London, judiciary controlled from London, all decisions subject to review by London’s governor). Given that at the time, Palestine wasn’t British territory, the concept of a “homeland” wasn’t tied to sovereign status in any form – only a place where Jews could move with no guarantee of political control. They also promised the Arabs a state in the region, which led to the famous Faisal-Weizman agreement, and also to De Haan negotiation with Faisal (the idea being the autonomous Jewish homeland with a large Arab state – sort of a Dhimmi/ghetto on steroids – but enough so Jews fleeing Europe could have fled, and the Brits and Americans would have been less resistant to helping Jews flee Hitler).
There were no “Palestinians” before 1948, only a group of “Levantine” Arabs including all of modern Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. It would have been a lot easier for a country that was 90% Arab to tolerate a Jewish minority that wanted authonomy and economic freedom, than for a small Palestinian entity to accept being part of a country with a probable Jewish majority – Muslims don’t take kindly to being a minority – something that the rabbanim realized which is one reason they opposed zionism (if we try to boss the Arabs around, it guarantees war).
akuperma -“Balfour never promised an independent state.”
Well this is controvesial. Some say that’s exactly what the Balfour declaration did promise.
Here is the declaration: “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.”
“At most, contemporaries thought it might involve a self-governing entity similar to what Canada or Australia were at the time”
Even if you’re correct, Britain still renegaded on even doing this. So they still double-crossed the Jews.
Vochindik, according to Ramban in his sefer hamitzvot there is a postitve Tora mitzva to establish a state and a prohibition to give any part of it to another People even at the cost of war.
“Saudi Arabia was never part of the Ottoman Empire.”
I made a mistake here. What I should have written was Saudi Arabia was an area which had independent rule before the Ottomans came in. So it made sense for the League of Nations to give this to the Arabs. The rest of the Empire, except Egypt could have gone to anyone.
From Wikipedia:
“However, from the 10th century (and, in fact, until the 20th century) the Hashemite Sharifs of Mecca maintained a state in the most developed part of the region, the Hejaz. Their domain originally comprised only the holy cities of Mecca and Medina but in the 13th century it was extended to include the rest of the Hejaz. Although, the Sharifs exercised at most times independent authority in the Hejaz, they were usually subject to the suzerainty of one of the major Islamic empires of the time. In the Middle Ages, these included the Abbasids of Baghdad, and the Fatimids, Ayyubids and Mamluks of Egypt.[7]
Beginning with Selim I’s acquisition of Medina and Mecca in 1517, the Ottomans, in the 16th century, added to their Empire the Hejaz and Asir regions along the Red Sea and the Al Hasa region on the Persian Gulf coast, these being the most populous parts of what was to become Saudi Arabia. They also laid claim to the interior, although this remained a rather nominal suzerainty…”
Although i am not out to defend the british, i would like to point out a couple of things.
a) the british never actually SANK any ships of refugees, directly killing yidden. they turned numerous ships back, which eventually sank, and thereby caused many deaths, but they never actually sank any ships.
b) the british made the mistake of appointing a yiddishe high commisioner, Sir herbert Samuel, for eretz yisroel. In an attempt to prove his lack of bias,he leaned heavily towards the arab side.
c) During WWII the brittish allowed numerous refugees into eretz yisroel, by turning a blind eye to numerous ships, on both an indivual and and governmental level, saving numerous lives. In the entire period, the us only once turned a blind eye, during 1938, on intervention of morgenthau.
d) The brittish allowed unlimited refugees into England during the entire war, [with esception of enemy citizens], and was actually one of the very few safe havens – although many failed to take advantage.
e) The british prime minister immediately befre the war was a well known coward, called neville chamberlain. Since he was that after the british would leave e”y the arabs would win any war, he therefore leaned towards the arab side in terms of immigration.
f) The british were attacked many times by the Etzel and Lechi groups, (and retaliated), this obviously did nothing to help the british – israeli relationship.
g) over 75% of the land mass britian had in the mid east was given directly into arab hands some way or another, including much of present day jordan, and icluding the sinai/suez peninsula, only conceded by antony eden to Egypt in 1956.
h) any democratically elected changing government will renege on promises mada under previous governments – no different than Obama reneged on promises made by previous presidents, to transfer the embassy top jerusalem.
i) ABOVE ALL, i highly doubt that the british are interested in returning to eretz yisroel – especailly as they will soon find themselves overrun by the few muslims who are not yet in france.
Sorry guys, but i think we need better ideas on what to do now that we have four more years of obama.
No offence mrs. katz, but the american developed their immigration laws years earlier, as a necessity to their country, while the british introduced their white paper in the 1930’s deliberately to curb jewish refugee influx into israel.
iced, the state of israel is a democracy where there is a fair system of one man one vote. In fact many arabs have secretly admitted that they preffered living under israeli comtrol than under the PA.
iced -“They should negotiate a compromise where they have one country for all people of all religions, perhaps called Israstine, that is a democracy where every Jew and gentile each get one vote.”
The only problem with this is that the Arabs have the majority. This means they will run the Gov. They will take advantage and do their best to implement laws against Jews, perhaps even a final solution like they did in Germany. They were always Antisemites, but since the advent of the Medina, they have become much more so.
You can give it to Turkey; their hatred is only very recent and would be appeased with a nice present of the whole of Palestine.
Give it to Iran. They would get rid of zionism but allow jews to practice their religion, as they do now in Iran. Democracy is a bigger enemy of religious judaism than Islam is.
One should also remember in discussing the British (and to a lesser extent, the Americans), that contrary to a myth put forth immediately after World War II, the British had full and complete knowledge of the holocaust from the onset (since we now know they broke the German codes by 1940, and had detailed reports of what was going on), so that British (and to a lesser extent, American, since the Brits shared intelligence) activities that made it hard for Jews to flee Europe were made with full knowledge that any Jew trapped in or sent back to German controlled areas would be murdered.
Mrs Katz: There was a recent article featuring the RAF bombing of a refugee ship near Turkey in the closing weeks of the war. There were two survivors to tell the tale as the Brits sealed the records for 100 years.
Twisted, I do not know that paricular story, but it could well be true.
The Germans announced their intentions by the late 1930’s, however no one took them seriously. By 1940 Auschwitz hadn’t been built yet, In fact the entire “final solution” was only introduced at the beggining of 1941. Please remember, even yidden in occupied Hungary failed to beleive the stories they heard until it was too late for most of them.
Nonetheless there is no question that both Britain and the US could have done a lot more duringthe war, both in terms of immigration, and in terms of ruining the german plans.
I can think of numerous other things to remember before ordering a palestinian passport – including that tehri constitution still forbids any yid to live there, and forbids an arab to sell land to a yid on pain of the death penalty.
TWO THINGS TO REMEMBER BEFORE YOU ORDER YOUR PALESTINIAN PASSPORT
one thing is enpugh for me. Just remember that the palestinians are cannibals.
Other than the Palestinian Jews.
longarekel -“Give it to Iran. They would get rid of zionism but allow jews to practice their religion, as they do now in Iran. Democracy is a bigger enemy of religious judaism than Islam is.”
Giving it to Iran would be much worse than to Turkey. Iran practices a very strict interpretation of Islam which includes keeping the Jews in a very bad situation. Just because your NK friends visit there doesn’t mean they have any love towards them. Turkey, even though they practice Islam, is basically a secular country.
Despite whatever propaganda you may have been subject to, the Jews living in Iran are not mistreated anymore than the Jews living in Mexico or wherever.
farrocks -“Despite whatever propaganda you may have been subject to, the Jews living in Iran are not mistreated anymore than the Jews living in Mexico or wherever.”
Actually you’re the one spouting propaganda, but I assume you have been mislead by either the NK or the liberal media. They have been much worse off.
You’re a funny camper, Health. You incorrectly insinuate I got my information from the “liberal media” and then you immediately go on to attempt to disprove my point by quoting a Conservative so-called “rabbi” writing on the most liberal website around.
May I humbly suggest that you change your reading habits to the American Thinker rather than the Puffington Post?
farrocks -“You’re a funny camper, Health. You incorrectly insinuate I got my information from the “liberal media” and then you immediately go on to attempt to disprove my point…
May I humbly suggest that you change your reading habits to the American Thinker rather than the Puffington Post?”
The fact that you got this Antisemitic trash from some conservatives in the US doesn’t make it true. I have to sadly admit, even though I’m a conservative, that there are Antisemites on both sides of the political spectrum.
“by quoting a Conservative so-called “rabbi” writing on the most liberal website around.”
If you would have taken the time to read the article before defending yourself -you would have seen his religious association is irrevelant. He is a Rabbi who has thousands of Iranian Jews in his Shul and it bothered him that some liberal Jew wrote the
lie(s) you posted above in the NY Times. He had an interview with this Jew and stated what I posted above.
So the fact that Conservative rags and the NY Times both published this garbage -doesn’t make it in this bit true. Just because you got it from some conservative rag -doesn’t mean you should believe everything you read.
It’s no Chidush to me that when it comes to antisemitism that both the libs and Some conservatives are on the same page.
Wake up & smell the coffee!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.