An opportunity for what? Surely you can't be serious? Is there no end to this endless partisan rhetoric? And shades of Goebbels's propaganda?

Bush made it abundantly clear that there was a road map and nothing other than a two state solution was on the table! Since then there have been countless (illegal settlement) breaches of an agreement not worth the paper it is written on!

Why? for one purpose and one purpose only!? To ensure Jews outnumber Arab voters in Nethanyahu's gerrymander!?
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

I'm not sure that there can be any other current remedy but a two-state solution. Are you proposing a one-state, or three-state, solution ?

So the question is: how to bring it about ? First, of course, Palestinians have to drop the demand, rhetorical is it may seem, to push all Jews into the sea. And if any Israeli concessions, such as the one a decade ago, to withdraw from Gaza, are offered, taken and then used against Israel, then one can only take it for granted that Israel will keep building new settlements.

Cheers,

Joe

Peace is where the opposing parties come together and mutually agree on conditions to end their conflict. One side cannot impose peace on another. Until Israel and the USA comprehend that, the occupation will continue. The longer it takes Israel to enter peace negotiations in good faith, the closer it gets to signing its own death warrant.

#Alan B

You state:
"Bush made it abundantly clear that there was a road map and nothing other than a two state solution was on the table! Since then there have been countless (illegal settlement) breaches of an agreement not worth the paper it is written on!"

Not quite.

1. Bush made it clear that the two-state solution contained in his 2003 Quartet endorsed Roadmap would be the only two-state solution that would be implemented.
"First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan."

2. Bush further acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, that it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

3. Bush's above commitments were endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12

On what basis do you claim that a written agreement made by the President of the United States and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress is "not worth the paper it is written on"?

What breaches of this agreement do you allege occurred?

#Anti-Colonial

You state:

"The longer it takes Israel to enter peace negotiations in good faith, the closer it gets to signing its own death warrant."

Israel offered to cede its claims in more than 90% of the West Bank in 2000/1 and 2008 but the PLO rejected such offers because it wanted 100%.

Israel completely disengaged from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank in 2005.

As thanks Israel has received thousands of rockets fired indiscrimately into Israeli population centers and tunnels built into Israel by Hamas ever since.

The Gazan and West Bank Arabs have been denied free elections and any say in what they want and who they want to lead them since 2005

The PLO and Hamas continue to call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map.

It is the PLO and Hamas that have been slowly signing their own death warrants for the last 24 years since the Oslo Accords promised the Palestinian Arabs their own State - in addition to Jordan - for the first time ever in recorded history.

These so-called leaders - like those that preceded them in 1922, 1937, 1947, 1948, and between 1948 to 1967 have refused to accept the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in former Palestine.

You can lead horses to water but you cannot make them drink.

"These so-called leaders - like those that preceded them in 1922, 1937, 1947, 1948, and between 1948 to 1967 have refused to accept the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in former Palestine."

David let's talk history.

When did the Zionist movement take off? The late 1800's.

Why did it take off? Because the Jewish people across Europe were being discriminated against, persecuted and even slaughtered by Christian nations across Europe.

What was its aims? To use ancient history as an excuse to create a new state of Israel as a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people.

What happened during the Ottoman period? The Zionists paid for land and settled in the region. Pre-Zionism the Palestinian Jewish population was less that 5%, by 1922 when the British carried out a census it was 11%. With the Ottomans in control there was no talk of a Jewish state, only talk of Jews settling in their ancestral homes. Consequently there was no serious problem with the people that were native to that region. That all changed with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

So tell me David where in the world in the twentieth century has any leader given up a large percentage of the land of their people to a minority group, the majority of whom are recent immigrants? Tell me where in North America, where in Europe, where in Oceania? Then you can tell me what gives the Jewish people the right to reconstitute an ANCIENT nation by dispossessing the native inhabitants of their right to a forge a new nation as was happening throughout Eastern Europe. Then tell me why this land grab by the Zionists is not the same as the rampant colonial racism that so many European nations inflicted on people across the world.

These so-called leaders did what any real leader would have done in their position. They fought for the land of their people. Don't take my word for it because every Israeli leader from Ben-Gurion to Rabat have said they would do the same if they were Palestinian.

"Don't take my word for it because every Israeli leader from Ben-Gurion to Rabat have said they would do the same if they were Palestinian."

Whoops!

Morocco on the brain, should read Barak not Rabat.

#Anti-Colonial

You badly fail your own history test.

Your errors include:.

1."When did the Zionist movement take off? The late 1800's"

Wrong - the Zionist movement has been continuously taking off for thousands of years. Judaism's ancient central prayer recited three times a day states:

"Sound the great shofar for our freedom; raise a banner to gather our exiles, and bring us together from the four corners of the earth into our land. Blessed are You L-rd, who gathers the dispersed of His people Israel."

2. "With the Ottomans in control there was no talk of a Jewish state,"

The Ottomans were in control for 400 years. There was also no talk of a Palestinian Arab State.

3."So tell me David where in the world in the twentieth century has any leader given up a large percentage of the land of their people to a minority group, the majority of whom are recent immigrants?"

The Palestinian Arabs - after bitter opposition and violence -secured their own homeland in 78% of Palestine under article 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. After more violence they were offered - and rejected - an even greater share in 1937 by the Peel Commission and the 1947 UN Partition Plan. They did nothing to secure a second Arab State - in addition to Jordan - between 1948 to 1967. They have rejected Israeli offers to increase that share in 2000/1 and 2008.

"Compromise" is not a word known to their rejectionist leaders as Jewish leaders resiled from their demands to try and reach an accord.

4. "Then you can tell me what gives the Jewish people the right to reconstitute an ANCIENT nation by dispossessing the native inhabitants of their right to a forge a new nation as was happening throughout Eastern Europe."

(i) The League of Nations in unanimously endorsing the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
(ii) article 80 of the UN Charter
(iii) the right of self defence against ongoing Arab violence and attempts to murder Jews who legally arrived to settle in Palestine starting from 1920 and still continuing today.

"Wrong - the Zionist movement has been continuously taking off for thousands of years. Judaism's ancient central prayer recited three times a day states...."

We both know the historical consensus considers Theodor Herzl as the founder of Zionism in the late 1800's. As we also know that there are plenty of rabbis that do not equate that ancient prayer with Zionism, nor do they equate Judaism with Zionism. Since neither of us have the theological background to debate that stance, I'll deal with the real evidence. Over a thousand times every year for thousands of years Jews recited a prayer that effectively called them “home”. They migrated across Arabia, (hardly surprising given their shared ancestral DNA, more of that later). They migrated across Europe. Seems like they wanted to go everywhere but home. As we've seen previously they doubled their numbers in the latter years of the Ottomans without major incident and without a Jewish state. We know also that many of the Jews that arrived in this period, moved of their own free will onto America. Seems they couldn't leave “home” fast enough, the almighty dollar obviously more appealing than their own almighty.! Zionism was nothing more than a grubby power / land grab justified by a perverse abuse of Judaism.

“.....Palestinian Arab”

“Palestinian Arab” encapsulates the perversity of this conflict. Historians long ago dispelled the notion that Moses was real. There was no invasion of Canaan by the “Chosen people” because the Canaanites were the very people that helped formulate Judaism. Judaism was nothing more than a religion drawing on various mythologies that were doing the rounds in the Middle East during ancient times. The DNA from the region shows all Palestinians of all religions and that includes Judaism, have all got shared ancestral DNA. A Palestinian Jew is no different from a Palestinian Christian, a Palestinian Moslem, or a Palestinian of any other denomination. Whilst European Jews have traces of European DNA, they share ancestral DNA with the Palestinians. It's perverse that we have Zionist supremacists “othering” their very own ancestral kinsfolk. Instead of a Nazi Jew denying his heritage to hold on to a privileged position in the Third Reich, we have Zionist supremacists denying their shared heritage with the Palestinians to claim EXCLUSIVITY over the land.

“....arrived to settle in Palestine starting from 1920 and still continuing today.”

You know full well why it started from 1920. At the 1919 Paris Peace talks the Zionists didn't simply request a part of Palestine. They requested all of it, plus some of Lebanon and Syria too. So the Palestinians went from a supposed independence agreement as per McMahon-Hussein in 1915, to being ratted on by the British and French with their Sykes Picot agreement. This was further compounded by the deal done by Balfour with the Zionists. So the Palestinians did what many oppressed people have done throughout history, they enacted their right of self-defence against foreign invaders wanting to steal their land. And we both know that the Palestinians had every right not to trust anything the Zionists said or any agreements that they signed.

Thank you for acknowledging that the UN reconstituted an ANCIENT nation and dispossessed the native inhabitants of their right to forge a new nation. That act alone shattered article 1.2 of the UN on the right to self-determination.

#Anti Colonial

You should have completed my quote:
"Sound the great shofar for our freedom; raise a banner to gather our exiles, and bring us together from the four corners of the earth into our land. Blessed are You L-rd, who gathers the dispersed of His people Israel."

Was the existence of this ancient prayer too much for you to even cut and paste? Would repeating it reinforce what I had stated?

As you continue to display your ignorance - think about the sanctuary cities that are now the flavour of the month in America.

They originate in the Jewish Bible : Numbers 35:9-34

"The cities of refuge were sanctuaries to which those who accidentally killed another could flee. There were six of them located throughout Israel, three on each side of the Jordan River".

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/9094/Sanctuary-City.htm

Shock horror - there were three such cities in the West Bank and three in Jordan - with Jews living there back in Biblical days.

Your true colours as a rabid Jew-hater shine through with this following comment:
"Seems they couldn't leave “home” fast enough, the almighty dollar obviously more appealing than their own almighty.! Zionism was nothing more than a grubby power / land grab justified by a perverse abuse of Judaism."

Jew-hatred runs deep and you appear to suffer badly from that disease.

51 member nations were spot on when they spoke of the "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home" in 1922.

The PLO, Hamas and previous Arab leaders have rejected this idea and the very Bible even their prophet Mohammed acknowledges.

Shame on you for rubbishing a narrative that was written long before the political machinations of the 19th and 20th centuries.

BTW - Next Monday night Jews all around the world will utter the words "Next Year in Jerusalem " at their Seder table ( as they have done for centuries).

Ever wondered why PLO never called for Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian state any time between 1948 and 1967 when it could have been created with the stroke of an Arab League pen?

“Jew-hater”

A pathetic, though highly predictable, Zionist response. Rather than respond to the argument, you run away mouthing vitriol. What are all the Rabbis and Jews that do not equate your prayer or your religion with Zionism? What about all the Rabbis and Jews that do not believe in the state of Israel? Are they all Jew-haters too? I've had many Jewish acquaintances and some Jewish friends and even if our arguments got heated, they would never descend into racist rants. That's because at the core of all our discussions was justice, something Zionists know little about.

“the almighty dollar “

It's called satire David, as it has been apparent throughout this discussion that you have refused to acknowledge the role of European persecution in the creation of the Zionist movement. You have refused to acknowledge the harmony between the European Jewish refugees and Palestinians near the end of the Ottoman era. Who could blame any Jew for wanting to travel to Palestine to escape the persecution in Europe. Who could blame any Jew for wanting to travel on to America when they realized their economic future looked bleak in Palestine. The Jews escaping Europe persecution was no Exodus. It was no Pilgrims on the Mayflower or Mormons in a wagon train. It was refugees seeking asylum plain and simple and it was the Palestinians who gave them sanctuary.

“Jewish National Home “

There is a massive difference between a home and a state. The mandate for Palestine went out of its way to exclude the phrase Jewish state. Everybody recognized the spiritual connection the Jewish people had with Palestine. The concept of the national home was to enshrine citizenship rights for those Jews that met the criteria. It would be a sanctuary for them , free from the persecution and discrimination they suffered in Europe. Even the twelfth Zionist Congress in 1921 accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in which Jew and Arab lived side by side and co-operated to build their common home. But your modern day Zionists go out of their way to cover that one up.

“Shame on you for rubbishing a narrative”

You can quote the Torah or the Bible as much as you like, but they are not historical works. The Middle East is probably the most archaeologically studied region in the world. All that tangible evidence rubbishes the grand narratives of the Exodus, David and Solomon. There is no difference between you, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Ayatollah's henchmen. None of you accept hard evidence that counters your fundamentalist zealotry.

#Anti Colonial

You misleadingly state:
"A Palestinian Jew is no different from a Palestinian Christian, a Palestinian Moslem, or a Palestinian of any other denomination.

That is not what the PLO Charter says:
"The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian."

Arabs - get it? No Jews - which to a Jew-hater like you is music to your ears.

Why do you continually try to pull the wool over OLO readers eyes by making false and unsubstantiated claims?

#Anti Colonial

You state:
"There is a massive difference between a home and a state. The mandate for Palestine went out of its way to exclude the phrase Jewish state"

Your view is contradicted by this extract from the Peel Commission Report (pages 33 - 34)

"This definition of the National Home {in the White Paper} has been sometimes taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended. This view was naturally shared by the Zionist Organisation, whose Executive, after examining the Statement of Policy, declared that “ the activities of the Zionist Organisation will be conducted in conformity with the policy therein set forth “. One reason why no public allusion to a State was made in 1922 was the same reason why no such allusion had been made in 1917. The National Home was still no more than an experiment. Some 16,000 Jews had entered Palestine in I920 and 1921. The Arab population was about 600,000. It would be a very long time, it seemed, before the Jews could become a majority in the country. Indeed, as late as 1926, a leading Zionist stated that there was ” still little prospect of the Arabs being overtaken in a numerical sense within a measurable period of time ”.* It was not till the great rise in the volume of Jewish immigration in the last few years, that the prospect of a Jewish State came within the horizon. In 1922 it lay far beyond it."

There are many more of your deceptions and lies I can correct - but why waste my time with someone like you whose Jew-hatred is so intense that you want to see the Jewish State wiped off the face of the map no matter how many lies you are prepared to tell to achieve that goal.

"......There are many more of your deceptions and lies I can correct - but why waste my time with someone like you whose Jew-hatred is so intense that you want to see the Jewish State wiped off the face of the map no matter how many lies you are prepared to tell to achieve that goal."

Still stuck in a racist rant mode then David.

I'll have fun with your use of the PLO charter and the Peel Commission later.

You are the only person continually try to pull the wool over OLO readers eyes by making false and unsubstantiated or deliberately misleading claims.

Your continued pathetic attempt to slander me as a Jew-hater cannot and will not hide the fact that you keep running away from the roots of and attitudes towards modern Zionism by historians and Jews.

Anybody with a computer can check the facts and discover that the historical consensus considers Theodor Herzl as the founder of Zionism in the late 1800's. It doesn't take a genius to work out that such a movement would provide a groundswell of support given what the Jews had to endure across Europe; the likes of persecution, ghettos, and the Pale of Settlement. Is your failure to acknowledge any of this nothing more than a symptom of your Zionist fundamentalism that refuses to accept the initial welcome given to Jews by Arabs fleeing such conditions?

Equally it's not hard to find Rabbis and other Jewish scholars and organizations that are against both Zionism and Israel. But you cannot call them Jew-haters can you David, because they are Jews. Slandering me David, merely proves your woeful ineptitude as an historian. Keep up your rants David because they do far more than I could ever do to expose your articles as nothing more than Zionist propaganda.

#Anti Colonial

I thought I made my position clear:

1. You have been peddling unsubstantiated lies that I have debunked:
(i) "A Palestinian Jew is no different from a Palestinian Christian, a Palestinian Moslem, or a Palestinian of any other denomination"
(ii) "There is a massive difference between a home and a state. The mandate for Palestine went out of its way to exclude the phrase Jewish state."
(iii) "Anybody with a computer can check the facts and discover that the historical consensus considers Theodor Herzl as the founder of Zionism in the late 1800's"

2. You have denigrated Jews and sought to delegitimise their beliefs:
(i) "You can quote the Torah or the Bible as much as you like, but they are not historical works. The Middle East is probably the most archaeologically studied region in the world. All that tangible evidence rubbishes the grand narratives of the Exodus, David and Solomon."
(ii) "Historians long ago dispelled the notion that Moses was real."
(iii) " We know also that many of the Jews that arrived in this period, moved of their own free will onto America. Seems they couldn't leave “home” fast enough, the almighty dollar obviously more appealing than their own almighty.! Zionism was nothing more than a grubby power / land grab justified by a perverse abuse of Judaism."

Take your Jew-hatred somewhere else. There are plenty of sites that will welcome you with open arms and readily swallow and give you as much space as you want to peddle your lies.

You are not going to be tolerated here.

Part one

Singer talks of deceptions and lies, so let's start with the Peel Commission report. I will mention too, the King-Crane Commission of 1919, the 12th Zionist Congress held in Carlsbad in 1921 and Churchill's White Paper of 1922. I urge anyone interested in the real history of Palestine to read them and independent summaries of them.

The Peel Commission was a 1936 British Royal Commission investigating the unrest in Palestine following a six month general strike. The report came out in 1937. It's conclusion was that the League of Nations Mandate was now unworkable and that, for the first time, it recommended partitioning Palestine. This demonstrates very, very clearly that the Mandate viewed Palestine as a single entity, one nation, a nation called Palestine.

As I've stated previously, the Zionists viewed it also as a single entity at the 1919 Paris peace talks, an entity that they hoped would develop into a Jewish commonwealth. The map they produced to support their claim included the whole of Palestine and parts of modern day Lebanon and Syria. That sort of vision not only had the non-Jewish population of Palestine worried, it concerned the Americans too.

Woodrow Wilson wanted a boots on ground fact finding mission to gauge how the local people perceived what independence would look like. It was his way of demonstrating to the world that the League of Nations mandates were about self-determination not colonial imposition. Neither France nor Britain wanted anything to do with it. So two Americans King and Crane, were left to fulfill the mission. Reading the King-Crane's 5th recommendation in full it is understandable how they reached this conclusion -

“In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.

Part Two

As you can imagine when 11% of the population start laying claims to a whole nation things start to get a bit heated. So the 12th Zionist Congress in 1921 tried to cool things down with the following resolution:

“We do thereby reaffirm our desire to attain a durable understanding which shall enable the Arab and Jewish peoples to live together in Palestine on terms of mutual respect and co-operate in making the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which will assure to each of these peoples an undisturbed national development.”

Notice it's still one nation, one nation called Palestine. Just to emphasise the point, the following notes were attached to that resolution -

“2. (a) The Jews on the one hand and the Arabs on the other are to be regarded as living side by side on a footing of perfect equality in all matters, including the official use and recognition of their respective languages.
(b) In areas in which there is a mixed population, the rights of the minority are to be fully guaranteed, including the right of representation on the local administrative bodies.
(c) The existence in Palestine of the Jewish National Home is not to be a bar to the recognition of Palestine, when the time is ripe, as a self-governing commonwealth.
….......
5. Jewish immigration is to be limited by the capacity of Palestine, from time to time, to absorb it, but not otherwise. It is declared that there is not nor has there ever been any intention to disturb the existing Arab population or any part of it. The right of the Arab inhabitants and their descendants to the secure enjoyment of their homes and prosperity is unequivocally recognised and guaranteed.

No more mention of a Jewish commonwealth, just a national home in Palestine, not separate from or adjacent to. It appears that the Zionists have come around finally to accept that they are a community within Palestine. Churchill's 1922 White Paper reaffirmed this concept. It referenced the Carlsbad resolution and added -

Part Three

“.......the Balfour Declaration does not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine........… The status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status”.

So clearly up until 1937 the Palestinian mandate was one nation, one nationality. By the time of the Peel commission over 200,000 Jews had poured into Palestine. So much for limiting Jewish immigration. As civil unrest broke out throughout Palestine, Peel could see no alternative but partition. In less than 20 years native Palestinians saw their dreams of nationhood shattered. Their opposition to the partition is understandable, but the Zionist's? No sooner had the inked dried on the Peel report before Ben Gurion was penning -
“A partial Jewish state is not the end, but only the beginning . . . we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country.....”

He was one of a long line of Zionist leaders that wanted Palestinians out of Palestine. Long before the PLO was even created, Zionists were hell bent on claiming all of Palestine as a Jewish state.

I do not need to deceive or lie to explain how people of all faiths lived peacefully in Palestine prior to World War 1. Nor how that peace was shattered by a people that were not content with asylum and citizenship. The imposition of Israel on Palestine is nothing more than a perverse punishment for the crimes Europe had and were perpetrating on the Jewish people, with the holocaust being the final nail in the nation of Palestine's coffin.

More lies and false statements.

You state:
1. "The Peel Commission was a 1936 British Royal Commission investigating the unrest in Palestine following a six month general strike. The report came out in 1937. It's conclusion was that the League of Nations Mandate was now unworkable and that, for the first time, it recommended partitioning Palestine. This demonstrates very, very clearly that the Mandate viewed Palestine as a single entity, one nation, a nation called Palestine."

(i) The Mandate did not view Palestine as a single entity, nor one nation as was made clear by Article 25 of the Mandate dated 24 July 1922.

(ii) On 23 September 1922 a memorandum submitted by the British Representative to the League of Nations pursuant to article 25 restricted the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home to 23% of the territory comprised in the Mandate.

(iii) Britain then set up a separate Arab administration in the remaining 77% of Mandatory Palestine - Transjordan.

(iii) The Jews accepted this 1922 decision. The Arabs did not because they wanted 100%.

(iv) The Peel Commission concluded:
"Treaties of alliance should be negotiated by the Mandatory with the Government of Trans-Jordan and representatives of the Arabs of Palestine on the one hand and with the Zionist Organisation on the other. These Treaties would declare that, within as short a period as may be convenient, two sovereign independent States would be established--the one an Arab State consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier."

This is the two-state solution that was agreed to by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs in 1937 and is still rejected by them in 2017.

Three posts full of further lies and irrelevant documents with the exception of the 1922 White Paper.

Yet not a word substantiating your false claim that a Palestinian Jew is no different from a Palestinian Moslem.

Your pompous emotional outbursts are evermore risible David.

David brought Judaism into this discussion as evidence that the Zionist movement has been ongoing for thousands of years. Any submitted evidence is open to deconstruction to ascertain its validity. Evidence clearly shows a very, very small percentage of the global population of Jews residing in Palestine in the early 1800's. The increase of Jewish residents in the latter half of the 1800's shows the Ottomans had no problem allowing new Jewish residents. Either the diaspora were not practicing their religion or Judaism did not promote Zionism.

The evidence supports the latter. What's the saying David, 'not every Jew is a Zionist and not every Zionist is a Jew'. The Jewish numbers in Palestine only started to rise when the Zionist's started funding expeditions to Palestine in the late 1800's. Even then, depleted funds saw the vast majority of these expeditionary Jews leave Palestine. It took thousands of years to have the first ever Zionist congress in 1897. It took till the 23rd congress in 1951 to hold a congress in the homeland. Where better to have a congress to promote the return of the diaspora, especially given the rise of the Nazis in the 1930's. Then there was the substantial Jewish opposition to Zionism, especially among orthodox Rabbis and scholars. Admittedly a significant amount of this opposition dissipated after the extent of the horrors of the Holocaust became known. But all that proves is what I've said all along, the primary driver of the Zionist movement was the persecution suffered by Jews in Europe.

That's why I'll always tolerate you David. Because there's nothing like the droppings of an extreme Zionist to air the obnoxious stench of Zionist hypocrisy.

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." - Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

Presenting the Torah as historical fact to support Zionist claims cannot be left unchallenged. The Middle East is an active archaeological region. The digs show that the Moses, David and Solomon narratives have no validity as historical records. Many archaeologists are Jewish, are they guilty of denigrating Judaism David? Literal beliefs of the Abrahammic religions faded fast in the latter half of the twentieth century. They are the stuff of theological extremists like Islamic State. Claiming divine right in the 20th century is akin to claiming Jews are a sub-human race. A sick irony is that as the Nazis “othered” the Jews as inferior, the Zionists “othered” non-Jews as inferior.

Factor in David's reference to the Peel commission....(more later)......
“One reason why no public allusion to a State was made in 1922 was the same reason why no such allusion had been made in 1917. The National Home was still no more than an experiment. Some 16,000 Jews had entered Palestine in I920 and 1921. The Arab population was about 600,000. It would be a very long time, it seemed, before the Jews could become a majority in the country. "

Using a Peel Commission reference stating that this was the first time partition had been called for led to David calling me a liar. This discussion is primarily about Palestine not Jordan, or Transjordan. The Peel Commission population figures above refer to Palestine as we know it. Clearly the Peel Commission's “first partition” was referring to that same Palestine. The Jews made up 11% of the population in 1920/21 but the Zionists wanted 100% of Palestine. Important note - Zionists wanted 100%, not Jews. Jews in Palestine were actively campaigning against a Zionist state.

Three phrases of note in the above Peel Commission reference -
1. “no public allusion to a state”
2. “no more than an experiment”
3. “before the Jews could become a majority”

Now factor in the 15th Article of the Palestine mandate....... No discrimination OF ANY KIND shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language..........

“No public allusion to a state”; from the outset native Palestinians, including the native Jewish community, were discriminated against. Guinea pigs in a Zionist ethnic gerrymandering experiment. No native say in self-determination until there was a Zionist majority. A twentieth century version of the Moses myth. Zionist settlers pour into modern day Canaan to claim their divine right. Articles 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13 clearly contradict article 15 too. Never a Jewish majority in the Palestinian boundaries the Zionists sought. Rather than accept a failed experiment and gain an equal place in a new nation, the Zionists chopped the baby in half and without any "public allusion to their intent", would settle the other half at a later stage. The settlements in the West Bank prove that intent to settle remains in 2017.

The Palestinian Mandate is one of the most perfidious acts of the twentieth century.
The Anglo-French Declaration made in 1918 by the governments of France and Great Britain after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire stated "the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations." Compare that to a British Foreign minister promising a British Zionist to back the right of alien Zionists to impose a state on indigenous Palestinians. You will not find better examples of perfidy and hard core colonial racism.

#Anti Colonial

Part 1:

Yet another three posts of arrant nonsense and utter garbage.

Some examples:

1."Either the diaspora were not practicing their religion or Judaism did not promote Zionism.

The evidence supports the latter."

You wouldn't have the faintest idea. Jews for centuries have read the Old Testament every Saturday and on every Monday and Thursday and on Holydays year in and year out - besides praying for the redemption of the Jews in Jerusalem three times a day.

2. "Presenting the Torah as historical fact to support Zionist claims cannot be left unchallenged."

You insult and offend all believers - Jews, Christians and Moslems with this throwaway line.

Add Christian-hater and Moslem-hater to your Jew-hater title.

3. "This discussion is primarily about Palestine not Jordan, or Transjordan. The Peel Commission population figures above refer to Palestine as we know it. Clearly the Peel Commission's “first partition” was referring to that same Palestine."

No it isn't. Read article 25 of the Mandate. Transjordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine and remained so until it became independent in 1946.

That is why the Peel Commission recommended:
"two sovereign independent States would be established--the one an Arab State consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier."

#Anti-Colonial

Part 2:

More arrant nonsense and utter garbage:

4. "Rather than accept a failed experiment and gain an equal place in a new nation, the Zionists chopped the baby in half"

The Peel Commission in 1937 and the UN in 1947 suggested partition which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected. The baby was chopped in half when six Arab armies invaded Western Palestine in 1948 to try and grab the lot - and failed.

5. "Compare that to a British Foreign minister promising a British Zionist to back the right of alien Zionists to impose a state on indigenous Palestinians."

Sorry but it was all 51 Members of the League of Nations that stated that the Balfour Declaration recognised the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituing their national home in that country. No mention of "Zionists" just "Jews".

There was not even any mention of "Palestinians" in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate. The Arabs living there were included in the term "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

"Palestinians" is a term invented in 1964 and you have been successfully brainwashed by those who came up with this false and misleading term.

In conclusion:

You have now published 6 posts without justifying your comment that there is no difference between a Palestinian Jew and a Palestinian Moslem.

Do I take it that by your continuing silence you now admit there is a big difference? Start your next three posts off with answering this question first.