Well, we seem to be going around in circles on the whole Israel vs Palestine, issue.

It seems people divide themselves along the lines of whom they apportion the most blame to, with some even going so far as claiming "just cause", for acts of war, that would normally repel us all, or at least most of us.

So, let's put our blame apportioning, and justifications out on the table, in one thread, I'll start.

Well we could do a hypothetical exercise, and guess what the region would be like, if the Jews had not been granted the area by the UN. in 1947.
Would it all be peace and love?
Who knows, but the fact that of all the arab nations in the region, only Jordan, offered citizenship to displaced Palestinians, while the rest interred them in refugee camps, tends to suggest that old tribal rivalries may well have escalated into outright hostilities between different Arab, and Islamic factions.
Unfortunately, talk of the great 'brotherly love', of the muslim ummah, rarely seems to make the transition from sentiment to action.

For those who want a basic primer on the history of Israel, here is a link to the Wikipoedia page on it.

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

So while we of course, would not be seeing the current crisis, if the jews had not been granted the area by the UN, we can only guess what internal Arabic/Muslim power struggles, may have ensued, most of us remember the horrific atrocities of the Iran-Iraq war back in the 1970's and '80's, when muslim against muslim conflict, produced some of the most deplorable, inhumane warfare in our lifetime.

It should also be pointed out, at this point, that back in the late 1940's, the Arab world did not merely roll over and acquiesce to the UN directive.
No of course they didn't, they attacked the fledgling state with a united arab assault, which most assumed would simply annihilate the jews, as they were a new country, with absolutely no military history, while the arabs were always fierce warrior states.

What happened?

They got done like a sunday roast.

So we have the infant state defend itself, and win it's first battle, in the perpetual war of it's very right to exist, but we know that the arabs did not accept their defeat, so attacked again, and were defeated, and again, and were defeated, and so it goes.

Historically, the side that wins the war, usually gets to make the rules, and the other side has to put up with that, because they lost, but the arabs just seem to have trouble, grasping that concept.

So, humiliated by their consistent defeats, whenever they engage in traditional warfare with Israel, they decide upon a new course of action, Terrorism.

This is what the state of Israel faces today, continual, ongoing, terrorist attacks on it's land, and it's people.
So, after years and years of these terrorist attacks, the Israelis have decided to try and at least minimise the ability of the Palestinians to use their border region to launch these terrorist attacks on them, bu invading these border areas, and breaking up the Hamas, terrorist network, which coordinates, and carries out these attacks.
Unfortunately, because of the terrorists' tactics of insinuating themselves into the general civilian population, there are far more civilian casualties on the Palestinian side, than anyone would want to see, including the Israelis, but when pushed into such a corner, they are forced to fight this way.
Of course the Israelis would prefer a more humane way to achieve their objective, but since their opposition refuses to negotiate, and seeks the utter destruction of their country, they are left with very limited options.

So, you can see clearly that my sympathies in this conflict, lies with the Israelis, but that does not mean that I support any Zionist agenda, or that I do not condemn many prior actions of the Israelis.
Israel has often treated the palestinians very poorly, and were rightly condemned for it when they did, but that is not the issue we are facing today, and it is this current crisis which we are addressing here.


OK, that is my justification for the Israelis part in this conflict, now would anyone like to add to that, or alternately, give their reasoning as to why the Palestinians are in the right?

I will be interested to hear your opinions on the matter.

Quote:


What area exactly do you think they were 'granted' in 1947?

They were granted less than 50%, and today occupy over 78%....

It seems your whole idea on the history is a little deficient, to say the least, mozzaok. Don't let that stop you from making wide sweeping generalisations about the issue, and suggesting hair brained schemes for how it might be solved.

Quote:


I doubt it has anything to do with tribal rivalries. There's no tribes in Palestine for instance who would've even interacting with tribes in Egypt, nor Lebanon, nor Syria in the way you're suggesting. It sounds nice though doesn't it... tribal rivalries.

Quote:


Since pretty much all Arab governments are pro-Western lackeys, I hardly think making statements relating to the "brotherly love of the Muslim Ummah" are relevant. People across the Muslim and Arab world have been protesting in support of Gaza, and have been lobbying their governments to do something. Unfortunately they aren't allowed, as they're all on the US payroll.

The refusal to allow Palestinians citizenship is based on a few issues (neither of which is valid from an Islamic viewpoint, I might add). First, the Arab governments don't even wanna look after their own people, let alone more. Secondly, if the Palestinians are given citizenship in other Arab countries, then Palestine is lost. You, and your Zionist mates know this, and that's why you always, without fail, raise this issue.

Quote:


That's a pretty messed up, and unhistorical account. Just to give a few examples. They try to promote the idea that an "israeli state" existed pretty much all throughout history. When in fact Jews had pretty much no presence there for about 1800 years, during the Christian and Muslim periods.

"From 1260 to 1300 Israel became the frontier between Mongol invaders (who were Crusader allies) and the Mamluks of Egypt."

Anyone would think from reading this that there existed a Jewish state called Israel between Egypt and the Mongols. What a lot of crap. The Mameluk state was a state that encompassed all the land between modern day Syria and Egypt, there was no Jewish state there since Roman times, and no sizeable Jewish population there again until the early 1900's.

"When the British conquered the area in 1917, they named it "Palestine" and defined the boundaries to include modern Israel and Jordan."

Nonsense, Jordan was only briefly included officially as part of the Mandate of Palestine in 1922, for a period of one whole year.

"In 1844, Jews constituted the largest population group in Jerusalem and by 1890 an absolute majority in the city, although as a whole the Jewish population made up far less than 10% of the region."

More outright lies. Jews were NEVER a majority in Jerusalem until 1967 when they took it from the Jordanians.

Right up until 1945, when the British last surveyed the population during the mandate, Arabs were 60% (42% Muslims, 18% Christians) of Jerusalem, Jews 40%.

Arabs owned 98% (84% Muslims, 14% Christians) of the land and Jews only 2% of the land in Jerusalem.

If you want to get something a little less biased, try reading the wiki articles for Palestine and British Mandate of Palestine. They are a lot more historic, and give the full picture, rather than just the Biblical fantasy and modern day Zionist revisionism.

Quote:


Please answer honestly, if Indonesia established a new state in Qld. don't you think the rest of Australia would be justified in uniting to remove it? Please, just answer it honestly. Let's see if your reasoning really has any basis, or if it's just a load of crap, that you unequallly apply to others, but would never apply to yourself.

Quote:


Exactly... a new country in someone elses land... Good point mozza.

Quote:


Come on, Jews were well trained militarily. The British  during the mandate period for instance, trained Jews in warfare. Not to mention European nations began giving them weapons. Till the point today the USA has armed them to be the 4th. most power military on earth (according to some estimates). What kind of s responsible superpower goes around arming people in conflict to such an extent??? And then claims to be an independant and objective 'peace broker' in the conflict??? Are people so stupid as to not see through this kind of crap? Imagine if China armed Sudan to the teeth, then said "We're going to try and bring peace to Darfur"

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 10:25am:




+++++++++

Thanks for putting your point of view here Abu, it was a pretty well constructed argument, from the point of view of why you believe that Israel has no right to exist.

The fact of the matter is that they do exist, and I would far rather hear your justifications for why Hamas is right to send suicide bombers into Israel.
I would also like to find out if you think they are right to fire rockets into Israel.

I assume that you do condone both those actions, but please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that point, but in the case that I am not, what action do you believe Israel is justified to take, in trying to protect the security of it's people?

We have heard the Israeli PM state that they have no wish to harm any Palestinian civilians, just to provide security and peace for their own citizens, and that sounds eminently fair to me.

Quote:


So we have the word of the Israeli PM, that as soon as they are not attacked, and the terrorist group is not re-armed, they will stop their attacks on Hamas, which unfortunately results in the horrible collateral damage of civilian casualties.

What was the Hamas response to a cease fire proposal?

As I said at the start, I am interested in hearing peoples justifications for this current conflict, and am hoping you can contribute more than just a pro forma Islamist diatribe on why Israel should be obliterated.

sprint-re-cyclist,

Quote:


A few points to consider

1) There are no actual Muslim states, they are all post-colonialist wannabe-states that have no military, no training, no money. They are completely dependant upon foreign aide for their existence in some cases. Egypt for instance is the second largest recipient of US aid after Israel. And in fact the Egyptian aid is for Israel too, as it's pay-off money to keep Egypt out of any conflict of interest with Israel.

2) Israel has been armed to the teeth by European/American powers since it's inception. Also the British trained the original Zionist terrorist groups, who later formed the IDF.

3) US airlifts and military assistance have been rendered to the Zionists to prevent them from being defeated during their  'wars' with the Arabs.

4) As has been mentioned on this forum before, the Israeli forces were larger than the Arab forces. Just because there was more countries doesn't mean a thing. The Zionist troops were more in number, better armed and better trained.

mozzaok,

Quote:


Thank you mozzaok. I think if anyone really examined the facts of the situation in their entirety, and were able to imagine themselves in the Palestinians position, then they'd have no choice but to side with them. As for the Israelis, I really honestly don't believe they have any leg to stand on, other than perpetuating the original injustice (and this was my opinion prior to becoming Muslim also). They're there now, so they have to fight for their existence there, that's about the best argument that can be wielded in their favour. And the fact they keep bringing in so many more people, and putting them into settlements inside what little land the Palestinians have left, whilst at the same time denying the Palestinians any hope of returning, makes it quite clear they're not interested in righting past wrongs, they're interested only in continuing and exacerbating them.

Quote:


Firstly, suicide missions are not permissible in Islam, so I cannot provide a justification for them, they are wrong. However, if you mean for resisting Israel, then yes I believe they are under occupation (all of the land is occupied) and must resit the occupation of their homes, and their continued expulsion  from their homes. Are you aware that Israel has demolished over 18,000 Palestinian homes? That's 18,000 families, who've just had their entire life savings and shelter and family base completely demolished. In most of those cases, the Israeli government then claims their land and builds settlements or military outposts or Jewish-only roads on them. This isn't something that happened 60 years ago and is finished,  it keeps happening, day in and day out. Your view that it's purely water under the bridge, get over it and move on is just wrong, it continues to happen today. The Palestinians are resisting very real and very present hostilities today, here and now.

Quote:


Certainly more right than Israel has to fire rockets into Gaza.

Quote:


An occupying military force has no right to any security. Bringing civilians with you into the occupation zone doesn't give you that right either. It's quite ironic that Palestinians are accused of using human shields, when pretty much every single Jew there is a human shield, brought in to bolster the occupation and legitimise an unjust military action.

The only way we could make some equivalent between the two, would've been if Palestinian fighters went to Poland, Lithuania or any other country Jews lived in, and began engaging in military actions against them, then the two would have some equivalence.

Quote:


So why bulldoze their homes? Why build new settlements day after day on their land? Why even be there in the first place if they wish them no harm. He might mean "We wish them no more further harm beyond the harm we've already committed" but even that would be wrong, as they continue engaging in these hostile activities. The attack on Gaza is just a flare up of a situation that has existed non-stop since the 1940's. It has never ceased for the Palestinians. The targetted assassinations, the mass deportations, the home demolitions, the tanks running over their cars, the check points, the snipers who take out their citizens, then pass it off as militants etc. (which ex-IDF soldiers have admitted is often lies, and they take out random civilians at times, for 'fun')

Quote:


Coming to someone elses land, 'transferring' them out, and then claiming "Stop fighting me, I just want peace and security" is a bit rich don't you think?

Quote:


All Hamas asked them for was to end the blockade. I think if they agreed to that, Hamas would agree to another ceasefire immmediately. Don't you think Ghszans should have a right to peace and security in basic issues such as water, food, electricity, medicine etc? Or do the rights only go one way in your view?

Quote:


Hamas proposed a ceasefire before the last one even expired, they said all you need to do is to lift the blockade. Isn't a blockade considered a hostile act of war? After all, Israel used this pretext for launching a war on the Arabs, when Egypt blockaded them in Eilat....

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 3:37am:

My definition of the Jewish cause of right did not require that Israel must exist in its current location per se. Their righteous cause is that of defending themselves from systematic murder and persecution which for them required the existence of a Jewish state… existing somewhere. The Holocaust was not the only moment of great persecution, just the most recent and most graphic. Over the last 2 millennia, every nation in Christian Europe has had its history of murderous anti-Semitism and insofar as the past is a guide to the future, Jews then and now have every reason to believe that sooner or later Europeans would do it to them again. (It seems that anti-Semitism has the macabre capacity to take root in strange places. Can anyone explain Japanese anti-Semitism?).

Yes, in an ideal world it would have been more morally palatable for a Jewish state to have been created in a (dare I say it) terra nullius or somewhere in Europe, however, Israel was established in the Middle East and has grown into a viable, stable, democratic and powerful nation. It could not be dismantled at any price that any nation could afford. There is no future for Palestinian armed conflict to assert what they have a right to assert – their right to maintain their claim to land from which they believe they were dispossessed. I believe also that continued armed resistance reinforces the argument of extreme elements within Israel that the very proximity of Palestinian presence is a permanent security threat.   

But should that mean there can never be peace? Can the Palestinian people maintain a spiritual sense of a whole Palestine in their hearts and also accept the actualities in the cold light? Or must they fight down to the last Palestinian for an outcome they cannot hope to realise?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 2:50am:




abu,

Your statements here, are riddled with error.


Google,
"The 1948 American Embargo on Arms to Palestine"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22The+1948+American+Embargo+on+Arms+to+...



The 1948 War
by Mitchell Bard
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html



From memory, the Israeli 'air force' in 1948 consisted of one [WW11 era] Messersmitt, and several crop dusting planes.

By all accounts the Jews were lacking in arms, but not courage.

The fledgling state of Israel was attacked by armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt.

With many volunteers coming from other Arab states, bolstering this formidable array of combatants against Israel.




abu,

Why did the Arabs lose in 1948 again????i

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 2:50am:


What pathetic shite again.

1. Saudi is a muslim kingdom. Iran is a muslim republic. NONE of the muslim countries are secular constitutionally.
And how long does it take after the end of colonialism to snap out of the 'woe is me' sloth and decadent self pity that causes the 'no military, no training, no money'? Why don't they make some money?
Israel was NOT superior in arms when it was first attacked and it hadd no powerful allies helping.  But that attack taught it to make sure that it armed itself.

2. Wouldn't expect anything less when your neighbours attack you on the first day. And you are soree because the joos are prudent and have the smartss to learn?  Well, they don't think that Allan knows best, but they go and work for what they want. The fifference betweeen an active and a passive mindset.


3. That was only true for the Yom Kippur war in '73. And it was the right thing. And the smart thing. The US managed to detach Egypt frm the Soviet sphere.

4. All the more reason to call the Arabs stupid and bloody minded. Why keep attacking the joos if they are so supeerior in arms, money, training, brains, have more powerful friends. Again and again, suicide by israel. Each war is calculated to at least enlarge the sense of Arab victimhood.

The palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They ccould have accepted the results of the '48 war and negotiate incremental improvements of their position since. Now they would be where Dubai is and without oil. Or from '67, or 73, or '82 or Oslo, the latest great chance. Any one of these would have been far, far better for ordinary people, espeacilly the young, than what is their situation now. ESPECIALLY considring that thy are counting on eventual vitory on demographic grounds. Why make themselves so myserable in the meantime?? Ah, 'muslim land'. That's worth sacrificing generations for.

You can trust the pallos to find themselves in a hole and keep digging furiously.  Reminds me of a the image of madness in a Kafka sketch: madness, something like a Cossack dance between the two houses, whereby the Cossack goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug out under him.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 2:55am:


I didn't drop anything. My position on the BMP, has not changed.

No need to speak for me. I am quite capable of speaking for myself.

Quote:


They are also stopping Hamas watching live on CNN the troop deployment of the IDF. That's kind of more important than the freedom of the press.

And where's the loss - the propaganda arms of Hamas are still able to release their coverage?

Quote:


Really Calanen!  So how come we don't get to read Hamas's propaganda - only Israels?

mantra wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 7:28am:


Pallywood has been in full swing, Abu has been posting their stuff. Have a read. That doesnt seem like Israeli propaganda to me.

Grendel, you are being too abusive, too often, or is your intention to just get more posts deleted, so you can then whine about it some more?

I have no idea what you want an apology for, but I would ask you post requests by whim, rather than ruining threads with sill demands.

I am sure that you don't realise that your hysterical ranting lends as much credibility to your arguments, as Lestats posts lend credibility to Islam.

Now, back to the topic, if you don't mind?

I felt that the point Abu made about settlers taking up all the newly occupied land, was a good point, you just said that it was not, but failed to provide any reasoning as to why you disagree, would you care to expand?

At the moment, we seem to be stuck with the polarised views of each side, happy to demonise their opponents, but unwilling to attach any blame to the side they support.

Helian turns it around from saying each side has done wrongs, to saying that each side is right, which amounts to the same thing, but puts it in a good perspective, and grants the legitimacy of each side's cause, to become the focus.

Now, starting from this point of acceptance, of both sides right to exist, and to live in peace, and with security, we need to see the Palestinians reject Hamas, and Islamist extremism.

While we are waiting for this to happen, the palestinians continue to give Israel all the excuses it needs to keep using aggression and occupying more land, they would be smart to stop doing that.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 8:54am:

And I think also that to focus on the two equal causes of right humanizes both sides and grants to each a deserved legitimacy. To focus on the doing-of-wrong as opposed to the being-of-right is firstly to shackle each cause to acts of violence or war or murder which then become the focus of all future debate. Secondly it can lend itself to potent non sequiturs such as ‘Islam is the sole cause of the conflict’, which is about as true as concluding that Catholicism (or Protestantism) was the sole cause of the Troubles of Northern Ireland. (Heard that old joke about the atheist walking home one night ambushed by a paramilitary? “Catholic or Protestant?” barks the paramilitary. “Neither”, replies the pedestrian, “I’m an atheist”. “Catholic atheist or Protestant atheist?” asks the paramilitary.).

I believe though that the Palestinian cause has been hijacked by Islamism – a cause with an illegitimate agenda and contemptible goals that must be resisted with extreme and necessarily lethal force. It’s a cause unconcerned by its own futility, whose adherents can think only in terms of war and destruction and the dream of murderous acts through suicide for which they will receive a depraved egocentric reward. It has as much disregard for the welfare of Palestinians as it has for the lives of any other peoples or cultures.

What I wish for the Palestinians is the rise of Palestinian leaders who have a clear vision of a secure, prosperous and peaceful Palestine alongside a secure, prosperous and peaceful Israel. Leaders whose focus is on the aspirations of young Palestinians not just of today but those born in 50 or 100 years time.

And I look forward to the day when athletes from the Republic of Palestine are welcomed into the Olympic arena. Can you hear the cheer of the crowd?

Grendel wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 11:01am:

I agree that it is a blind stupid ideology today, but 45 years ago prior to intimate US patronage, the 6 days war or Israel's attaining of nuclear weapons, perhaps the cause didn't appear so forlorn.

Grendel wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 11:24am:

Yes, you could argue that it was always a lost cause from the outset. But prior to the gargantuan victory of the six days war, close superpower patronage and nuclear weapons, perhaps anyone could have been forgiven for believing that the cause did not appear so indisputably a lost one.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 8:54am:




moz,

I respect a lot of what you say, but this is  la  la  land stuff.


Sadly, this conflict between

ISLAM

and Israel is not going to stop any time soon.

ISLAM empowered, is implacable.





The end of the 'Zionist State' is coming soon, according to President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Watch these words come out of the lips of President Ahmadinejad...

"The ocean of rage of the people of the region will surge and eradicate the Zionist regime."

YOUTUBE
Farewell Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-IwwfeLp4M




Where are all of the people in the world who love TRUTH, and hate evil????

'Israel' is a line in the sand ppl.

You choose, we all choose, which side of that line we want to stand on.

And may God have mercy upon your soul.



++++++++++




Thomas Mann
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann

Calanen,

Quote:


Can you reiterate that position for me again Calanen. Out of the 28 years of the BMP, how many of them did the Mandate consist of both the West (Palestine) and East (Transjordan) sides of the Jordan river?

Also do you insist as Grendel does that from the beginning of the Mandate, Transjordan was included in it? Or do you recognise the facts now, that it was actually added after?

Also do you insist that Transjordan was ever administered from the capital of the BMP (Jerusalem)? Or do you concede it was actually administered seperately from Ma'an, for the one year (which I assume you concede now) that it was actually 'officially' lumped with the BMP?

Quote:


How are they stopping them? Since CNN would be coming via satellite? Did they install blocker cards in everyone's satellite decoder boxes or something? 

Quote:


It's not carried by mainstream Western media, and therefore is not given any legitimacy nor even given any audience in most Western homes. Yes those who have a conscience and yearn for the truth can still see both sides of the story, but they are few and far between, especially amongst the inhabitants of this board.

Calanen,

Quote:


Thank you, I'll take that as no, no and no.

Quote:


Actually that sounds a lot more like your side of the discussion. You originally regurgitated the standard Zionist revisionist argument that the BMP consisted of the land west of the Jordan as well as Transjordan, and  that in the end the Jews got the West part and the Arabs got the east part (Transjordan). Now that this fallacy has been completely squashed, you just wish to hold on to minute details and technicalities, like the fact Transjordan was officially administered along with the BMP for all of 1 year and from a different capital.

Quote:


The BMP was Palestine, that's why it stands for British Mandate of Palestine, and not British Mandate of Antarctica nor British Mandate of Zimbabwe, nor British Mandate of Israel.

It was not an independant state, yes true, we know. If that's what your point in that statement was supposed to be.

Quote:


Actually it's quite irrelevant whose brief rule it was under. That doesn't change the demographics (well it did a little) nor does it change the rights of the vast majority of the population to their land, possessions, farms, homes etc.

Quote:


More like so they don't report it: "I'm just at the UN school here where the IDF massacred about 40 odd civilians, and we didn't see any rocketfire nor gunfights going on before it", instead they just hear from the propaganda minister "Human shields, militant gunmen" or if it were up to you "the headmaster was a rocket engineer" 

Quote:


Some Iranian correspondants were there also, but they were arrested by Israel and now face charges (freedom of press and all, you know).

Also, some smaller news agencies in the US have started contacting local journalists who are residents in Gaza to get some information out, thankfully. Although some of them have been targetted by the IDF to silence them.

They really have very strong reasons for not wanting a single word to get out on this conflict, unless it passes through their lips. It's up to the thinkers in our society to ponder the question, why...

Grendel wrote on Jan 18^th, 2009 at 8:31am:


Like colours to a blind person Grendel. But its not people like Abu you have to convince, although he is often who you respond to. It's the lurker everyday people who are in the background.

The average person nowadays, has NO IDEA what the Religion of Peace is up to, and anyone I have showed various materials to is struck dumb by what is going on. That's who you have to get to - the middle class.

People like Abu who has to spank his self-hating inner moppet, are the enemy.

The mandate was created in 1920... 

The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

Grendel,

Quote:


You keep saying "one more time", yet you keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge (or acceptance of the clear facts presented to you) time and time again. Let us hope this is indeed the last time.

Quote:


Do you understand the meaning of the word "original"? It means in the beginning, from the start. In the beginning and at the start, Transjordan was NOT a part of the BMP, so this statement of yours is completely contrary to the facts. You should abandon such terminology, and instead content yourself with the facts, that for one year during the time of the BMP, Transjordan was officially administered along with it.

I know you're having trouble here, but can you at least admit these three facts:

1) The BMP commenced in 1920 (You already accepted this one in your reply #46)
2) Transjordan was incorporated into the BMP in 1921
3) Transjordan became an autonomous state in 1922

If you can, I'm happy to leave it at that. If you have a problem with any of those 3 statements, then tell me which one(s), and I'll provide some more detail about them.

I'd seriously suggest you read through the informative Wiki articles that document the history of the BMP and Transjordan. They make much better reading than the Zionist revisionist websites that you seem to have collected most of your ideas about the BMP/Transjordan from so far.

Unless of course you can provide some historical evidence to bolster the claims you're making? I'm all ears, glad to investigate anything you're willing to provide on the issue. But at least provide something, please.

Quote:


For the 1 year Transjordan was under the BMP? What do you mean by 75% Arab? 75% population wise? Population wise it was probably 95% Arab...  Land ownership maybe? In that case it was 99% 

Quote:


Correcting lies would indicate you provided some evidence for your assertions, and that you'd managed to produce something that could counter my assertions, until now you've done neither.

Quote:


Good, and according to your view, it looked something like this right:



With the Arab state on the right (tan colour) and the Jewish state on the left (blue colour) right? That's what you've claimed in your arguments this far anyway...

When in reality this was what the UN Partition plan looked like (Transjordan had already been a fully independant nation for well over 20 years by the time of the UN Partition Plan):



Looks a lot like what you gullibly thought the "Jewish part" of the mandate to look like, doesn't it?

Quote:


I'm sure any minority would accept getting about 50% of a country which they'd just immigrated into... And I'm sure every single people would reject ceding 50% of their country to such a minority. Would you accept or reject Muslims getting 50% of Australia? If not, then don't find it so unusual the Arabs didn't accept it either.

Map
Note....  that the BMP is the ENTIRE area.
Even your map idiot shows the British mandate is the entire area...  blue and tan...  have trouble understanding maps do you?

circa means approx...  ...  1917 as I have already poined out was when the plans were originally drawn up.  1920 was when the British Mandate came into being and late 1922 was when the BMP was split into 2.

Now I have stated this all along and you have lied saying that it was always 2 separate areas...  

Transjordan or Jordan makes up approx 75% of the mandate area... it is an ARAB state.
[color=#ff0000]mod: personal attack[/color

Everything I've ever said is even backed up by everything you use as proof.  [color=#ff0000]mod: personal attack[/color

Historical era      
- Mandate assigned      25 April, 1920
- Transjordanian independence      25 May 1946
- Founding of Israel      14 May, 1948

Oh and ABU once more you provide proof I was right...  transjordan was part of what?  Included in what?  Oh THE BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE....  well who'd a thunk..