Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "UsefulCharts"
channel.
-
16
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lmarsh5407 ? Israel is a secular State, not a theocratic ethno-state. Jordan (Palestine) did become a theocracy, it's even on their flag, and there are restrictions on Christians in government and academia, and no Jews. King Hussein fought for a religious Caliphate which would have included all of Syria-Palestine, Iraq and what is now Saudi Arabia. Hussein lost the Hejaz to Ibn Saud in the 1930s, then given Jordan and Iraq as consolation prizes. The Arabs were not "peaceful" and warred against each other as well as the Jews. That continues to this day, as evidenced by the ongoing civil war in Syria which has taken more Arab lives than anything Israel has done. Of course, you may believe all these conflicts are directly caused by collusion between the UK and the Zionists, I'd argue against it, and so would TE Lawrence.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lmarsh5407 1. False, the British Mandate was sanctioned under the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920, it was a temporary administrative region, never an organized state.
2. Modern states have their origin in the 17th Century Westphalian Agreements which lead to the the organization developed after WW1, The League of Nations. The League helped to create many modern Arab states like Jordan and Iraq. Why the double-standard?
3. Pan-Arabism wanted to subjugate both Christians and Jews under Shari Law, which was being done all through the region prior to WW1, and why so many fled Muslim held regions for the new State of Israel. Not all were Zionists, and even among Zionists, there were different types with different goals. There are currently 450,000 Yemini Jews in Israel. Imagine what their life would be like today in Yemen? Coexist?
Jordan, Syria and Iraq do not "coexist" with Christians and Jews in their newly created States. Jordan was created in 1946, it is an autonomous nation/state, but a Muslim theocracy. Why the double-standard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lmarsh5407 Yes, Southern Plantation owners said they didn't "hate negroes" and that they were happy being slaves until agitators from the North came.
Jew and Zionist are used interchangeably in the document. There is no difference, the report is clear. No Jewish migration and only Arab/Moslem autonomy in the region. Equals Apartheid.
"Palestinians are losing their birthright to Jewish migration" - (page 14).
"Jews have been among the most active advocates of destruction in many lands, ..." - (Page 22)
"We have seen the book 'The Jewish Peril" (Page 22)
"The Jew, moreover, is clannish and unneighborly, and cannot mix with those about him" - (Page 23)
"The Jew is a Jew all the world over" - (Page 24)
Jew and Zionist in this report is the same. It repeats the blood libel and many other lies which are still expressed today. Perhaps you believe them?
The report speaks of Arabs allying with the British in the war against the Turks. The Jews also allied in this war. There were Jewish battalions who fought and died, and actually entered the war before Arabs. King Hussein did get a Palestinian nation/state, it was called Trans-Jordan, in 1946 renamed Jordan.
Jews fought to free the land from the Ottoman/Turk. The Jews were willing to share, the Arabs were not. This document from 1921 makes that clear, and that the Arabs both hated and feared "The Jew" and were unwilling to allow them full citizenship in the region. Not in 1947, but in 1920.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1