The Competition for State and the 1948 War

[@anemomilou_anem]

Documented, structured analysis! Thank you very much.

[@moujalbahr7688]

Prof. Landis; This is a great piece of writing. Additionally, if you were 100% honest, it would be a treatise. I have high hopes for academic institutions to publish the truth and only the truth. I am sure, the review process would keep all honest pending numerous pressures. I hope you stay safe.

[@dwatmajihanomanresi9638]

Against the Article 49 the Fourth Geneva Convention

[@Ansarallah_2014]

I don’t like what I heard but it kinda just explains that the only reason the Palestinian lost is because the British were against them from day one and they were very divided

[@dwatmajihanomanresi9638]

This is unjust from the British as a Mandatory of the region. British must give to the Arab Palestinian who were Majority inhabitants the same rights at lest divide the land according to the population. See the article 49 The Fourth Geneva Convention.

[@omarks]

Not mentioned anywhere I can find in Joshua Landis Ph.D's otherwise excellent expositions of historical facts is the reality that the zionists were regularly attacking, assassinating and blowing up the British Mandate Palestine authorities and other diplomats who oppposed them in what were the first 'terrorist' actions of the century. Many of the zionist terrorists went on to become Israeli government politicians after the UN lost control of international law and order in the regiion.

[@zackyboy438]

i couldnt GUESS it better thanks for the clear history

[@scottadler]

Landis -- Please prove your claim that the British supported the Jews before or during the 1948 war. Every contemporary know the game that the Labour government of Atlee and Bevin was up to. Your claim is so outrageous and counterfactual as to appear to be an outright lie. Explain yourself. "Kibbutzes" -- jeesh.

[@emmanuel5984]

Why is it hard for you to believe that Britain was behind the organization of the take over of Palestinian land?

[@scottadler]

@@emmanuel5984 Because it's a lie. Britain was in league with the Arab League and helped them plan the war and allowed their "Arab Liberation Army" to enter the country and shoot up every Jewish community it encountered without opposition. It eagerly collaborated in both stages of the vicious Arab siege of Jerusalem, and maintained their arms blockade until May 15, 1948. And so on. It did nothing to prevent the war and did everything it could to protect Arab gangs of killers including locking up United Nations observers. I could go on. British behavior, ordered directly at cabinet level, during the war was as criminal as that of the Arabs, which was filthy indeed and Israeli cemeteries are filled with the victims of British collusion. I should add, Emanuel, that only a complete fool would believe otherwise.

[@emmanuel5984]

@@scottadler ; First things first. Did such an agreement (Belfour Declaration) exist? If so, who did it come from? Is this document a bit of false information? Once we've established this, we can speak more on who Britain was supporting in 1948. Also, to make a blanket statement about persons who may hold a divergent view from yours as, "being completely foolish", isn't a proper way of having good dialogue. I will make an assumption that you hold to the idea of being "Jewish" and as such your passion is showing itself.

[@emmanuel5984]

@@scottadler ; Thanks for the reply Scott. I believe it's fair to say the Britain played both sides in this setting up and tearing down. That's how most governments operate. It is a Satanic position(playing both sides- not taking a real position). I'll ask another question, without the Balfour Declaration, would Palestinian land be occupied by the current people? Just want to know your thoughts. Thanks

[@scottadler]

@@emmanuel5984 No, it means that I actually know something. You don't. For example, you call the Balfour Declaration an "agreement" -- it was not an agreement, just a vague letter from Balfour to the chemist who figured out how to synthesize acetone. It had no legal standing whatsoever. The actual legal foundation of Jewish settlement in the so-called "Palestine Mandate" (It actually had three names) was the post-WWI Treaty of Sevres, specifically the portions adopted at the San Remo conference. Every country in the world adopted the Treaty of Sevres -- even the US, which did so in a separate treaty that sidestepped the League of Nations provisions. It appears that the international community had an ulterior motive for adopting the relevant clauses in the Treaty of Sevres -- soon after the treaty was adopted, every country in the world -- including Egypt -- banned Jewish immigration for racist reasons. The British controlled immigration to the West Palestine because they saw it as an imperial asset and as the terminal for an oil pipeline from Kirkuk in Iraq (a story too long to be related here). Regarding your own sentence, "I will make an assumption that you hold to the idea of being 'Jewish' and as such your passion is showing itself." I will assume -- for purposes of argument -- that you are not a venal racist and merely clueless. I don't waste my time with racist swine, but I do help people look behind the curtain of Arab propaganda. Please explain yourself or this conversation is over.