Видео

Sir. I want u r mobile no. Plz

How come there are no replies on this video. Lol, Jewish hockey team. What will they think of next?

Baruch H-Shem!

Actually they have really good wines and they claim to be the first in the world to develop their special kind of pomegranates. I like it! :)

@4:34 This is exactly what I am constantly asking. Why the hell does Israel not assert it's right?!! It's legal and sovereign rights!?

My reply to your comment was too long, so I posted it on my blog. I cannot insert links in the comments, so the link is on the bottom of the description of this video. Thanks for the feedback1

to eductedcanadian1... This is the intellectual reply of an "educated Canadian?" Okay.

pt 4-The Jews on the other hand did have an historical connection with Transjordan, though not the Eastern desert. So the logical choice was to extend the Mandate for Palestine in the rest of Transjordan. This would make up for the amount of territory the Jews lost in Syria and the upper Galilee in Lebanon.

pt 3- After the French ousted Feisal, the deal became irrelevant and the allies had to decide what to do with the rest of Transjordan. The Mesopotamians certainly had no historical connection to Transjordan (The land between the two rivers did not refer to the Euphrates and the Jordan!), the British certainly did not want the French to control it, and the Hedjaz was beginning to act in too much of an aggressive manner in expanding its territory.

pt 2- The agreement would give Feisal and the Syrian people a link to the Hedjaz and Mecca. This was the courtesy that Weitzmann offered Feisal. The British certainly wanted it in the Mandate for Palestine; otherwise, the French might have ended up controlling it! Palestine up to the Railway was approximately the Jewish territories of the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and Menashe.

pt 1 -In 1920, there was no land called Trans-Jordan, it was merely called “the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine.” The agreement between Feisal and Weitzmann were that Palestine would extend up to the Hedjaz Railway in what today is central Jordan, with a buffer zone on the West side of the railway and everything to the east of the railway under the Syrian Mandate.

ed. reply pt 3 - Though the General Assembly replaced the Permanent Mandates Commission, the GA can only act within the same authority as the Permanent Mandates Commission. That is to enforce the letter of the law. Article 80 of the UN Charter reaffirms the legal status of the Mandates. If I am wrong, what do you maintain is the legal foundation for Israel’s borders today?

ed. reply pt 2 - The British, as Winston Churchill complained, violated the Mandate on a daily basis. You are dead wrong when you say the Mandate does not affect the legal borders of today. There hasn’t been and cannot be a law that changes the boundaries of the 1920 Franco British Boundary convention. The International Court of Justice has ruled (South Africa/Namibia) that the Mandates are law. The UN has no authority to alter them.

ed. reply pt 1. - No, the Jewish return to Palestine/Eretz Yisrael was not as you said “British allowed…within quotas.” The British did not own the land. They were appointed by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers to carry out the instructions protect the rights and set up the Jewish country. The plan was that within 8-10 years there would be a Jewish majority returned to Palestine and the Mandate for Palestine would be fulfilled.

pt 5 If we're not talking about Jewish control of (all) Palestine, why would the civil rights of the non-Jews need protecting, & wouldn’t there need to be protection of civil & religious rights of Jews living in non-Jewish controlled areas in Palestine? I don't see where you determine that not all Palestine was given to the Jews. This does not jive with anything that was stated at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Feb 1920 London Peace Conference, or the April 1920 San Remo Peace Conference.

pt 4 (to MrDeltablues) The Jewish People were the sole beneficiary of the Mandate for Palestine. Please read the mminutes of the San Remo Conference to understand what “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" means. The civil rights that were being protected were discussed at length. It was understood that non-Jewish inhabitants should, at the very least, have the right to vote.

pt3 (for MrDeltablues) The French & British made another illegal land deal where the Northern and Southern Golan Heights were given to the French Mandate for Syria while Syrian Mosul was given as an oil interest to the British in the Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq).

pt. 2 (to Mrdeltablues) As per the instructions in the Middle East Mandates, the League of Nations was to appoint a country to map the borders that were agreed upon by the Supreme Council. The British & French were the countries appointed. The borders are the December 1920 Franco British Boundary Convention. Unfortunately, the British & French already had their own agendas & made alterations to the borders such as handing the French control of the Central Golan Heights for the Mandate for Syria.

Pt 1. My long reply to MrDeltablues (who must share my great taste in music) will have to be posted in many parts: You are correct that the borders were not mapped at San Remo. They were discussed using the biblical “from Dan to Beer Sheba description. British PM David Lloyd George defined that as the greater area of land controlled by the Jews through the 1st & 2nd Temple Periods. At San Remo the Biblical Atlas of Scottish Theologian George Adams Smith was cited as a guide.

Part 2. Arabs are so native to Palestine, that the UN definition of an Arab refugee of the Israel/Arab conflict is one whose permanent place of residence was in Palestine between 1946 & 1948. Amazing how “The Palestinian come from Palestine” to which you refer comes down to a 2 year period in the 1940s!

If Israel only wants land, why isn’t Israel marching across its borders into neighboring countries and taking any territory? Israel recovered its territory in 1967 that was illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt in 1948. The Golan was illegally removed from the Jewish home by the French & British in 2 phases in the ‘20s. Palestinians do come from Palestine, but until the late 60s, only Jews were called Palestinians.

Israel doesn't want peace , it wants land. The only peace Israel is offering is for the Palis to legitimize Israels occupation You try so hard to biologically link all Jews to Israel while claiming the Palestinians come from everywhere but Palestine. But the truth is the reverse. The Palestinian come from Palestine and the Zionist come from everywhere else but Palestine.

While San Remo did mandate for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine - it did not determine borders and included a safeguard for existing non jewish inhabitants. It did not give all of Palestine to the Jewish state. Text = "in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

2ndly, as regards the broader point, it is true the British allowed much Jewish immigration within quotas (no 'right of return', then). However, this was under the explicit understanding that the state would remain neutral and never become Jewish - part of their convoluted attempts to keep the Jews and the natives happy. Again, only in 1948 was a J state envisaged, and then only as a partitioned portion of the land. Contrary to what you imply, then, the mandate does not legitimate borders today.

As an historian of Mandate Palestine, I must disagree with both of your points. Firstly, it is incorrect that in 1920, the British were intending to include land east of the Jordan in what would become Palestine. From 1917 through 1922, despite demands by Samuel and others that the British extend their influence into TJ, Britain firmly refused to include it; indeed, only in 1922 was TJ included in the mandate, and then only on the understanding the Jewish provisions did not apply.

no it's due to the rise in Israeli propaganda

Does your historical claim to the land supercede the rights of those born there? Does Israels fear of terrorism morally justify the denial of the human rights of over 2 million people? (conservative palestinian refugee/diaspora figure). i would say no. To the second question i would add the point that denial of human rights creates terrorism, same for Ireland or Israel. I support 1 state: a recognised jewish homeland without the racist policies. Thank you for your thorough thoughtful response!

No... I was not talking religious rights. I am talking about legal rights based on the historical national connection of the Jewish People to the land, something the Jewish Nation has never given up its claim to. The Arabs are newcomers and never had a government in Palestine/Israel. The goal of the Arabs is no different than the goal of Hitler (who was a close ally of the Arab Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) and that is to make the land Judenrein. We are talking facts, not propaganda.

part 4 ...But protecting those rights is not possible when every time you try to make a move in that direction, they going blowing up school buses and night clubs or slicing the throat of toddlers in the arms of their father as he is also being murdered (look up the fogel family in Itamar).

part 3 I have no intention, nor do I have the right, to give up our historical homeland and inheritance. The Arabs have a right to have their religious and civil rights protected. Is this being done properly? No, it is not...This is what you should be focusing on, not creating a separate Arab State that is in violation of international Law.

part 2. Palestine was an underpopulated territory for hundreds of years with no more than 270,000 inhabitants, including Jews, Arabs, Turks, Christians and others. We never gave up our claim to our land. The world recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home" there. That is what is up with the "ours."

No! Proprio no! L’occupazione incomincia con la pretesa che un Dio nei panni di agente immobiliare abbia ceduto a qualcuno diritti esclusivi su un territorio, per giunta con il comando di massacrare gli abitanti... Si tratta di deplorevole ideologia che si affida alla reiterazione dei suoi moduli per farne passare contenuti inaccettabili. Basta citare i libri di Ilas Pappe, Israel Shaak, Gilad Atzmon per confutare le assurdità del video...

Whats this "Ours" business. You sound american, it's not yours, it belongs to the Jews, Muslims and Christians that were born there. It's not Germany's it's not Australia's nor South Africas. Zionists are mentally ill.

While it was under the ottoman rule it was by young turk nationalists who formed the republic. So I feel like there was an implied point that was incorrect.

really?because the israelie media keeps saying israel isnt ready for war...

S T O P T H E M !

Moshe is playing the long game. The folks who want either immediate gratification or nothing need to grow up and get on board. This is the train to the geula, folks. It may not be an express, but getting off the train is a Very Bad Idea.

@cafeturkie - Yes, they are great, and also this video, being a single one, is also excellent and I find I get good response when I use it: ruclips.net/video/Zf267nA9jQw/видео.html&feature=player_embedded#!

@userfriendly2011 Resolutions do not change existing legal rights. Any resolution that contradicts the Mandates or Article 80 of the UN charter are illegal. That's all... It does not get more simple than that. When two laws conflict, the original law is the one that stands. The Mandates are law, The rights cannot be canceled. UN resolutions cannot do that.

@smartcnut - This set of three videos should go viral. Complicated, involved, but the absolute truth and all I get in response is "but what about resolution this, or resolution that," from those who hate Israel!!!

jews - u had the same pain of genocide in your souls...be BRAVE recognize the truth of Armenian genocide...

Excellent series!

@blueboy921 Jewish building on this land is permitted & is to be"encouraged" according to the wording of Interntn'l Law. "Why take more land from the Arab people?" Arabs have 22 countries. Palestine was never an Arab country. The majority of Arabs who call themselves Palestinian immigrated illegally during the 20th century. The Jews already lost 76% of their legal territory when Trans-Jordan was created. These are the facts of history.

why should they freeze the outpost destruction ? its not israeli Land, that is a fact, and they build there, even if its prohibited. thats also a fact. now tell me, why take more Land from the Arab (i do not say palestine, cause they dont exist) people, they have already lost enough.

@iitvNews The tradition was to bring animals for sacrifice at the temple on pesach. The offering was burnt on the bama in front of the temple. Korban Pesach today is an attempt to revive the tradition without the temple. Regardless, I am still opposing it. Modern science and life taught us that those animals have a self awareness and feelings, something that was not understood in biblical times. There are many biblical rules we don't follow today such as stoning to death, and slavery.

@shitake555 Most Korbanot-offerings, are dependent upon the Kohanim (priests) & the people bringing them being in a pure state. Not so for the Pesach offering or the twice daily Tamid, Continual Offering, which we are obligated to bring even if the majority of the kohanim/nation is spiritually unclean. For 8 years the Lubavitcher Rebbe said Jews should leave Jrslm on Passover Eve as not to violate this. 8 years later he canceled the call saying the Temple Mount was no longer in our hands.

Sacrifice on the temple mount is dependent on the temple being present and operational. It is likely that if the temple will be reconstructed I will still oppose animal sacrifice. However, when Israel build the temporary walkway it was condemned by the wakf for harming the al aqsa mosque and work was halted. Now that the structure is unsafe and was closed down, Israel was condemned for preventing non Muslims from entering the compound. How ridiculous is that?

EXCELLENT !!! TRUE !!! Enough one sided foolishness !!! The Temple is OURS !!! Muslims only want everything their way !! NO WAY !!! NO MORE !!!

As always, another brilliant concise and informative video. I use your videos a lot on forums. Thanks.

@yesspam pt 3 The San Remo Resolution created Palestine as a country for the first time in history, but it was the reconstitution of the Jewish Commonwealth, not an Arab State. Most Arabs who, since the late 60s began calling themselves Palestinian, didn't arrive in Palestine until the years of the Mandate (1922-1948). I'm sorry, but the Arabs have been rewriting history. Take a look at the historical documents. The Legend of the great Arab Nation of Palestine is a myth, & the world believes it