Jewish Rights Quotes
The Arab States opposed the creation of Israel. They promised that Jews could like in Arab lands and would have “absolute protection” and “no discrimination whatsoever”, There was no need for a separate Jewish since the Islamic states were open to Jews. At the time, few took the statement seriously. The Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had been a general officer of the Nazi SS. There had been hundreds of anti jewish riots where Jews were killed and if they were lucky, only their property would be destroyed. Historically, only in Ataturk’s Turkey could Jews and Christians live as equals in an Islamic state. Under Islamic law, “people of the book”—Christians and Jews—could live in Muslim nations but had to pay special taxes and had many restrictions on their public visibility. Since 1947, there is not a single Islamic state in the Middle East with the exception of Turkey where Jews had “absolute protection: and were not discriminated against.
He was distraught at the persecution his family was forced to endure in Germany.
Prior to 1948 and the establishment of the state of Israel, there were large number of Jewish refugees who were stateless and, regardless of whatever moral rights they may have had, there was no politi.cal mechanism to enforce or claim these rights. For example, in 1956 Nassar expelled most of the Egyptian Jewish population. It was only the existence of Israel that gave these people the right to come to Israel and not depend on the good will of the world to help them as refugees. The difficulty for most refugees is that there is no state to demand, support, and enforce their rights.
The Roman Empire of 70 million people contained at the time 7 million Jews—the vast majority of the world’s Jews.
Even some of the Muslim countries of the OIC were embarrassed by the blatantly anti-Semitic speech of the host country prime minister. He parroted the discredited canard of the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
1st Baron Macaulay
The “Mandatory” was Great Britain who received the “Mandate” from the League of Nations to administer Palestine for the purposes set forth, and the methods specified, in this document. This together with {624531} are very important historically for two reasons. First, the San Remo Conference established the responsibility of the British for the Governance of Palestine. Second, it refutes an argument that some people make that the establishment of Israel by the United Nations in 1947 was a sudden act of guilt by the world over the Holocaust, thereby making the Muslim Arabs pay for the sins of the Christian Germans. What these quotations show is that the original mandate to the British by League of Nations, as early as 1920, envisioned the Jews as having a homeland in Palestine and provided specific methodologies and cautions regarding such an establishment. The world’s nations had decided the issue of the Jews in Palestine almost 20 years BEFORE the start of the Holocaust and more than 25 years earlier than the UN Resolution recognizing the nation of Palestine.
Question of FDR who was explaining the Jewish Claims to Part of Palestine. That was a considered option but the Jews had no historical relationship to Germany in the sense that the did in the Middle East, Fir several hundred years all of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and much of the rest of the Middle East belonged to a Jewish Kingdom under a dynasty of Jewish Kings. Jews had lived in the Middle East for over 5000 years. However, the Jewish Kingdom fell to the Romans, and then hundreds of years later the area was under Muslim Rule, then it was controlled by the Christian crusaders, retaken by the Muslims, and then conquered by the Jews when 14 Arab Armies attacked the fledgling state of Israel. So all the contesting ethnic groups claiming the Middle East as their land, base that claim on their domination and rule of the area by conquest at different points of history. All have conquered the land from someone else and ruled it till they were conquered with the Jews being the latest conquerors. So Arabs and Jews both have claims and can object to the other’s behavior of taking the land by force.
