State of Yaneeve 🇮🇱🇺🇸🇩🇪🇮🇳🇬🇧🇦🇷

The Day After The question is no longer what should be done with the Jewish people. That age old problem had been answered. The Jewish people had been confered the land from the River to the Sea, via multiple international agreements. The partition of that land was an offer that was never accepted by the Arabs of the region. The question is, what should be done with the people designating themselves Palestinians. The Palestinian question is one that was invented to answer the Jewish question. But so many words have already spilled on that one that I will not bother about it here. The answer to the Palestinian question is, actually an easy one. It has 2 parts to it. To all those that are willing to put away their "Palestinian" identity and are currently present in the land between the River and the Sea, they can assume an Israeli identity. They would need to pass a rigerous integration course and pass naturalization tests. JUST LIKE FOR ANY OTHER COUNTRY. I foresee that this will be a minority of peoples, probably no more than 1.5 million. To all the rest, those people who wish to be Israel-hating Arabs, then they can take their Israel hatred with them somewhere else. Where? No country in the middle east really wants them. (Basically for two reasons, one is that they wish to pereptuate the situation, with a basic understanding that eventually it will overturn history and rid the area of the Jewish state. The second reason is that the Palestinians really did do everything in their power to violently attack any country that they lived in...) So, we have established that no country wants them, but I think we can change that. Israel is home to Islam's third holiest site. This site is also the most holy of holies for Judaism - the temple mount. In no other case in history did the victor allow a place of worship of the loser to stay as it was. Israel, as always, is a beacon of light to the world and has maintained the integrity of the site for Islam. It has also enabled Jordan to be the custodian of that site. I maintain that nothing in life is free. I suggest that, the country that takes in the MOST amount of Palestinians and integrates them into its society will be the one to receive permanent CUSTODIANSHIP of ALL of the Islamic sites of the Holy city. Now tell me this isn't fair.

Why was Jewish settlement banned east of the Jordan in 77% of the territory originally promised as a Jewish national home? The 1920 San Remo conference and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate placed all of Palestine, both banks of the Jordan, ~120,000 km² under British administration with the explicit purpose of facilitating a "Jewish national home." The Balfour Declaration was baked into the Mandate's preamble. No geographic carve-out. No mention of the Jordan River as a limit. Then came 1921. Britain had a problem named Abdullah. The Hashemite prince, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, brother of Faisal, had been promised a throne by the British during WWI in exchange for the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans. The French had just kicked his brother Faisal out of Damascus in July 1920. Abdullah arrived at Ma'an in southern Transjordan in November 1920, reached Amman by March 1921, and was openly threatening to march on French Syria. Britain needed to park him somewhere. So at the March 1921 Cairo Conference, Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, handed Abdullah the territory east of the Jordan as a consolation emirate. Quiet, cheap, solved the Hashemite problem. To make it legal, Britain added Article 25 to the Mandate draft in March 1921, authorizing it to "postpone or withhold" the Jewish national home provisions in the territory east of the Jordan. The Mandate was ratified by the League of Nations in July 1922, and the Transjordan Memorandum of September 16, 1922 formally activated Article 25, excluding Transjordan from the Jewish national home clauses entirely. Jewish immigration and land purchase was prohibited. The justifications offered at the time: Strategic debt to the Hashemites. Britain had made conflicting wartime promises (McMahon-Hussein correspondence, Sykes-Picot, Balfour). Giving Abdullah Transjordan was the cheapest way to settle one of those debts. Buffer state logic. Transjordan as a quiet Arab emirate insulated British Palestine from Saud expansion to the south and French Syria to the north. Reduce Arab opposition to the Mandate. The 1920 Nebi Musa riots and rising Arab nationalist agitation had spooked the British. Removing 77% of the territory from the Jewish national home was meant to placate Arab nationalism. (It didn't. Arab opposition continued and escalated regardless. The Jaffa riots erupted just two months after the Cairo decision, and the 1936–39 Arab Revolt followed.) Sparse Jewish presence east of the Jordan. Britain argued, post hoc, that there were few Jews living east of the river and little Zionist infrastructure there so the carve-out wasn't "really" taking anything away. But this conflated current settlement with future settlement, which was the entire point of the Mandate. What it actually was: Britain trading 77% of a territory it had pledged internationally as the Jewish national home for a Hashemite client and a quieter administrative burden. The Zionist movement protested at the time. Jabotinsky's Revisionists made "shtei gadot la-Yarden, zo shelanu, zo gam ken" ("two banks has the Jordan, this one is ours, and that one too") their founding slogan precisely because of this, but the mainstream Zionist leadership chose to accept the carve-out rather than fight Britain over it. The result, a century later: when someone says "the Jews got most of the land," they're starting the clock in November 1947 and pretending the Cairo Conference never happened.

Why didn't the Palestinians request a state from the Turks when the Ottomans controlled the area?

MILLIONS OF PATRIOTS MARCH THROUGH LONDON! The establishment said nobody would come. The media tried to ignore it. But the streets of London were PACKED. This aerial footage from the Unite The Kingdom rally shows the TRUE scale of the march. Millions of people standing together for Britain, freedom of speech, and national identity. WATCH. SHARE. LET THE WORLD SEE IT. 🇬🇧🔥

Muslims are not dangerous. We are human beings like everyone else, with families, love, care, and ordinary lives. Our faith teaches compassion, not hatred. Our Prophet taught respect and mercy. Yes, there are a few extremists who distort our religion and bring shame to it, but they do not represent the vast majority of Muslims. So why is it that many still get profiled and treated as suspects? Is it fear, or hate?

The Ottomans ruled the Levant for 400 years. They were Muslim. So why didn’t they create a “Palestinian” state? Awkward question. Because the land was not an independent Palestinian nation waiting to be restored. It was another slice of imperial territory. The locals, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Arab, Turk, Druze, Bedouin, were Ottoman subjects organized by religion, tribe, and village. Not citizens of “Palestine.” Arabs lived there, of course. But there was no Palestinian state. The Ottomans had 400 years. The British had decades. No Palestinian state. Then Israel was reborn and suddenly everyone’s a TikTok historian. Criticize Israeli policy all you want. That’s fair. But claiming Jews “stole” an ancient Palestinian nation? Pure fiction. For the last 2000 years, the land was controlled by Romans, Byzantines, Rashidun Caliphate, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Ottomans, then the British. Nobody created a Palestinian state. Then the world finally offered the Arabs one. They declined. Chose war. And somehow the bill for that decision keeps getting mailed to the Jews. History has receipts.