What's new

Time for a quiet revolution in Bangladesh-Israeli relations

:lol: the efficiency of anti-Israeli propaganda machine is amazing. It was a Bangladeshi writer who wrote this article so you guys should take it up with him. Surely Israel should be able to scrape through without the recognition from Bangladesh.

Nope, it's ineffective. People are having their land stolen from them as we speak, gazan farmers are being shot for being to close to the israeli border were their land is etc. and yet some people still don't care about whats happening.

Would you care more if pakistanis/bangladeshis were occupying parts of india while confiscating land from local people and building settlements purely for the chosen citizen. Unfortunately thats how the world works, people only care about their own.
Bangladesh recognizing israel would mean more aid for them through both private and government investments, as a lot of these comes from US companies, still they are resisting this because of local opinion about the case, and thats a democratic decision.
 
.
Would you care more if pakistanis/bangladeshis were occupying parts of india while confiscating land from local people and building settlements purely for the chosen citizen. Unfortunately thats how the world works, people only care about their own.

Specially when they belong to Indian subcontinent as opposed to Scandinavia.

Bangladesh recognizing israel would mean more aid for them through both private and government investments, as a lot of these comes from US companies, still they are resisting this because of local opinion about the case, and thats a democratic decision.

And that hasn't been questioned here.
 
. .
That means when British gave 99.9% of lands to Arabs, ignoring non Arab nations that lived there they had not right to do so?


They made agreement with Jews too, who helped Brits. And Jews were decieved by Brits.

Enough about your crap.... british had no authority to give any land to other people specially when that land was occupied by other people.... n british was not giving that land to the jews but some racist zionist... but even at the balfour declaration it was mentioned palestine population or non jews population should not be affected by this where radical extremist zionist were/are trying to turn it into a only jewish state...

The main reason behind the balfour declaration by balfour is his apocalyptic view that it would help the return of jesus christ and to please rothchild who was the president of the zionist organization in uk...

Above view can be seen from this....

The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organization – June 3, 1922, pp. 17-21

“The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, as far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine…Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become ‘as Jewish as England is English.’ His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.” p. 18


But the racist zionist tried all the time to justify balfour declaration as a means of creating a new jewish state where as despite british knew that this declaration is illegal and has only done to please the zionist but did not say creation of a new state rater just give permission to the jews to immigrant in Palestine....


N the illegality of the balfour declaration can be seen from the balfour's statement... where he clearly said that it was a design by the conqueror and even league of nation has no right to control it... but unfortunately this UN has been used for the creation of Israel... when it is nothing but a blue design of some colonial power with out the consent of the inhabitant of the land...

The Official Journal of the League of Nations, dated June 1922, contained an interview with Lord Balfour in which he opined that the League's authority was strictly limited. According to Balfour –

[the] Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League. A mandate was a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they exercised over the conquered territory.

Same can also be seen from below:

Balfour resigned as foreign secretary following the Versailles Conference in 1919, but continued in the Cabinet as lord president of the council. In a memorandum addressed to new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, he stated that the Balfour Declaration contradicted the letters of the covenant (referring to the League Covenant) the Anglo-French Declaration, and the instructions to the King-Crane Commission. All of the other engagements contained pledges that the Arab populations could establish national governments of their own choosing according to the principle of self-determination.

Balfour explained:

"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.

The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right.

What I have never been able to understand is how it can be harmonized with the [Anglo-French] declaration, the Covenant, or the instruction to the [King-Crane] Commission of Enquiry.

I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the views of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.

If Zionism is to influence the Jewish problem throughout the world Palestine must be made available for the largest number of Jewish immigrants. It is therefore eminently desirable that it should obtain the command of the water-power which naturally belongs to it whether by extending its borders to the north, or by treaty with the mandatory of Syria, to whom the southward flowing waters of Hamon could not in any event be of much value.

For the same reason Palestine should be extended into the lands lying east of the Jordan. It should not, however, be allowed to include the Hedjaz Railway, which is too distinctly bound up with exclusively Arab Interests..." [26]

N stop all your nonsense and claim such as British gave .1% of the land to jews ... better say to the zionist ... as from above even balfour was aware of the fact that what ever he was doing is illegal and it is rightly so....including the creation of israel... it would be better for israel to go back to the 1967 border and accept palestine state with east jerusalem as its capital.....

n the reason behind the christian zionists creation of israel and its support of this apartheid state...

Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour

YouTube - Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour
 
. .
'Transfer' (Ethnic Cleansing) Zionist Quotes

on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)


Ben-Gurion "had a dream" to annex southern Lebanon to the "Jewish state", and to establish a Christian state north of the Litani River. At the beginning of the 1948 war, he stated:

'The Muslims rule of Lebanon is artificial and easily undermined. A Christian state ought to be set up whose southern borders would be Litani River. Then we'll form an alliance with it." In the coming years he repeated this idea, and according to Moshe Sharett, Moshe Dayan (who was Israeli's chief of staff in the early 1950s) responded favorably to this idea and who according to Sharett said: "In his [Dayan] view, all we need to do is to find a Christian Lebanese officer, perhaps no higher than a captain, and win him over or buy him with money, so that he would declare himself the savior of Maronite population. Then the Israel army would enter Lebanon, occupy the territory in question and establish a Christian government which would form an alliance with Israel." Sharett himself considered this an "awful" idea. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 10 & Righteous Victims, p. 497)



On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)


In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:

"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)

nd regarding the Peel Commission, on June 9, 1937 he also stated:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear the greatest material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

In September 1937, he stated to a group of American Jewish labor leaders in New York:

"the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)


According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:

"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)






On September 26, 1948, he proposed the Israeli provisional government that Israel should attack the West Bank. Again, he had reiterated how a war could be used as an instrument to "transfer" population, and he used Lydda's and Ramla's occupation and the subsequent expulsion of their population as a precedent. According to a detail plan of the operation recorded in his diary, Israeli forces would take:

"Bethlehem, and Hebron, where there are about a hundred thousand [Palestinian] Arabs. I assume that most of the Arabs of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron would flee, like the [Palestinian] Arabs of Lydda, Jaffa, Tiberias, and Safad, and we will control the whole breadth of the country up to the Jordan." In another entry he writes: "It is not impossible . . . that we will be able to conquer the way to the Negev, Eilat, and the Dead Sea, and to secure the Negev for ourselves; also to broaden the corridor to Jerusalem, from north to south; to liberate the rest of Jerusalem and to take the Old City; to seize all of central and western Galilee and to expand the borders of the state in all directions" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 48 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 14)


Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture


In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:

"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)

Soon after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan wrote in his memories regarding the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the 'Imwas, Bayt Nuba, Yalu, and big portion of the West Bank city of Qalqilya:

"[houses were destroyed] not in battle, but as punishment . . . and in order to CHASE AWAY the inhabitants . . . contrary to government policy." (Righteous Victims, p. 328)

In September 1967 Moshe Dayan told senior staff in the Israeli Occupation Army in the West Bank that some 200,000 Palestinian Arabs had left the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

"we must understand the motives and causes of the continued emigration of the [Palestinian] Arabs, from both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and not to undermine these cause after all, we want to create a new map." (Righteous Victims, p. 338)

On 30 July 1973 Moshe Dayan said to Time Magazine:

"There is no more Palestine. Finished . . ." (Iron Wall, p. 316)

and in April 1973 from the peaks of Massada he proclaimed a vision:

"a new State of Israel with broad frontiers, strong and solid, with the authority of the Israel Government extending from the Jordan [river] to the Suez Canal." (Iron Wall, p. 316)
 
.
Ultimate zionist aim... establishing Greater Israel....

greater_israel.gif
 
.
Enough about your crap.... british had no authority to give any land to other people
So Brits were wrong when they gave 99.8% of lands to Arabs, ignoring other peple lived there (Copts, Kurds, Berbers, Jews, Assirians).

n british was not giving that land to the jews but some racist zionist...
Brits did not give anything to Jews. remaining 0.2% was devided by UN: 0.1% to Arabs and 0.1% to Jews.
 
.
It is entirely possible to help the Palestinians without supporting Israel.
To repeat myself, India's position is like justifying doing business with the Nazis because you also donate to Jewish charities.

To put it more precisely -- helping Palestine is like a past time, whereas helping India is full time.

And India helps itself much more in supporting Israel than Palestine. Palestine issue is still somewaht supported by India only because the Father of the Nation supported it.
 
. .
Specially when they belong to Indian subcontinent as opposed to Scandinavia.

Scandinavians are not so different as you might think, we have anti immigrant parties, far right political parties etc, who all share hatred for what they think is non scandinavian, especially jews and muslim immigrants. So if I understood you correctly, nope same issues that exists in south asia also exists here, it's the same principles anyway.
 
.
So Brits were wrong when they gave 99.8% of lands to Arabs, ignoring other peple lived there (Copts, Kurds, Berbers, Jews, Assirians).

What birt did they just create state based on boundary drawn by skype picot agreement where as all the arabs were seeking an united arab states... n what you are smoking here by saying cops, kurds, berbers..jews and assarians...

copts and assarians are the name of the christian of egypt and syria ... but point to be noted almost all of them converted to Islam including the jews those who used to live there .. so local people got their land... not any out siders... n for berbers go n check ethnic group of algeria ... majority of them are berbers ... almost 99% they either term them as berber or arab due to mix up for centuries between arab and Berber... only kurds did not get any state.... as all the major lines were drawn up due to skype picot agreement but it is not mandatory that every people of different ethnicity needs to get a new country... then you need to divide India by 50 or so states.. same case also true for many of the countries... n judaism is a religion not a race that a new country needs to be created in middle east... where in palestine up to ww1 number of jews was only at best 7%. If one state solution would have been created without expelling any palestanian people and bringing european and russian over there it would be accepted... by saying european and russian jews has also right over there is just like saying muslim of bangladesh, pakistan, india, indonesia has also right on Saudi Arabiya... this is never logical.


Brits did not give anything to Jews. remaining 0.2% was devided by UN: 0.1% to Arabs and 0.1% to Jews.

no they did not .. they have brough 100 of thousand of european and russian over there and then declare a state and conducted ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian... which is never acceptable... only one state solution with equal right to all might be acceptable... n to conduct ethnic cleansing was the primary target of the zionist from the beginning...
 
.
Bangladesh can recognize Israel
But only after establishment of an independent Palestinian state
I think Israel is very reluctant to make peace
More interested in building settlements
Peace with Palestinians means Israel will have to give up east Jerusalem
Only external pressure can change Israeli attitude
But I think Iran getting Nukes will be a real game changer!:tup:
 
.
No way ....Bangladesh should not recognize israel....you are 3rd largest muslim country, dont shake hand with illegal zionist state...it will be suicidal..
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom