Arab illegal building on lands that Jews bought

so you agree that Gauthier says that the West Bank is under Occupation?

 

I'm agree with Dr. Gauthier when he said that the land of Israel and the Old City of Jerusalem belong to Israel and the Jews based upon the standards of international law.

 

so you think he is a liar, when he says Israel is Occupying the West Bank?

 

Jews violated the UN charter by ethnic cleansing 100.000's of Palestinians ,.. now millions strong who have the right live and vote in Israel.
Jews and Israel are trashing the UN charter for the sake of their apartheid ways.

 

Dr. Gauthier is agreeing with me that the rights of the Mandate are still applying and that they need to be respected, hence, the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria is perfectly legal- in contradiction with what you claim.

- - - Updated - - -

Please re-read my last comment that was referred to you. I alraedy respond to you.

 

International law already dictated that Israel is the occupier of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the WB.
This is recognized by the entire world, including Israel closest ally.. the US.

And there is always some buffoon, like that Gauthier,... who makes a living with saying what people like to hear.
It doesn't look like any country takes his opinion serious at all. That makes him and his opinion completely irrelevant.

 

You responded to "So I am saying the ethnic cleansing of 100.000's of civilians by Jews and taking away their rights, like the rights to vote etc etc... is a clear violation of the UN Charter.". And your response has hardly a thing to do with what I wrote. It does not address in any way that Jews violated the rights of Palestinians by ethnic cleansing them by the 100.000's and so violated the UN charter... rights as.. the right to vote in Israel.

 

International law already detected that the Jews have rights over "Palestine", anything else that came after such detection is been contradicted by the UN Charter.

This "bufoon" has 25 years of research behind of him regarding the status of Jerusalem in the international law and in the Land of Israel. his thesis talked about that. His thesis is worldwide known.

 

The UN Charter reads:
it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

So the indigenous non Jewish population has the rights to be there first,...Jewish immigrants are in a distant 2nd place.
It takes a buffoon to interpreted this the other way around. Maybe I need to put that text even bigger, because you fail to read and understand it.

Doesn't mean a thing. International law is judged by international courts. The international courts have spoken. There is always some buffoon who disagrees representing a fanatic tiny and totally irrelevant minority that is being ignored in the full by about the entire world. And we already discussed this person. He hardly has an office. He is a joke.

 

Jewish rights over Palestine end when the Mandate is concluded, which the UN did in 1948

 

Even bigger or if you will repeat yourself over and over and over will not make it true.
It only say that the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities should not be harmed, and they dont, heck they have their own rule in Gaza and in Areas A and B.
As I already said to you:
While Abu Mazen has elected to presidency in 2005, and until then there was no other elections in the territories where the PA control + in Gaza until 2007 when Hamas took over and kicked out Fatah, a proper elections has yet to be conducted, in Israel the United Arab party is the 3rd largest in Israel. Hence, Arabs are voting in Israel, while in the PA and in Gaza their leaders dont let them to vote.

International law already detected that the Jews have rights over "Palestine", anything else that came after such detection is been contradicted by the UN Charter.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, the British Mandate indeed ended, but the document of the Mandate is still valid.

 

The United Nations terminated the Mandate in 1948.

Dr. Gauthier says Israel OCCUPIES the West Bank.

 

Correct, the British Mandate got terminated in 1948, while the document of the Mandate kept it's validity thanks to Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Well according to Dr. Gauthier, he refer to the West Bank as Jewish territory (you can hear it in his lecture that I provided), hence, the West Bank is a land that belong to the Jews and which Article 80 of the UN Charter protect the rights that the Jews have over "Palestine".

According to your source:

Now I guess that you support what is written in your source, hence, you agree and support that conclusion that relied on Dr. Gauthier's thesis, which means that you agree with me that the document of the Mandate is still valid (which makes the rights that were granted to the Jews over "Palestine" still valid)- it is in contradction with your claims.

 

no sir, as Article 80 clearly says a Mandate can be concluded, and the Mandate for Palestine was concluded in 1948. Never does any document ever say that the rights of the Mandate for Palestine are ever-lasting.

Gauthier also says the West Bank is under Israeli OCCUPATION.

 

That's not the historic fact. Most of the Islamic empires/caliphates had Jews and Christians as dhimmi which meant protected people since they viewed them as people of the book(Islam, Judaism, and Christinainty are all Abraham religions). This meant they were free to practice their religion and customs in return for restrictions under dhimmi which varied with the different empires/caliphates. Not all of them were like that and some of them did use force to convert Jews and Christians like later Islamic caliphates in Spain after 1000. However, that was the exception not the norm and is a historic fact most did not force conversation on Jews and Christians.

You keep using the mandate argument when you can't refute this
"
The mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. Israel is indisputable a Jewish home in what was Palestine(that indisputable fits the definition of being in Palestine; you know in and all are two different words?). Thus mandate is fulfilled. This means mandate has no more legal relevancy. "

Article 80 doesn't protect mandates indefinitely. Since mandate is a temporary agreement an agreement that ends once the mandate is met which established above has been; this means no article can protect a mandate indefinitely. Articles protects international trustee's people and states rights while trustee is ongoing, West Bank is not under a trustee so article 80 doesn't apply.

Btw do you regard people like Theodore Meron your legal adviser to foreign ministry after 67 war and later judge for tribunal on Yugoslavia a buffon?

 

you have no evidence that even 1% of the Palestinians are Crypto-Jews.

you're just making things up.

 

Since Israel's current prosperity required Jews to cringe behind an iron wall of British bayonets for 25 years while building up terrorist organizations capable of purging 700,000 indigenous Palestinians from their homes in 1948, your "sweat and tears" nonsense has been repaid many times over with Arab blood, land, and water.

 

I beg to differ... The Jews 67 years ago had two Nationalistic movements that do not exist today for they were integrated in the IDF after the inauguration 66 years ago.
OTH the Arab have oodles of terrorist organizations popping out every day...

You are trying to pull the carpet from under Israel and this will never work because Israel is aware of everything the Arabs are orchestrating.

The Arabs did not own anything in Israel for they were peasants... Ownership of Real Estate were in the hands of 144 Arab Families that were 'absentee owners' and they sold to the Israeli Government. I wrote about that...

LAND OWNERSHIP IN ERETZ ISRAEL/PALESTINE
~by HBendor

The question of land ownership in Israel - or before 1948, Palestine Mandate - has been the subject of much discussion. What is the status of the land on which, from the end of the nineteenth century, Jewish settlements - kibbutzim, moshavim, villages, and cities - were established? For decades, Arab propaganda has been reiterating the claim that, legally and ethically, the Arabs are the true owners of the land and that the portion actually belonging to the Jews is minute.

The Arab claim rests on two premises:
(1) At the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Palestinian Arabs were living and cultivating their lands in peace and security, until the European Jewish immigrants drove them from their territory, creating a large class of landless and dispossessed Arabs;

(2) In 1948 a small Jewish minority, which owned only 5% of the territory of the country, took over the 95% that belonged to the Arabs, and, illegally and immorally, established the State on that territory. It is necessary at this point to examine the state of the land and its inhabitants during the period of Turkish rule. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - long before the beginning of modern Jewish settlement and Jewish acquisition of land - the population of the country was minuscule and continually decreasing. In 1738, the land was described by the English archaeologist Thomas Shaw as "lacking in people to till its fertile soil" (Travels and Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant).

The French historian Conte Constantine Francois Volney writes:
"The peasants are incessantly making inroads on each other's lands, destroying their corn, durra, sesame and olive-trees, and carrying off their sheep, goats and camels. The Turks, who are everywhere negligent in repressing similar disorders, are attentive to them here, since their authority is very precarious. The Bedouin, whose camps occupy the level country, are continually at open hostilities with them, of which the peasants avail themselves to resist their authority or do mischief to each other, according to the blind caprice of their ignorance or the interest of the moment. Hence arises an anarchy which is still more dreadful than the despotism that prevails elsewhere, while the mutual the contending parties renders the appearance of devastation of this part of Syria more wretched than that of any other." (Travels Through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785)

There were, in addition to the local disputes, actual wars. In the beginning of the nineteenth century Napoleon's armies invaded the land; in 1831 it was conquered by the Egyptians, and nine years later again by the Turks. All these - in addition to the internal fighting - created in the country a climate of insecurity, which led to a sharp decline in its physical state and to the emigration of its inhabitants, who left in search of better living conditions elsewhere. Many of those who nevertheless stayed and continued to work their land were forced to relinquish ownership of it and find refuge with people of means or with the Muslim religious endowment fund ("the wakf"). A situation was created, then, in which the true owners of the lands did not reside on them, but leased them to others while they themselves spent their lives in such distant places as Damascus, Beirut, and Cairo.

H. B. Tristram, who wrote of his travels in the Holy Land in his 1865 book The Land of Israel.- A Journal of Travels in Palestine, presents a revealing description of the living conditions in the Land of Israel as he found them in the middle of the nineteenth century:

"A few years ago, the whole Ghor (Jordan Valley) was in the hands of the fellahin = (Imported Land tillers) and much of it cultivated for corn. Now the whole of it is in the hands of the Bedouin = (Marauding Nomads), who eschew all agriculture except in a few spots cultivated here and there by their slaves; and with the Bedouin come lawlessness and the uprooting of all Turkish authority. No government is now acknowledged on the east side; and unless the Porte = (Turkish Leader) acts with greater firmness and caution than is his wont... Palestine will be desolated and given up to the nomads."

Alexander Keith, recalling Volney's 1785 description (quoted above) fifty years later, commented: "In his day [Volney's] the land had not fully reached its last degree of desolation and depopulation." (The Land of Israel).

Other travelers and pilgrims recorded similar reports of the dreary state of the Land around the middle of the nineteenth century. Here are just a few examples:

Alphonse de Lamartine, in 183: "...a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, on the highways, in the country ... the tomb of a whole people" (Recollections of the East, Vol. I, p. 30.

A contemporary German encyclopedia (Brockhaus, "Allegmeine deutsche Real-Encyklopaidie", Vol. VIII, p. 206, Leipzig, 1827) calls Palestine "desolate and roamed through by Arab robber-bands."

In 1849, the American W. F. Lynch described the desertion of Palestinian villages "caused by the frequent forays of the wandering Bedouin" (Narrative of the United States Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea, p. 489).

And again H. B. Tristram, in 1865: "... both in the north and south (of the Sharon plain), land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. Since the year 1838, no less than 20 villages have been thus erased from the map (by the Bedouin) and the stationary population extirpated" (p. 490).

Better known in this context, perhaps, are the words of the American author Mark Twain, who records personal impressions of a visit to the Holy Land in 1867. His account abounds in descriptions such as these:

"Desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds - a silent mournful expanse We reached Tabor safely ... We never saw a human being on the whole route" (p. 451, 480); "There is not a solitary village throughout its (the Jezreel Valley's) whole extent - not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles, hereabouts, and not see ten human beings" (p. 44; "Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince. The hills are barren ... the valleys are unsightly deserts... It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land... Palestine is desolate and unlovely... Palestine is no more of this workday world. It is sacred to poetry and tradition - it is dreamland" (pp. 564, 567).

Referring to the same era, the Christian historian James Parkes writes in "Whose Land"? "Peasant and Bedouin alike have contributed to the ruin of the countryside on which both depend for a livelihood... In spite of the immense fertility of the soil, it is probable that in the first half of the nineteenth century the population sank to the lowest level it had ever known in historic times."

Conclusion: The propagandist myth of an "entire Palestinian people uprooted from its soil by the Zionists" is shattered against the reality of the nineteenth century: plunder and devastation, war and destruction, chaos, anarchy, a population dispersed and declining. All this occurred many years before the beginning of the Zionist settlement, while the Jewish population still resided in the "Holy Cities" of Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed, long before these Jews together with Jewish immigrants from the lands of the Diaspora began purchasing land and tilling the soil. Moreover, at the end of the nineteenth century the Jewish pioneers began to make the desert areas of the land bloom, rendering the country highly attractive to Jews and Arabs alike. It is an undisputed fact that after World War I the pattern of Arab emigration was reversed: Until that time, the number of Arabs who left the land exceeded that of those who came to live in it. Starting in the 1920s, there were more immigrants than emigrants. In addition, where did they settle? Usually in those areas which did the Jewish settlers develop!

What was the state of the land - its ownership and cultivation - at the end of the period of Turkish rule? Most of the territory was concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy landlords, most of whom lived far from their property. In many cases these lands were, or seemed, unfit for agriculture, and were therefore neither settled nor cultivated. Tenant farmers worked occasional plots. According to a Turkish register drawn up shortly before World War 1, there were at that time 3,130,000 Dunams in the hands of 144 landlords that is, approximately 22,000 Dunams average per family. In the Nablus and Tul-Karem districts, five families held 157,000 Dunams, of which the Husseini family owned 50,000 Dunams in various parts of the country, and the Abdel-Hadi family 60,000. The largest single holding, 230,000 Dunams in the Jezreel valley, was in the hands of the Sursuk family, which resided in Beirut and Cairo.

The Palestinian peasant, then, was indeed exploited and at times dispossessed, not by the Jewish settler, but rather by his fellow-Arabs: the local sheiks, the Bedouin village elders, the Turkish tax collector, the merchants and moneylenders (at interest rates as high as 60%), and if he was a tenant-farmer = imported Land Tiller, as was usually the case, by the absentee landlord as well.

When considering the issue of the lands which passed from Arabs to Jews, and on which the pioneering Zionist settlement was founded, six facts should be borne in mind:
(1) The land was paid for in full.
(2) Most of the land purchased involved large tracts belonging to absentee landlords.
(3) Most of the land acquired was uncultivated because it was swampy, sandy, or rocky, or for other reasons considered unsuitable for agriculture.
(4) For this reason, the initial purchases did not involve large sums of money, but with the passage of years the price of land began to rise as Arab landowners took advantage of the growing demand for rural tracts.
(5) Modern agricultural methods introduced by the Jewish pioneers, which improved the lands and increased their yield, were quickly adopted by the neighboring Arab farmers.
(6) The number of farmers forced to leave their land due to the Zionist undertaking was relatively very small.

All those who left were compensated in accordance with the law, either by monetary payment or by other agricultural land; and indeed most continued to be farmers.

Furthermore, a large number of Arabs from other parts of the country or from neighboring countries settled in the areas developed by the Jews.

Following are some revealing statistics:
(1) Out of the 429,887 Dunams acquired by PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association) from private landowners between 1880 and 1947, 293,545 Dunams - close to 70% - were large tracts of uncultivated land, most of which belonged to absentee landlords.
(2) The purchases of the Palestine Land Development Corporation included an even greater percentage of large tracts - approximately 90% (455,169 Dunams out of 512,979, which were purchased of private owners).
If we add to this the 66,513 Dunams of Beersheba desert land and the swamps of the Hula Valley, we will find that the purchases of the corporation totaled close to 580,000 Dunams.
(3) A third body which purchased property in Palestine was the Jewish National Fund, which leased the lands to groups or individual settlers for periods of forty-nine or ninety-nine years, in accordance with the principle that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People, and no one has the right to hold permanent ownership of Israeli soil. In the first thirty years of its existence, the JNF acquired 270,084 Dunams, of which 239,170 (close to 90%) were large tracts. This percentage dropped during subsequent years, but of the total area of 566,312 Dunams purchased by individuals, at least 50% were large tracts of land which was either totally uncultivated or only superficially cultivated.

The prices paid by Jewish individuals and organizations for property in Palestine reached, during the 1930s, legendary proportions. The Palestine Royal Commission ("the Peel Commission") of 1937 reported that in the year 1933 alone sums totaling 854,769 Pounds sterling were paid; in 1934 the total reached 1,647,836 Pounds sterling and in 1935, 1,699,488 Pounds sterling. During those three years alone, then, the total sum paid to Arab landlords reached 4,202,180 Pounds sterling, which was the equivalent of over $20 million at the time. Ten years later, in 1944, an acre (4 Dunams) of good, fertile land in the State of Iowa cost $ 100, while in that same year Jews in Palestine were paying over $ 1,000 for an acre of parched soil.

The claim that the Arabs were being driven out was raised as early as the 1930s. This claim was investigated by the British, and rejected almost completely - and this at a time when British policy in Palestine was clearly moving from a pro-Zionist to a pro-Arab position. Two official British documents from the year 1937 deal with this claim. One is the report of the Peel Commission (Chapter 9, Par. 61), which relates that during the years 1920-1939, 688 Arab tenant farmers were removed from their land as a result of purchases made by the Jews. Five hundred twenty-six of the Arab farmers remained in some agricultural occupation, and four hundred received alternative plots of land in other locations. The second document is one of a series of memorandum prepared by the mandatory government and published in London (Colonial No. 133, p. 37). It contains the findings of the 1931 investigation of Lewis French, which totally refute the claim that the Zionist undertaking in Palestine caused the creation of "an entire landless people among the Palestinian Arabs". The memorandum notes that the total number of applications of registration as landless Arabs reached 3,271. Of these, the claims of 2,607 were rejected as not belonging to this category, and only 664 heads of families were recognized as having legitimate claims.

Approximately half this number - 347 - agreed to accept the government's offer of resettlement. The rest refused, either because they had found employment elsewhere, or because they were unaccustomed to the agricultural methods, such as irrigation, employed in the new locations, or because of other reasons. In his investigation of the hill country, where the Jewish purchases were minimal, Lewis French found that out of seventy-one Arab claims of eviction, sixty-eight were rejected (The Esco Foundation for Palestine, Inc., Vol. II, p. 716).

Finally… What was the land ownership situation when the State of Israel was established in 1948? According to the official data published by the outgoing British mandatory administration before the establishment of the State (Survey of Palestine, 1946), only 8.6% of the land was in fact owned by Jews, while over 70% was state land, which had passed from Turkish to British authority and now to Israel, the legal heir of the British Mandate. The remaining lands - 33% belonged to Arab landowners, and the Arab owners who hastened to obey the call of their leaders “to clear the way for the Arab armies, which would annihilate the Jewish State”, abandoned 16.9%. These landowners did not consider the possibility that the Jewish State would remain.

The key to the entire problem lies in that large percentage of state land, most of which was in the Negev - an unsettled area of approximately 12,557,00 Dunams, or close to 50% of the entire area (26,320,000) of mandatory Palestine. These lands had never been under Arab ownership, neither during the period of British rule nor even during the preceding Turkish regime, these were simply STATE LANDS .

The contention heard time and again from Arab propagandists - that 95% of the territory of Palestine had belonged to the Arabs - is, therefore, entirely without basis in fact...!

To those that think differently without any substantiation I say… No amount of Monday morning quarter backing is going to help your belated dreaming…
There was no ARAB country in the middle east called Palestine... the place was called the Ottoman Empire for 400 years until 1917 when the British Forces Liberated it from the Turks and received a Mandate to manage it… They governed it for the next 30 years until 1948..

The Brits recognized the right of the Jews to the Land of their forefathers...
Palestine Arab nationalism to whatever degree it is conscious ideal today, is a product of recent political currents. Until the 1920’s, no such national community had even existed in Palestine. This is why the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandates charged the Jews of the National Home with guaranteeing the civil and religious right of other inhabitants... (The Arabs, Christians, Druze, Circassians, Kurds, Armenians, Bosnians, Moghrabim [North Africans], Egyptians, Syrian, Bedouins... were the other inhabitants.)

No mention was made of other National Rights of other inhabitants..., as it was recognized that the only NATIONAL CLAIM to the Area was that of the Jews...!!

However, the FICTION of Palestine Arab Nationality is still being exploited. If the Palestinian Arabs were in fact a separate nationality, their anger should have been directed against Jordan and Egypt since these were the two countries that invaded duly “Reconstituted Israel in 1948”, and retained a substantial amount of Real Estate. (Jordan... Judea and Samaria and Egypt the Gaza area...) and never even considered creating a Palestinian Arab Entity there for nineteen years...

Now if you had an Atlas from let say from 1517 on to 1917 when the British took over... you would have noticed that the place was called “THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE” for FOUR HUNDRED years and NOTHING ELSE...!

There was NEVER a Palestine…! No independent Arab or Palestinian State ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not. In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an, rather it is called "the holy lands" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash)

At that time, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted, quote:-

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. National, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds connect us with it... Unquote.

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the UN submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said, "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after 1967 Six-Day War [since the PLO was created by Egypt in 1964]... and Israel's liberation of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) from the occupying forces of Jordan.

 

Right, the British Mandate has indeed concluded, while the document of the Mandate is still valid, and your own source showed that as well.

Re-read my last comment to you.

I already gave to you the evidences, you just like to ignore them.

 

I never talked about the number of the Jews that got converted, hence, this part of your comment is not contradicting what I wrote to you.

I alrady respond to you regarding it:
So if the West Bank is part of "Palestine" and is not mean that a control over it will be "whole of Palestine", hence, Israel can control over the West Bank according to the Mandate.
If your problem is that "because the Mandate never talked about whole of Palestine", so Israel cant control over it on behalf of the Mandate", then this problem is not existing, because even with Judea and Samaria, it will not be "whole of Palestine".

Because the Mandate never talked about clear borders that this Jewish national home will be reconstitue, and only referred the Land of Israel (aka "Palestine") as the place where it will be reconstitute, then Israel have legal right over the West Bank as a place that been granted to the Jews as part of a territory to the future Jewish national home.

So the West Bank is not part of "Palestine"? If so, then read the above.

I did, please re-read my previous comments.

 

Before you wrote that Jews after Islamic conquest in 7th century were forced to convert to Islam as historic fact. What I wrote below contradicts that.

"That's not the historic fact. Most of the Islamic empires/caliphates had Jews and Christians as dhimmi which meant protected people since they viewed them as people of the book(Islam, Judaism, and Christinainty are all Abraham religions). This meant they were free to practice their religion and customs in return for restrictions under dhimmi which varied with the different empires/caliphates. Not all of them were like that and some of them did use force to convert Jews and Christians like later Islamic caliphates in Spain after 1000. However, that was the exception not the norm and is a historic fact most did not force conversation on Jews and Christians."

You keep using the mandate argument when you can't refute this
"
The mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. Israel is indisputable a Jewish home in what was Palestine(that indisputable fits the definition of being in Palestine; you know in and all are two different words?). Thus mandate is fulfilled. This means mandate has no more legal relevancy. "
Actually read it(again you don't seem to know in and all are two different words or will you not read or bother responding to that part again?).

 

YouTube videos aren't evidence

The Mandate for Palestine document was concluded by the UN in 1948.

 

I brought youtube vidoes that shows actual pictures from places and live testimonies +articles that talk about genetic research that reinforce the youtube vidoes.

Not according to international law, Dr, Gauthier, which in your source says that the Jews have valid rights over not only Jerusalem. but also on the Land of Israel (as you like to call it "Palestine").

 

I only talked about that Jews got converted to Islam, and never mentioned any estimates zbout it, while you did talked about estimates when you wrote "most of..." etc. , but such estimates does not contradict what I wrote to you and which in your last comment you agreed with me that Jews got converted to Islam.

Source: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/...amaria-were-formerly-jews/2015/01/06/0/?print

I already replied to you regarding this subject. Please re-read my previous comments to you.

 

genetic research doesn't prove that someone is a Crypto-Jew.

it only proves that the Jews and Palestinians are related