While researching the Danish monarchy for another question on this site (the life expectancy of a Medieval European monarch), I came across the five sons of King Sweyn II who all became kings of Denmark in their own right (i.e. not junior or co-monarchs).
- Harald III reigned 1076-1080
- Canute IV reigned 1080-1086
- Olaf I reigned 1086-1095
- Eric I reigned 1095-1103
- Niels reigned 1104-1134
Sweyn II had at least 15 sons in all: only one was legitimate and he died young. The others were by 'various concubines', so there were a few to spare.
The only other example of 5 brothers becoming king I can think of is from the House of Wessex: the sons of Æthelwulf 839 to 858, the youngest of whom was Alfred the Great), but one of them (Æthelstan of Kent) wasn't really king in his own right, and nor was he King of Wessex like his father and brothers (so this doesn't meet the criteria).
Are there any other examples of 5 or more brothers (legitimate or illegitimate) becoming rulers of the same country in their own right?
As instances of this must be very rare, examples can be from any period and any part of the world (but I'll edit this if my assumption is proven to be wrong).
Seven of the sons of Ismail Ibn Sharif of the Morocco Alaouite dynasty were monarchs. Ismail ruled from 1672 to 1727 and had 525 sons and 342 daughters according to Wikipedia (or 888 according to the Guiness Book of Records). Control changed hands many times. The ones who became Sultan were:
Ahmad ruled 1727-1728, then 1728-1729
Abdul Malek ruled 1728
Abdallah II ruled 1729-1734, 1736, 1740-1741, 1741-1742, 1743-1747, 1748-1757.
Ali ruled 1734-1736
Mohammed II ruled 1736-38
Ali Mustadi' ruled 1738-1740, 1742-1743, 1747-1748
Zin al-Abidin 1741
Also, there were 5 brothers who were Dukes of the Qi State during the Spring and Autumn period (China). According to Wikipedia, this was "variously reckoned as a march, duchy, and independent kingdom" so this might be a bit suspect (the authority of the Zhou dynasty was 'collapsing' at this time). Anyway, they were the sons of Huan (ruled 685 to 643 ) of the House of Jiang. The sons who became Dukes were:
Wukui ruled 642 BC
Xiao ruled 642 to 633 BC
Zhao ruled 632 to 613 BC
Yi ruled 612 to 609 BC
Hui ruled 608 - 599 BC
Here are six brothers, sons of Abdul Aziz (1902-53), who have been (and the most recent still is) Kings of Saudi Arabia:
As I remember, the state of Texcoco in Mexico had several generations of sons succeeding fathers, and then several brothers succeeding brothers.
The last long reigning ruler, Nezahulapilli reigned from 1472 to 1515.
- His son Cacamatzin (1483-1520) reigned from 1516 to 1520. He died during La Noche Triste during the Spanish conquest.
- His half-brother Coanacoch was the next ruler. During Cortes's expedition to Honduras, Coanacoch and Cuauhtemoc of Tenochtitlan were suspected of plotting and hanged from a tree at Campeche in 1524.
- His half-brother Tecocoltzin was the next ruler, dying in 1525.
- His half-brother Fernando de Cortes Ixtlxochhitl II (c. 1500-c. 1550 or died 1531) was the next ruler from 1525. He had already ruled half the kingdom from 1516.
- His half-brother Carlos Ometochtzin was the next ruler, and was burned at the stake for paganism November 30, 1539.
- The next ruler was Antonio Pimentel Tlahiutoltzin who ruled from 1540 to 1546 or 1564. His relationship to previous rulers is not stated.
Wikipedia: List of Texcoco rulers
However, I seem to remember that some sources give more than those five or possibly six as sons of Nezahulapilli who ruled Texcoco.
I think that possibly Stokvis, A.M.H. Manuel d'historie, de genealogie et de chronologie de tous les etats du globe, depuis les temps les plus recules jusqu'a nos jours 1888-1894, tome premier, seconde partie, IIe DIVISION, AMERIQUE, CHAPITRE IX, Mexique might have such a genealogical table. I have been unable to find that chapter in any online version.
There were five brothers in the Abbasid caliphs at Cairo.
Al Mutawakkil I reigned as shadow caliph from 1362-1377, 1377-1383, and 1389-1406. He was the father of:
- al-Musta-in reigned 1406-1414.
- al-Mu'tadid reigned 1414-1441.
- al-Mustakfi reigned 1441-1451.
- al-Qa'im reigned 1451-1455.
- al-Mustanjid reigned 1455-1479.
Wikipedia: List of Abbasid caliphs
Five Grand Princes or Dukes of Vladimir were sons of Yaroslav II r. 1238-1246:
- Mikhail Khorobrit r. 1248.
- Audrey II r. 1249-1252.
- Alexander I Nevsky r. 1252-1263.
- Yaroslav III r. 1263-1271.
- Vasily of Kostroma r.1272-1277.
Wikipedia: Grand Dukes of Vladimir
And five Kings of Kings of Ethiopia who were brothers, sons of Yagbe'u Seyon or Salomon II r. 1285-1294:
- Senfra Ared IV r. 1294-1295.
- Hezba Asgad r. 1295-1296.
- Gedma Asgad r. 1296-1297.
- Jin Asgad r. 1297-1298.
- Saba Asgad 1298-1299.
Wikipedia: Emperor of Ethiopia
Wikipedia: List of Emperors of Ethiopia
Although there is some doubt about the relationship.
Wikipedia: Sons of Yagbe'u Seyon
This is a little bit of a stretch, as one was granted the title, but never gained control of the country, but five of the sons of Thorfinn Skull-splitter were Jarls of the Orkneys, which was more or less independent:
(Lots of interesting stuff here: the first three brothers were all married to the same woman, Ragnhild, who killed them off and also set her nephews against eachother. Ljot fought against MacBeth).
Well, if you include people who claimed to be a son of the king and aspired to the throne but didn't quite get there, the sons of Magnus Barefoot of Norway qualifies:
- Eystein I
- Sigurd Jorsalfar
- Olaf IV
- Harald Gille
- Sigurd Slembe
(The two last claimed that they were sons of Magnus after his death).
I also found two cases of four brothers:
First, we have the sons of Harald Gille from the list above:
- Inge I
- Sigurd II
- Eysteyn II
- Magnus V
And finally, the sons of Malcolm III of Scotland:
- Duncan II
- Edgar I
- Alexander I
- David I
Kosem Sultan - The Last Influential Female Ruler of the Ottoman Empire
Kosem Sultan was a woman who refused to be just another widow on the Ottoman court - instead she became a real ruler of the empire. Her decisions made such an impact, that after her death noblemen in her country decided to never allow a woman to become so powerful again.
At the beginning of the 17th century, sultans ruled the Ottoman Empire . They were still trying to maintain traditions from the Golden Age which began with Suleiman the Magnificent. After Suleiman died in 1566, his son Selim II, grandson Murad III, and great grandson Mehmet III took their turns on the throne.
Following Mehmet, his son Ahmed sat on the throne. With the support of his mother, Handan Sultan, he became the ruler as most of the other possible successors were murdered. Historical records describe the funeral of 19 of the dynasty’s members . Only two boys survived. One of them was Ahmed’s brother and future sultan, Mustafa I.
The second one was a son of Murad III and Safiye Sultan, who decided to send her son out of the palace to save him. Officially, he was buried with his other brothers, but in fact his coffin was empty. As Ahmed grew up, he was aware of his roots and power, and he hoped to eventually become as significant of a sultan as his great grandfather.
Sejong was born under the name Yi Do to King Taejong and Queen Wongyeong of Joseon on May 7, 1397. The third of the royal couple's four sons, Sejong impressed all of his family with his wisdom and curiosity.
According to Confucian principles, the eldest son—named Prince Yangnyeong—should have been the heir to the Joseon throne. However, his behavior at court was rude and aberrant. Some sources claim that Yangnyeong behaved this way purposefully because he believed that Sejong should be king in his place. The second brother, Prince Hyoryeong, also removed himself from the succession by becoming a Buddhist monk.
When Sejong was 12 years old, his father named him Grand Prince Chungnyeong. Ten years later, King Taejong would abdicate the throne in favor of Prince Chungnyeong, who took the throne name King Sejong.
The Mughal Empire Class 7 Extra Questions History Chapter 4
NCERT Extra Questions for Class 7 Social Science History Chapter 4 The Mughal Empire
Why was it extremely difficult to rule over the Indian subcontinent?
To rule over the vast territories of the Indian subcontinent was extremely difficult because of the diversity of people and cultures in the middle ages.
How did the Mughals succeed in ruling the subcontinent?
- Quite in contrast to their predecessors, the Mughals created an empire and ruled over it for a long period of time.
- From the later half of the sixteenth century they expanded their kingdom from
Agra and Delhi up to the seventeenth century.
- They controlled nearly all of the subcontinent.
- They imposed structures of administration and ideas of governance.
- They outlasted their rule, leaving a political legacy that succeeding rulers of t^e subcontinent could not ignore.
What is the importance of Red Fort in modern context?
Prime Minister of India addresses the nation on Independence Day from the ramparts of the Red Fort, the residence of Mughal Rulers.
Who were the Mughals?
Mughals were the descendants of two of great rulers. From their maternal side Genghis Khan ruler was their ancestor. From their father’s side Timur, ruler of modem day Turkey was their ancestor.
‘Mughals were proud of their Timurid ancestry.’ Comment.
The Mughals did not like to be known as Mongols. Genghis Khan’s memory was associated with massacre of people and invasional instinct. It was also linked with Uzbegs, their Mongol competitors.
They preferred their Timurid ancestry. Their great ancestor had captured Delhi in 1398. They were proud of their genealogy. Each ruler had his picture made with Timur.
Mughal Military Campaigns
NOTES: Mughals had many long running military campaigns in India.
- Afgans were a threat to their authority.
- Mughals had less successful campaigns against the Ahoms, the Sikhs and
- Military campaigns continued and ruler of Mewar, Amar Singh, accepted Mughal service.
- Humayun received help from Safavid Shah of Iran. Akbar seized Qandhar from Safavids. Qandhar was lost again during Shah Jahan’s reign.
- Prince Akbar received help from Deccan rulers when he rebelled against Aurangzeb.
- Aurangzeb personally managed campaigns against Deccan and annexed Golconda and Bijapur.
Who founded the Mughal rule in India and how?
Babur was the first Mughal Emperor in India (1526-1530). At the age of 12 he was forced to leave his ancestral home Ferghana due to Uzbegs’ attacks.
- In 1526 he defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the battle of Panipat and captured Delhi and Agra.
- In 1527 he defeated Rana Sanga at Khanua.
- In 1528 he defeated Rajputs at Chanderi and strengthened his control over Delhi and Agra.
Describe the reign of Humayun.
Humayun 1530-1540, 1555-1556
- Humayun divided his inheritance according to the Will of his father.
- His brothers were each given a province.
- The ambitions of his brother Mirza Kamran weakened Humayun’s cause against Afghan competitors.
- Sher ‘Khan defeated Humayun at Chausa (1539) and Kanauj (1540), forcing him to flee to Iran.
- In Iran Humayun received help from the Safavid Shah.
- He recaptured Delhi in 1555 but died the next year after an accident in the building.
At which age did Akbar become emperor? Give an account of his rulership.
Akbar was 13 years old when he became emperor. His reign can be divided into three periods.
- 1556-1570-Akbar became independent of the regent Bairam Khan and other members of his domestic staff. Military campaigns were launched against the Suris and other Afghans against the neighbouring kingdoms of Malwa and Gondwana, and to suppress the revolt of his half-brother Mirza Hakim and the Uzbegs. In 1568 the Sisodiya capital of Chittor was seized and in 1569 Ranthambhor.
- 1570-1585 – military campaigns in Gujarat were followed by campaigns in the east in Bihar, Bengal and Orissa. These campaigns were complicated by the 1579-1580 revolt in support of Mirza Hakim.
- 1585-1605 – expansion of Akbar’s empire. Campaigns were launched in the north west.
- Qandahar was seized from the Safavids.
- Kashmir was annexed, as also Kabul, after the death of Mirza Hakim.
- Campaigns in the Deccan started and Berar, Khandesh and parts of Ahmadnagar were annexed.
- In the last years of his reign Akbar was distracted by the rebellion of Prince Salim, the future Emperor Jahangir.
Describe the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan.
- Military campaigns started by Akbar continued.
- The Sisodiya ruler of Mewar, Amar Singh, accepted Mughal service. Less successful campaigns against the Sikhs, the Ahoms and Ahmadnagar followed.
- Prince Khurram, the future Emperor Shah Jahan, rebelled in the last years of his reign. The efforts of Nur Jahan, Jahangir’s wife, to marginalise him were unsuccessful.
- Mughal campaigns continued in the Deccan under Shah Jahan.
- The Afghan noble Khan Jahan Lodi rebelled and was defeated.
- Campaigns were launched against Ahmadnagar the Bundelas were defeated and
- In the north-west, the campaign to seize Balkh from the Uzbegs was unsuccessful and Qandahar was lost to the Safavids.
- In 1632 Ahmadnagar was finally annexed and the Bijapur forces sued for peace.
- In 1657-1658, there was conflict over succession amongst Shah Jahan’s sons.
- Aurangzeb was victorious and his three brothers, including Dara Shukoh, were killed.
- Shah Jahan was imprisoned for the rest of his life in Agra.
How did Aurangzeb spread his empire?
In the north-east, the Ahoms were defeated in 1663.
- They rebelled again in the 1680s.
- Campaigns in the north-west against the Yusufzai and the Sikhs were temporarily successful.
Mughal intervention in the succession and internal politics of the Rathor Rajputs of Marwar led to their rebellion.
- Campaigns against the Maratha chieftain Shivaji were initially successful. But Aurangzeb insulted Shivaji who escaped from Agra, declared himself an independent king and resumed his campaigns against the Mughals.
- Prince Akbar rebelled against Aurangzeb and received support from the Marathas and two Deccan Sultanates (Bijapur and Golconda).
- He finally fled to Safavid Iran.
After Akbar’s rebellion Aurangzeb sent armies against the Deccan Sultanates.
- Bijapur was annexed in 1685 and Golconda in 1687.
- From 1698 Aurangzeb personally managed campaigns in the Deccan against the Marathas who started guerrilla warfare.
- Aurangzeb also had to face the rebellion in north India of the Sikhs, Jats and Satnamis, in the north-east of the Ahoms and in the Deccan of the Marathas.
- His death was followed by a succession conflict amongst his sons.
Mughal Traditions of Succession
Describe the Mughal traditions of succession.
Mughal Traditions of Succession:
- The Mughals did not believe in the rule of primogeniture (inheritance).
- Instead they followed the Mughal and Timurid custom of coparcenary inheritance. It is a division of the inheritance amongst all the sons.
- Mughal princes rebelled against their fathers, overthrew them and captured power.
- Mughal Relations with Other Rulers
Who were the mothers of Jahangir and Shah Jahan?
- Mother of Jahangir: A Kachhwaha Princess, daughter of Rajput, ruler of Amber (now Jaipur)
- Mother of Shah Jahan: A Rathor Princess, daughter of a Rajput, the ruler of Marwar (Jodhpur).
Give an account of the Mughal relations with other rulers.
Mughal relations with other rulers:
- Mughal rulers campaigned constantly against rulers who refused to accept their authority.
- The Mughals became powerful only when many other rulers joined them voluntarily.
- The Rajputs are a good example of this.
- Many of them married their daughters into Mughal families.
- Then they received high positions.
- But many resisted this as well.
- The Sisodiya Rajputs refused to accept Mughal authority for a long time.
- After their defeat, they were honourably treated by the Mughals.
- They were given their lands (watan) back as assignments (watan jagir).
- The careful balance between defeating opponent kings and chieftains enabled the Mughals to expand their kingdoms.
- But it was difficult to keep this balance all the time.
- Aurangzeb insulted Shivaji when he came to accept Mughal authority.
- The consequence of this insult was that the Aurangzeb empire fell down like a pack of playcards.
Who all formed the Mughal nobility?
- With the expansion of Mughal empire, the Mughals recruited diverse bodies of people.
- From a small nucleus of Turkish nobles (Turanis) they expanded to include Iranians, Indian Muslims, Afghans, Rajputs, Marathas and other groups.
- Those who joined Mughal service were enrolled as mansabdars.
What were the duties of the Mansabdars?
Mansabdars and their duties:
- The term mansabdar refers to an individual who holds a mansab (a position or rank).
- It was a grading system used by the Mughals to fix (t) rank, (ii) salary and (iii) military responsibilities.
- Rank and salary were determined by a numerical value called zat. The higher the zat, the more prestigious was the noble’s position in court and the larger his salary,
- The mansabdar had military responsibilities.
- It required him to maintain a specified number of sawar or cavalrymen.
- The mansabdar brought his cavalrymen for review, got them registered, their horses branded and then received money to pay them as salary.
How did the Mansabdars get their salaries?
Mansabdars received their salaries as revenue assignments called jagirs.
- They were like iqtas.
- Most of the mansabdars did not actually reside in or administer their jagirs.
- They only had rights to the revenue of their assignments which was collected for them by their servants.
- Mansabdars themselves served in some other parts of the country.
Give an account of ranking on the basis of zat.
- Nobles with a zat of 5,000 were ranked higher than those of 1,000.
- In Akbar’s reign there were 29 mansabdars with a rank of 5,000 zat.
- By Aurangzeb’s reign the number of mansabdars had.increased to 79*.
- This had meant more expenditure for the state.
Describe Jagirdars and their duties.
Jagirdars and their duties
- In Akbar’s reign these jagirs were carefully assessed so that their revenues were roughly equal to the salary of the mansabdar.
- By Aurangzeb’s reign situation changed and the actual revenue collected was often less than the granted sum.
- There was also a huge increase in the number of mansabdars which meant a long wait before they received a jagir.
- These and other factors created a shortage in the number of jagirs. Hence, many jagirdars tried to extract as much revenue as possible while they had a jagir.
- Aurangzeb was unable to control these developments in the last years of his reign, so the peasantry suffered tremendously.
Who were Zamindars? What were their duties?
- The main source of income of the Mughal rulers was tax on the produce of the peasantry.
- In most places, peasants paid taxes through the rural elites.
- The rural elite was the headman or the local chieftain.
- The Mughals used the term—zamindars—to describe all intermediaries, whether they were local headmen of villages or powerful chieftains.
What was ‘Zabt’?
- Akbar’s revenue minister, Todarmal, carried out a careful survey of crop yields, prices and areas cultivated for a ten-year period, 1570-1580.
- On the basis of this data, tax was fixed on each crop in cash.
- Each province was divided into revenue circles with its own schedule of revenue rates for individual crops.
- This revenue system was known as zabt.
What was the role of Zamindars?
Zabt was prevalent in those areas where Mughal administrators could survey the land and keep very careful accounts. This was not possible in provinces like Gujarat and Bengal.
- In some areas the zamindars exercised a great deal of power.
- The exploitation by Mughal administrators could drive them to rebellion.
- Sometimes zamindars and peasants of the same caste allied in rebelling against Mughal authority.
- These peasant revolts challenged the stability of the Mughal Empire from the end of the seventeenth century.
Closer look: Akbar’s Policies
Describe Akbar Nama and Ain-i Akbari.
Akbar Nama and Ain-i Akbari
- Akbar ordered one of his close friends and courtiers, Abul Fazl, to write a history of his reign.
- Abul Fazl wrote a three volume history of Akbar’s reign titled, Akbar Nama.
- The first volume dealt with Akbar’s ancestors.
- The second volume recorded the events of Akbar’s reign.
- The third volume is the Ain-i Akbari.
- It deals with Akbar’s administration, household, army the revenues and geography of his empire.
- It also provides rich details about the traditions and culture of the people living in India.
- The most interesting aspect about the Ain-i Akbari is its rich statistical details about things like crops, yields, prices, wages and revenues.
Describe the policies of Akbar.
Policies of Akbar
- Akbar laid down broad features of administration.
- They were elaborately discussed by Abul Fazl in his last volume of Akbar Nama, the Ain-i Akbari.
- Abul Fail explained that the empire was divided into provinces called subas.
- The subas were governed by a subadar.
- The subadar carried out both political and military functions.
- Each province also had a financial officer or diwan.
- For the maintenance of peace, law and order in his province, the subadar was supported by other officers like the military paymaster (bakhshi), the minister in charge of religious and charitable patronage (sadr), military commanders (faujdars) and the town police commander (kotwal).
Discuss Nur Jahan’s influence in Jahangir’s court.
Nur Jahan’s Influence in Jahangir’s Court:
- Mehrunnisa, married the Emperor Jahangir in 1611.
- She received the title Nur Jahan.
- She remained extremely loyal and supportive to the monarch.
- As a mark of honour, Jahangir struck silver coins bearing his own title on one side and on the other the inscription “struck in the name of the Queen Begum, Nur Jahan”.
- The square seal states, “Command of her most Sublime and Elevated Majesty Nur
Jahan Padshah Begum”.
- The round seal states, “by the sun of Shah Jahangir she became as brilliant as the moon may Nur Jahan Padshah be the lady of the age”.
How did the nobles of Akbar weaken the empire?
- Akbar’s nobles commanded large armies.
- They had access to large amounts of revenue.
- Till they were loyal the empire functioned efficiently.
- By the end of the seventeenth century many nobles had built independent networks of their own.
- Their loyalties to the empire were weakened by their own self-interest.
What led to Akbar’s ideas on Sulh-i-kul?
In 1570’s at Fatehpur Sikri Akbar started discussions on religion with people of different faiths. There were ulemas, Brahmanas, Jesuit Catholic priests and Zoroastrians.
- These discussions took place in Ibadat Khana. These were about social and religious customs.
- These interactions made him realise that religious scholars are bigots. They emphasize rituals and dogma.
- Their teachings create divisions in society. This led to the idea of Sulh-i-Kul or ‘Universal peace’.
What is Sulh-i kul or universal peace?
- The idea of tolerance did not discriminate between people of different religions r in his realm.
- It focused on a system of ethics – honesty, justice, peace – that was universally applicable.
- Abul Fazl helped Akbar in framing a vision of governance around this idea of Sulh-i kul.
- This principle of governance was followed by both Jahangir and Shah Jahan also.
What was the idea of Sulh-i-Kul according to Jahangir?
According to Jahangir Sulh-i-Kul was a concept of divine compassion following principle of “universal peace”.
- There was scope for followers of all religion, classes and creed.
- There was room for scholars of all religions, for beliefs good or bad.
- The road to intolerance was closed.
- Sunnis and Shias met in one mosque and Christians and Jews in one church.
The Mughal Empire in the Seventeenth century and After
Was there a economic inequality during Mughal rule?
The Mughal empire in the seventeenth century and after:
- The administrative and military efficiency of the Mughal Empire led to great economic and commercial prosperity.
- International travellers described it as the fabled land of wealth.
- These visitors were also surprised at the state of extreme poverty that existed side by side.
- The inequalities were glaring.
- Documents from the twentieth year of Shah Jahan’s reign say that only 445 mansabdars were in number out of a total of 8,000.
- A mere 5.6 per cent of the total number of mansabdars, received 61.5 per cent of the total estimated revenue of the empire as salaries for themselves and their troopers.
Who was benefitted in the Mansabdari system?
- The Mughal emperors and their mansabdars spent a great deal of their income on salaries and goods.
- This expenditure benefited the artisans and peasantry who supplied them with goods and produce.
- But the scale of revenue collection left very little for investment in the hands of the primary producers, the peasants and the artisans.
- The poorest among them lived from hand to mouth.
- They could not consider investing in additional resources like tools and supplies to increase productivity.
- The wealthier peasantry and artisanal groups, the merchants and bankers profited in this type of economy.
What happened politically with the gradual decline of Mughal rule?
- The enormous wealth and resources commanded by the Mughal elite made them an extremely powerful group of people in the late seventeenth century.
- With slow decline of the authority of the Mughal emperor, his servants emerged as powerful centres of power in the regions.
- They constituted new dynasties and held command of provinces like Hyderabad and Awadh.
- Although they continued to recognise the Mughal emperor in Delhi as their master, by the eighteenth century the provinces of the empire had consolidated their independent political identities.
Multiple Choice Questions
The name of residence of Mughal Emperors in Delhi was
(a) the Red Fort
(b) the Old Fort
(c) the Siri Fort
(d) none of these
the Red Fort
Genghis Khan was a ruler of this tribe:
(d) None of these
Mughal Military Campaigns
Which Mughal Emperor was defeated by Sher Shah Suri?
What is the ruling period of Jahangir?
(a) 1526-1530 AD
(c) 1556-1605 AD
(b) 1530-1556 AD
(d) 1605-1627 AD during Jahangir’s reign?
1605-1627 AD during Jahangir’s reign?
Which Sikh Guru’s Martyrdom took place
(a) Guru Nanak Singhji
(b) Guru Gobind Singhji
(c) Guru Aijun Singhji
(d) Guru Tegh Bahadur Singhji
Guru Aijun Singhji
What was the capital of Mirza Hakim Akhar’s half brother?
Mughal Traditions of Succession
Rathor Rajput was related to
Mughal Relations with Other Rulers
Which ruler was insulted by Aurangzeb?
(a) Man Singh
(b) Rana Pratap
(d) All of these
The salary of the Mansabdars was called
Who was Akbars Revenue minister?
(a) Todar Mai
(c) Abul Fazl
A Closer look: Akbar s Policies
Akbar, a great Mughal Emperor was known for his
(a) tolerant religious policy
(b) good administration
(c) economic reforms and works
(d) all of these
all of these
The minister-in-charge of religious and charitable patronage was known as
The literal meaning of Sulh-i kul is
(c) universal peace
The Mughal Empire in the Seventeenth Century and After
What was the approximate number of mansabdars in Shah Jahan reign?
Fill in the blanks with appropriate words:
1. In the battle of Panipat Babur defeated …………………
2. Another name of Emperor Shah Jahan was Prince ……………..
3. Mansabdars received their salaries as revenue assignments called …………….
4. First volume of Akbar Nama dealt with Akbar’s ………. and second volume recorded the ……………….. of his reign.
5. The Mughals were descendants of ………………… and ……………
6. ……………. captured Delhi in 1555 with help of Safavid Shah.
1. Ibrahim Lodhi
4. ancestors, events
5. Genghis Khan, Timur 6, Humayun.
State whether the given statements are true or false:
1. Mughals were proud of their Mongol ancestry.
2. Those Who joined Mughal service were called mansabdars.
3. Higher the zat, more prestigious was noble’s position in court.
4. Mehrunnisa married Jahangir and was given the title of Nur Jahan.
5. Akbar was 15 years old when he became the Emperor.
6. Faujdar used to be the military commander.
Match the contents of Column A with that of Column B:
11 Julius Caesar - Reigned 49 - 44 BC
The most famous of Rome’s statesmen helped bring the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. As a general, Caesar led the armies of Rome to victories across Europe and Africa. He defeated the Gauls during the Gallic Wars, and he defeated the forces of Pompey in a civil war after his political alliance with Crassus and Pompey deteriorated. He stepped away from the civil war with unrivaled power and influence. He was murdered by Brutus after just five years as ruler, but who knows what he might have accomplished if his rule had lasted longer?
What is the most number of brothers who became ruler of the same country? - History
Palestine Facts is dedicated to providing comprehensive and accurate information regarding the historical, military, and political background to the on-going struggle between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The situation is complex with deep and diverse roots. By using the resources of this large and growing site, you can become much more knowledgeable about what is going on and why.
The information on this site is organized into sections, by historical period. Each page has a menu at the top and bottom. Use the menu to navigate to any section or use the search box at the top to search Palestine Facts. You can also go directly to the search page. Many of the issues span more than one period so there are frequent cross references between the topic pages. Each section will provide overview information and a summary of key issues and facts along with links to high-quality resources on the web where you can learn more. We have covered the whole array of facts on Palestine, with topics as diverse as the WW I impact on the Arabs and JewsÂ to events as recent as the Palestinian bid for UN membership and the UNESCO membership acceptance and their aftermath. We urge our visitors to go beyond the "sound bite" version of events and dig in to find out the truth. This site will do all it can to be a valuable source for your search for information. If you would like to provide additional material for our pages, please send an email to [email protected]
§ 201 Responses to Israeli Palestinian Conflict"
This whole site is propagandized BS and it is apparent to almost everyone who visits this site. Additionally, the audacity it takes to name a website “Palestine FACTS” in such a context is atrocious. I am not of the Jewish faith, nor am I Palestinian/an Arab speaker. Yes you may be assured that I am no anti-semite (referring to its ORIGINAL root meaning, “semite” meaning Jew or Arab) I am merely just another unbiased observer that has taken the time to read through flawed rhetoric– a tool that, unfortunately, has been used to ruin lives for the past several decades. Though you probably will not publish this comment (why would you? it would be out of keeping with the new anti-boycott law mentality) I know it will be read. Therefore, as long as those that publish sites such as these are forced to reflect on how their actions may resemble those of a Motzi Sheim Ra, I am satisfied.
I totally agree with you. What a crock to call this website PALESTINE FACTS! I’d like to know who is behind this website! Strangely enough, you don’t see any names on this website, except on a photograph. I am almost certain that this website has been put up by jewish individuals with a slanted view of reality! What a shame that historical distortions continue to drive a wedge between peoples of the world and the cause of peace and justice! Of all people, you would think that persecuted jewish people would be the most just and sympathetic in dealing with other persecuted people!
I just watched an Al Jazeera documentary (Witness: The Land Speaks Arabic) with interviews about the atrocities commited by the Hagana in the 30s and 40s in Palestine and how so many poor Palestinians were killed (including pregnant women) and tens of their villages were taken by force. There were eyewitness accounts of the brutal kilings of their Palestinian friends and families! They talked of merciless shootings of hundreds of peole at random! I saw newspaper headlines of the time, confirming these facts, including the bombing of the King David Hotel, train derailments, explosions and many other terrorist acts which were terrorist acts of the Hagana, designed to destabilize Palestine and send the poor, unarmed villagers and city dwellers running for their lives. Menachem Begin was one of the terrorists wanted for these crimes along with many others. I couldn’t believe my eyes! Menachem Begin, a wanted terrorist, who later became the prime minister of Israel? How could such a thing happen?
Thankfully most Israeli citizens are in favor of peace and a Palestinian state. Now if we could get rid of distortions like this website or any similar website, be they pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, the world would stand a better chance of finally seeing peace in the Middle East.
What audacity! PALESTINE FACTS.
I totally agree wtih you Liz. What audacity! PALESTINE FACTS. I suspect this website has been put up by certain jewish people with an agenda, disguised as “impartial providers of facts.” All you need to do is to watch the Al Jazeera documentary called “Witnes: The Land Speaks Arabic.” It talks about the many terrorits acts of the Hagana, merciless killings (including pregnant women), bombings and terror to create instability in Palestine and taking over many tens of villages.
The bombing of the King David Hotel in Palestine by Menachem Begin (who in those days was a wanted terrorist!!) and others…..
PALESTINE DISTORTIONS is more like it!
I disagree with Liz H (as does the historical record, which neither she nor i can make up at this late date).
UN Resolution 181 was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one nation absent.
One of the provisions of Resolution 181 reads in relevant part:
Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.
So way back in 1947, the Arabs had the UN approval for a state, which they REJECTED. Now they want a “do-over,” mulligan, second chance, etc.
Let’s look at some other historical events, which anyone can read about in old newspapers.
The population of Palestine was divided on accepting Resolution 181. The Jewish Palestinians accepted the Resolution. The Arab Palestinians were of two minds some stayed in place as if nothing was happening, and some responded to the entreaties of the surrounding Arab countries to evacuate, so that a war could be fought and won against the Jews, and then the Arab Palestinians could return.
Although all of the surrounding Arab countries including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt attacked Israel (as did several other Arab countries), the Israelis were not defeated.
In the Fall of 1956, Great Britain and France became angry when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. In the 1956 war, Great Britain, France and Israel all fought against Egypt. Although Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, it agreed to return that captured territory to Egypt.
In June 1967, in response to the Egyptian blockade of the port of Eilat, Israel fought the Six Day War with Egypt. Jordan was warned to stay out of the fight, but elected to participate anyway, as did Syria. Israel won territory on all fronts. Israel again handed the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.
In 1973, several Arab states began a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur. After several weeks, Israel again prevailed, and again turned captured territory back to Egypt.
How many other military victors have turned territory back to the vanquished? If you pick a fight and you lose, generally that is your tough luck, and you should take responsibility for your actions.
And how do you negotiate with someone who wants nothingmore than to kill you? Do you think the US could have negotiated with Osama bin Laden?
So please tell me what the “crock” is, when this web site reports events that did occur, other than your OBVIOUS BIAS.
Liz, the term “anti-Semite” was coined in the late 19th century by German philosophers and writers to describe those people who hated Jews. The term has nothing to do with Arabs, in spite of the fact that they are also Semites.
From your comment about not being an “antisemite in the original meaning of the term”, does this mean that you are following the part line of Arab anti-Zionists who use this semantic argument to cover their Jew-hatred?
One fact remains – Jews living today are of Semitic, middle eastern descent and historically come from the area of mandatory Palestine. The bulk of Israel’s Jews are of more immediately Middle Eastern descent, i.e., Yemenite, Syrian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Persian, Libyan, Egyptian, Iraqi, etc. Population exchanges have happened before and led to stable homelands. But in this case, the desire to keep Palestinian victimhood alive, they are denied citizenship in every Moslem country except Jordan, kept in refugee camps and even when they are permanently settled in other countries (such as the US), their status are refugees is maintained by the UN.
Are you people who disagree by any chance in or have been in college between the year 2000 up to now and taking history as a major or just as a general class because if not please don’t talk about things you know nothing about because people use this for research whether right or wrong and your confusing them and me.
Liz, how are you unbiased? This site provides factual information on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Liz, you clearly are another one of these anti-Israel propagandists, which is being anti-Semitic in nature. Let’s refute some of your claims.
“Yes you may be assured that I am no anti-semite (referring to its ORIGINAL root meaning, â€œsemiteâ€ meaning Jew or Arab)”
That argument has been used as a cover by anti-Semites. While Semites include Jews, Arabs, and other peoples, any dictionary definition will tell you that anti-Semitism means being against Jews for being Jews.
“I am not of the Jewish faith, nor am I Palestinian/an Arab speaker.”
Who cares what your ethnicity or nationality is [there is no such thing as a “Palestinian” people but that’s another area of discussion]? Not everyone, who hates Israel has to be Arab or Muslim. In fact, there are self-hating Jews, who hate Israel as well.
“Though you probably will not publish this comment (why would you? it would be out of keeping with the new anti-boycott law mentality) I know it will be read. Therefore, as long as those that publish sites such as these are forced to reflect on how their actions may resemble those of a Motzi Sheim Ra, I am satisfied.”
So you support boycotting Israel? Wow, that’s really unbiased [lol]. You’re the one spreading Motzi Sheim Ra. You claim to be unbiased while you reveal that you support boycotting Israel. And you think that being neither Arab nor Jewish makes you unbiased. That’s hilarious. This website has come out with factual analysis and is a great counterbalance to the anti-Israel propaganda.
i want info this is not what i want sorry
good information tell this paragraph
Just to play Devilâ€™s Advocate:
Among the issues brought up, first of all the Balfour Declaration was repudiated, and in the first place was never intended to go being the mere settlement issueâ€”not full blown nation-state as we see in Israel today. Next, even IF it had, the author points out that you canâ€™t just muscle in on an area by the corrupt desires of the Brit Empire (what right did they have to the area that they could make deals) and the other problem was that they had PREVIOUSLY promised the whole region to the Arabs. As far as history, and race, and the issues surrounding who was where first, this argument is said to be tedious and hare-brained due to multiple problems:
First, just because your ancestors were there at some distant point in the past does not mean you can dig your heels in later on what someone has settled later. I am part Brit. Neither I nor my family have any territorial â€œrecallâ€ rights to Brit territory, nor any of Her Majestyâ€™s remaining dominions. We would not like it if a group of Catawba Indians, who previously lives in what is now South Carolina, declared that â€œbehold, we hold this sacred land for all Catawbaâ€, and (like Palestine) the rest of us get kicked out and must flee by international decree to Florida or Georgia, due to some rather questionableâ€”at bestâ€”authority due an edict from the UN.
Again, Britain aquired this region via conquest in the fallout of WW1, but that’s NOT the same as saying it had moral or legal authority to carve Palestine up like a roast.
As to the oft-repeated claim that “palestine” was never a nation, but a region, that is said to be a strawman argument. No one really disputes this, but is focused instead on the issue of displacement of the people forced out when Israel was created in 1947 after what had been mostly majority Arab presence in the region for hundreds of years.
The Pentagon and the SC National Guard might have something to say about this. No? So, does the overall size of Arabia matter in all the hoopla about “oh, we ONLY want so very little!”, as commonly seen on comparative maps of Israel vs. the rest of Arabia.
The claim that there is more legal authority for Israel than nations previously set up by mass displacement and force is threadbare if we look at history of morals and ethics. What went for 1500 does not go for 1947 and the force against hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians whoâ€™d lived there under VARIOUS regimes.
In any case, modern genetics and anthropology suggest strongly that the Jews evolved FROM the Hittitesâ€”they did not conquer them, nor the Canaanites, as the Bible said. Speaking of that, modern legal parlance has no brief of Biblical text as justification for nation-states that displace others. Or existing at all.
Those are the main points, I think.
very true, i would know since I’m from Palestine myself. Very devasting for how long Israel has been fighting them and Israel was lieng to the world too. They owned big named shops and stores and with the money they got, they gave it to the soldiers to buy weapons. WE need to spread the word. It’s just horrible.
The Belfor agreement was1st imposed to stop Zionist terrorist attacking Arab villages and massacing the inhabitians. These Zionist terrorist are refurred to in TH Lawances book the seven pillors of wisdom. It was intended to make peace and allow the Zionist a homeland but it was used as a wedge to expand the Zionist settlements. This was why the Zionist attempted a pact with Hitler whom they met with for 2 weeks in the lead up to WW2 The British blocked it as a breach of good faith and the terror began again. They have not changed thier views and want to return of all of ZION. They are racist and terrorist!
It is a biblical issue. Read all of the prophets in the old testament and Romans 11 and Revelation and you will find that Israel will never be driven from their land again. And incidentally that is what Jacobs trouble and Armageddon is all about. All the Nations will be gathered together for judgment and will be punished for their treatment of Gods chosen. Just watch and see, you will see it with your own eyes and hopefully remember this post. It is very interesting.
I have a hard time taking criticism from a Brit (half or whole) because the British colonial policies are responsible for so many current conflicts including Northern Irelan, India and of course the Middle East. Jews stand out in this regard for several reasons, the most important of which is that 2000 years after our homeland was taken over, we are still targeted for violence based on our ethnic identification. This is true today in Venezuela and in Europe where it is viewed as a form of protest by Arabs in Europe for Israeli policy of existing.
As far as ancestry is concerned, modern genetic suggest that we are middle eastern – I think that it is harder to pin it down more specifically than that.
Frankly, I would gladly give South Carolina back to the Catawbas. Perhaps your hatred of Israel is covering up your guilt for living on stolen land.
So get your settlers off the Faulkland Island and return it to the Argentinians
I think there should be a forced removal and their land and home can be returned
And then talk about legitimacy
Without wishing to trigger any sensitivities regarding the point Liz made about “original Semites”, I wonder if any body is aware that a massive percentage of Jews today actually descend from the non Semitic Kazaria population of Eastern Europe and Eurasia which converted to Judaism the same way their Turkic (Tartar) brethren converted to Islam from a shamanist background. I also note that original Semetic Jews have lived in harmony and protection for a long time in countries such as Iran and Yemen. Over the course of history, most Semitic Jews actually assimilated into Islam or Christianity. The first Islamic state was the city of Medina, originally the Jewish city of Yathrib in the Arabian peninsula. I would like to reinforce Liz’s point because the term “Semite” deserves protection.
Heres a FACT : “anti-Semitism” began with the Spanish Inquisition, designed to eradicate Europe of Muslims & Jews (at the time given no distinction – Muslims back then were termed by Europe as “Jews on horseback”). It is undeniable that Jews were given enormous protection and status in Arab lands during this period the same way they do now as do Christians. Are there any massive complaints from the Jewish population of Iran?
SO….Kazarians please let go of this false claim to the noble title of SEMITE which belongs to those who descended from the house of SHEM…meaning those of us who originate from a coverage of the Middle East whether we be Jew, Muslim or Christian, likely to speak Arabic and have brown or tanned skin.
This is purely posted to clarify the point of what a Semite is. As for the Palestinian/Israeli issue I am not decided yet, and agree that it is massively complex. All I know is that reports on Palestinian deaths greatly out number Israeli deaths which kind of lends credence to a need for justice on the Palestinian side, and the whole rhetoric regarding “protection against terrorists” is frankly getting quite boring now. In this world split by the “haves” and the “have not’s”, we all know why this spread of fear was designed to protect the “haves”.
Britain promised Palestine to both Jews and Arabs but the Jews had morer money. Duriung WW2 Jewish elements asked the Nazi Government of Germany for help. Soldiers of the Brtish Army Airborne Division who saved Jews in German Concentration Camp were later murdered by Palestinian Jews like at the King David Hotel. In 1946 30 percent of Palestine was Jewish and of these a half had been born in other countries. There will be no peace in the world as long as the USA supports a terrorist nation like Israel. I was in Palestine in 1946,
The reason behind the king David Hotel attack was the unwillingness of Britain to open the borders of Palestine to Jewish immigrants coming from concentration camps. Boats full of immigrants were returned by the British to Germany and do you know what happened? they were returned to the camps and murdered! Wasn’t it a good reason to bomb the British? of course yes! unless you have no good faith and plenty of unfairness & arrogance.
As to qualify Israel of terrorism, my best advice is for you to screw your head in place, MAYBE that will help.
If there was a country called Palestine and not just a terrority called Palestine before 1948, what was their currency, what did their the national flag look like, what did the seal of the ruler look like, etc, etc?! In other words where is the evidence!
I would reword your comment to replace Palestine with Israel. At least there was an area labled Palestine on the maps before 1948 and after the fall of the Roman Empire. Israel cannot say the same. When the allies arbitrarily divided the old empires into new political “nations” at the end of the second world war, they were driven by immediate and selfish political concerns, not an enlightened view of history. Thus Israel was created and filled up with Germans and Poles and a few others who united with the small indigenous Jewish population to take and hold the land by whatever means required while the Kurds, who had no New York bankers to lobby for them were left without a country. Pakistan and the area now called Bangladesh were ripped out of India by the British to repay the Muslims for betraying Ghandi. Thus much of the conflict and violence we have lived with since the fall of Hitler has been the result of agreements made between England, the United States and Russia before 1950. Once rung, a bell cannot be unrung. The politicians will continue to say whatever they believe profits them while the violence has no forseeable end short of Armagedon which, by the way, is not far from Damascus.
I know you would qoute some biblical b.s. about god giving Israel to the jews, if so where is the deed
No evidence Rebecca,
only lies perpetrated against Israel and the Jewish people. Nothing new really since the Middle Ages!
Cyril Reynolds writes: “Duriung [sp] WW2 Jewish elements asked the Nazi Government of Germany for help.”.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Who were these “Jewish elements”? What makes you believe that the Nazi government of Germany would do anything to help Jews as they were murdering 6,000,000 of them? You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your version of fact or history.
Here is a fact: in the 1930’s the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a known collaborator with Hitler and personally responsible for the death of 12,000 Bosnian Jews. This is a published FACT in the book “Icon of Evil”. So, the next time anyone says that Palestinians, Arabs, or Moslems had NOTHING to do with the Holocaust, think of this FACT. The Arabs had many things to do with the Holocaust and their Grand Mufti (may he NOT rest in peace) is personally responsible for the death of at least 12,000 European Jews.
i agree with liz and wakefield. israel propaganda is so transparent if you pay attention to the rest of the news.
Mr Reynolds is referring to the activities of the Stern Gang, or Lehi, to use their Hebrew name. They were responsible for many of the most famous atrocities of the period, including, for example, the Deir Yassin massacre. Here’s an excerpt from the Wikpaedia entry on the Lehi:
“During World War II, Lehi initially sought alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine. On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis.”
This is actually well-known, and is supported by Israeli historians.
November 2nd, 1917.
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Palestinian aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Palestinian people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Palestinians communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Palestinians in any other country”.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Palestinian National Authority.
Arthur James Balfour
Arnaldo Salles has a strange sense of humor.
The text of the letter of November 2nd 1917 says:
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Not even a good try. Just a clear expression of BIAS.
To Arnaldo Salles:
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Before you charge me with being a Jew, please note: My mother was a WASP of German, Norman English and Scottish origin. My father was Serbian Christian Orthodox. I am an aetheist. Just because you don’t like the history, doesn’t make the history a lie. Every word on this website is historically verifiable and true. You have let your hatred of Jews cloud your judgment. And, Liz, you are a garden-variety anti-semite. What facts do you have to back up your comments? That you choose to believe Arab revisions of history without question or facts to back it up is telling. And, there was once a country called Phillistia thousands of years ago, but they ceased to exist before the Roman Empire ruled the area. They were the historical enemy of the early Jews, so the Romans renamed all of the Jewish lands “Phillistia” to make a point to the increasingly rebellious Jews they had just expelled from their lands. Remnants of the Jewish people remained and have been there for thousands of years. They have no less right to a little patch of that land than the Muslims they shared the land with. Just like Muslim Indians decided to break away with Hindu India and formed the state of Pakistan. Because they wanted to govern themselves. Why do the Jews have any less of a right to govern themselves than the Pakistanis? Or the Palestinians who now call themselves “Jordanian? Or the Albanians who severed Kosovo from Serbia?” READ YOUR HISTORY!
This is a great point, I also agree.
I came to this website because it seemed like it actually listed factual evidence and history instead of random opinions of biased people. All people are biased to a degree, but I know that I at least personally make an effort to question everything until I find quality facts from reliable sources, and I hope others do as well. I don’t think it matters too much what ethnicity people are who comment, although it could have affect on their biases to a small degree, but what culture they are from definitely will affect it to a larger degree, due to the fact that human personality develops based on several factors, and one of the large ones is culture, especially during the developmental years. So someone growing up in Israel will have a very different view and perception of the world than someone growing up in America. Especially considering the completely different stigmas of the areas.
I found it a little funny that people who support Palestine over Israel rarely seem to list facts, and only say that Israel murders and kills. Well, newsflash people, Palestine does the exact same stuff. They are both violent places. I would never visit either place for fear of getting raped or killed. I also do not support religion being a part of any government, ever. It should be separate at all times. I am unhappy with America in terms of sometimes trying to mesh the two, and I passionately protest that we should never do this. It does NOT work. I would start a revolt and many protests if something like this was trying to come about. I adamantly refuse religion as a ruling body. It only brings judgmentalism and violence. I do not and will never support Shariah law. If I lived in a religious nation-state, I would have been killed by now, especially being a strong woman who speaks my mind as well as being a firm supporter of the scientific method and factual evidence. Having a personal religion or spirituality is one thing, but it should be kept personal and not used as a control method.
Just because you’ve heard bad things about Israel, doesn’t mean Palestine is not doing the exact same thing, or worse. And vice versa. In fact both are terrible. Pretty much every country wars at some point or another. Thinking you’re above it just means you are out of touch. I realize that in this day and age a lot of us believe that war should not even happen, but it does anyway. Especially considering a lot of countries seem to be decades behind in terms of growth and education, and stuck in tragic situations. The worst part is that good intentions just tend to make stuff worse or cause more problems as side effects. Such as how people hate America for “putting their nose in others business”, but then they get angry because “America hasn’t helped at all”. I think the only reaction is to do what you feel is right, despite how others will react. Because they will be negative either way.
Some of this is very simple, Israel is basically our only ally in the middle east right now. Only stable ally anyway, we’re working on getting Egypt on our side, but they seem to be toying around with us right now. The riots earlier, which were planned ahead of time and not a direct result of that video (I believe the President of Egypt actually directly admitted this) everyone was talking about is a good example, even after it happened we still decided to hand over 450 million dollars of aid to help “restore” Egypt, or are trying to anyway. We’re basically bending over backwards for these guys, despite them killing our people and wanting us dead, just to avoid another war with the arab world.
I think it is more than generous just not to label them all enemies considering recent events, and the fact that the extremist muslim world in general tends to want us dead. I’ve been becoming increasingly bitter over the years as my interest in international relations and politics keeps growing.
Cyril, after all the atrocities and terrorism the British empire has inflicted on the world, a Brit calling another nation a “terrorist nation” is a little hypocritical don’t you think? All I can say about the British colonial presence in the world is Good Riddance! Sorry, am I wrong in assuming you are British?
Anne-Marie says it all most eloquently. Garden variety anti-semites like Liz are always a mystery to me. Whilst I can understand the emotions however misplaced of an Arab Palestinian (as distinct from what were Jewish Palestinians) about what they think is a raw deal (I hasten to add that any raw deal they may think they have was entirely and remains entirely of their own making), but what drives someone to blindly hate Jews. Does she hate Tootsies over Hutus or one Somalian tribe over another without knowing anything about them. Why isn’t she angry about the 2000 Syrian civilians killed in the last few months by Assad or the thousands of Khurds killed by Turkey in Northern Iraq. Was she indoctrinated at a young age by anti-semitic parents or impressed by an equally ill-informed socialist boy friend along the way. Perhaps however it simply that she prefers to believe the lies and mis-truths that Arab media and even bigoted western media put out, After all she did quote Al Jazeera bastion of bi-partisan journalistic integrity as a source, which gives us a good idea of where her stance eminates from.
So Liz H. says absolutely nothing negative about Jews–only calling into question the information on the site, which she correctly identifies as “propaganda”–but pro-Israel commenters, undeterred by the complete lack of evidence for the charge, slander her as a “garden variety anti-Semite” who “blindly hates Jews”. It’s a perfect example of the way in which groundless accusations of anti-Semitism are deployed as a tool by people like Anne-Marie and Mark to try to protect Israel from criticism. What they don’t realize is that every time they pull out their old standby slur in situations like this one where it’s so clearly unwarranted, they just demonstrate to more and more people how morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest they are. The fact that they resort to these kinds of tactics rather than engaging in honest discussion and debate speaks volumes.
Thanks for the comment, Liz you were spot on. More and more people are seeing through Israel’s hasbara (as embodied in sites like this one) to the plain fact of the racist treatment of Palestinians, and it’s only a matter of time before the tide turns decisively.
Fred, you’ve got it backwards. Liz H. calls the info on this site “propagandized BS” but then offers not a single rebuttal to any of the facts here. In addition, she bowdlerizes the term “anti-Semite” and is clearly unaware of its true origins. So add ignorance to malicious intent on her part.
As far as racism is concerned, you should know that an Arab state was set up in 1922 comprising over 75% of the original Palestinian Mandate, in which it is forbidden for any Jew to own land or become a citizen. That state is today called Jordan and its racist laws are still on the books. Today’s Palestinians have been open in expressing their desire for homeland that is also “judenrein”, as their envoy to the U.S. was quoted espousing such a position just a few weeks ago. By contrast, Arabs and other non-Jews make up about 20% of Israel’s population, are citizens with elected representatives in the Knesset, with the same rights as all other citizens. So who is the racist here?
And for the record, when Transjordan was hived off from the Mandate in 1922, there were several Jewish villages that were forced to move west of the Jordan River. That was better than the fate of the Jews living in Hebron during the Arab pogrom of 1929, or those living in the “West Bank” back in 1948, who were ethnically cleansed by the Arab Legion from east Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, etc. I guess its much easier to pretend to not be racist when you just get rid of all the “undesirables” up front, eh?
Stosh or everyone from here, tell me something! In a prison, any kind of prison , what its the propotrion in land between the guards and the imprisoned people? Somebody ? It it’s 5% for the guards and 95% for the inmates.
Now tell me what its the procentage in West Bank! Yes you guessed it, you are smart, it’s 5% for the israeli forces. They control , roads, water suplies, food suplies everything. So tell me its this a prison? There a lot of things to say, I could argue with all of u here about what its realli happening there, but it is usless. We can’t do nothing except to spread the word, the truth about palestine. I am sad but you sould be ashamed about what you have did to the people imprisoned.
Why did the Arabs reject the original UN-plan from 1947?
Why do we see same things happen now after “The Arab Spring”?
Why do we see Turkey enchanting and blowing the fire in Egypt these days?
Simply because the Arab World want to blow the Jews into the sea as they always wanted too.
No surprise these nations said no to UNÂ´s plan( United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine) Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Ups, same countries who still today want control over the region, weird no? No, its the same story and they will not give up until the Jewish State is gone.
Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army and the Muslim Brotherhood attacked in the war 1948 and just wait, with the situation in Egypt and when The Muslim Brotherhood win the election we will see more attacks on Israel.
Palestine could have had their own state in 1948, but they refused!! Backed up by the Arab League they thought they could have all, but at least Israel had courage, specially in 1967 where 230.000 troops were knocking their borders.
All you Anti-Israel, just be aware, the future is on stake and seems like the world is going to be the loser.
my fellow human beings and brothers and sisters in humanity, looking at the question of palistine and the question of occupation of palistine by the supposed israeli nation who claim that they are the true occupants of the land refered to as israel,we find that this people refering to themselves as jews mojority of them are europeans who dont have any historical link to palistine anthropologically,historicaly,culturally and traditionaly, this tells us that the creation of israel by the british colonial empire represent european colonial crime that the empire is famous. most of people who comment negativelly agaist palistinian are people who are either ignorent of the history of judaism and its people. the claim over palistine by jewish groups represent injustice,fraud and dicit,becuase they claim to be a nation and not a religious group, but actually they are a religious groups that comes from different nations if i am incorrect then provide then provide proof agaist my argument.
No UN, decision, no myth, nothing justify the slaughtering of a nation, to establish another because they belong to a religion that lived there 3 thousands years ago! claiming to be the descendants of the original Jewish Semites! Which is known to be a fabricated lie, the eastern European Jews came from the dissolved old Khazar kingdom which converted to Judaism in the 10 century! the real descendants of the historical Israelite are the Palestinians, read Shlomo Sands’s The invention of the Jewish people, I know this is not going to be published, because this is the truth that any independent researcher will find.
You discredit yourself with that Khazar nonsense. If the Ashkenazi (central and east European) Jews were descendants of the Khazars (a Turkic tribe), why is it that Yiddish, the language they spoke, is derived from medieval German with not a trace of Turkish words, grammar, etc.? On the other hand, there are plenty of Hebrew words in it and even a smattering of Slavic. Why was that language written with the Aramaic letters (Aramaic being the lingua franca of the Levant 2000 years ago). And why is it that DNA tests showed that the group of people most closely related to Ashkenazi Jews are the Sephardi Jews, who went around the Mediterranean by an entirely different route over those 2000 years. Finally, the presence among the Ashkenazim of kohens (descendants of the Jewish priests) and levites totally demolishes that theory, since none of those would have been present among the Khazars. The kohens, by the way, have been shown to share a DNA marker passed down through the male line that appears to have originated in the Near East about 3000 years ago.
Shlomo Sands? He’s a paskudyak. And you can look it up.
I can’t believe that some think that this is right, seriously if you want to know a bit of Palestine’s history your going to have to go back 3000 years ago! Not 100 years+ I’m a Palestanian and I know
You’re right. 3000 years ago was when King David conquered Jerusalem and made it the capital of Israel. There has been a Jewish presence in the land ever since, in spite of foreign occupiers like the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks and the British. That presence, and 1000 years of persecution of Jews in both Christian and Muslim lands are the basis of moral right of the Jewish people to their own state in the land that the Romans named “Palestine”.
Well well well, the jews are at it again, if u look back in history u will see its the palestinians who own the land what the jews did to them was disgusting. Why arnt Israel been held for war crimes against humanity.And most of the jews who have settled there are from America n they call it there home land. Im just stating the historicall facts.
How dare you calling your propaganda as “Palestine Facts”. You should call it apartheid Israel “Facts” and lies, and the Zionists criminals themselves, like: Herzl, Gurion, Weismann, Jabotinsky, Weitz, Ruppin, Ussishkin, Smilansky, Zuchovitzky, Zangwill, Epstein…. who started the movement and helped founding this apartheid and racist state in Palestine can give you the real facts about their crimes and ethnic cleansing.
In 1891 Ahad Ha’Am wrote: “We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed. But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains are not cultivated.” (Righteous Victims, p. 42)
Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897: “Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. We must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the Arab tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
And the Russian racist Ze’ev Jabotinsky advocated the colonization of Palestine under the protection of arms regardless of the Palestinian people’s objections. He stated in 1925:
“Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop under the protection of a force independent of the local population –an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in to, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 28)
The same racist wrote in an essay, titled “The Iron Law”, explaining how Zionist colonization of Palestine should be done. He wrote: “If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf. … Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 45)
He also wrote: “There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it’s also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 29)
As you see the Zionists didn’t have problem talking about their racist colonial settler project!
As you see the Zionists didn’t have problem calling their racist project as a colonial settler project, but ignorant like yourself says otherwise!!
Here is another criminal explains the Zionist story, Ben Gurion who was an atheist and knew that the myth of 2000 years is plain legend but he didn’t mind “believing” in “god promised land”, a typical Zionist hypocrite, he said:
“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipes us out”.
“But how can you sleep with that prospect in mind,” I broke in, “and be Prime Minister of Israel too?”
Who says I sleep? he answered simply. (The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldman, p. 99).
BTW Gurion was an atheist, and knew that the myth of 2000 years is plain legend but he didn’t mind accepting “god promised land”, a typical Zionist hypocrite. Also you need to check the agreement between the Nazis and the Zionists to transfer European Jews into Palestine, and later the Zionist plan to transfer the Arab natives out of their land, Plan Dalet.
Moshe Dayan as quoted in Haaretz, 4 April 1969: “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kefar Yehushu’a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
Moshe Dayan said in 1956, just 8 years after Al Nakba, and before PLO or Hamas even existed: “Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.” -Iron Wall.
It is the occupation, stupid.
Learn from history, apartheid south Africa, which started in the same time as apartheid Israel, had its racist supporters who used “holy” books to steal the natives’ land and properties while calling them “terrorists” and “savages”, and it had nukes like apartheid Israel, but it is history now, and Mandela, who knows apartheid very well and called the Israeli occupation state as an apartheid, became a president in his own country and homeland, and the same with Palestine, the colonial settlers from Russia and Moldavia, like the racist thug Lieberman, don’t belong to Palestine and not any of the Zionists who started the movement belong to Palestine, check out their names and accents.
Nothing last for ever, especially a rotten racist apartheid.
Perhapes Turkey should give Instanbul back to the Greeks. Maybe Poland should give Prussia back to Germany. We could go on and on throughout history. The Arabs won that land by conquest. And by conquest they lost it!
The Holy Mount was crafter by Jews 3-4000 yrs ago. To claim it is Arab and Muslim is wrong
It is that simple
I urge the owners of this website to make themselves and their affiliations known. By refusing to do so, you raise questions about your real intent, and make the most open-minded of visitors doubt the veracity of your content.
We, at Palestinefacts.org just manage the website from a technical point of view. All the comments that come in are from the visitors and we only act as moderators by removing spam and hate comments. We do not influence the content in any way. By remaining anonymous we ensure that we do not get biased comments.
I agree with Chris, Sept 22
“To the victor go the spoils”.
The Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in WWI. Germany lost the British and French won, the Ottoman Empire fell. The League of Nations in 1920 gave France mandates over Syria and Lebanon, and gave Britain mandates over Mesopotamia and Palestine in 1922 the Palestinian mandate was sub-divided to create Transjordan, leaving only about 22% of the original Palestinian Mandate as territory from which a Jewish national homeland was to be created.
The rest, as they say, is history.
“To the victor go the spoils” Maybe it wasn’t victory since there is still unrest there over 60 years later with out much improvement. A two state solution is the only answer I can see as of now. You can’t have a bunch of displaced Israelies. But Israel needs to return the occupied lands the are continuing to build settlements on. Thumbing their nose at the US and Britain because this was the agreed upon land that the Palestinians were to live on.
It almost looks like the segregated south in the Jim Crow era. No one whites wanted blacks in their neighborhood, schools, hospitals, grocery stores, etc. Terrorized them, bombed them, lynched them, created laws to oppress them in hopes that they would go away and live somewhere else. Seems like this is what Israel wants. Palestinians to go away when they have a right to the land they have lived on for thousands of years. Palestinians are not European transplants. They are the locals.
Honestly I don’t know much about the whole situation, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in life is that it takes two to fight a war. Both parties are at fault, and none of the comments have really bothered to mention that. Which to me is the most disappointing thing of all.
Maybe if everyone could just admit they were wrong, then maybe, just maybe we could come up with a solution civilly?
( “Oh sorry, I forgot! Both states are too tied up in their own religions -meaning the radicals are running the show. I guess coming up with a civil solution is impossible.” -cynical me. )
But hey! Here’s a suggestion! Instead of arguing over who is right and who is wrong, how about throwing some ideas on how to fix the problem?
Julia I am right there with you. The inference that the Jews are wanting to build a Zion nation is a sad misrepresentation at best. Perhaps they simply have lost the meaning of what Zion is all about. Zion was the name given by God to Enoch’s city which, because of their righteousness, was taken up into Heaven. To establish a Zion community all the people have to be of “one heart and one mind” meaning one in purpose and “dwell in righteousness” which means according to the laws of God.
Whilst ever anyone uses weapons of any description they are oppressors and the oppressed will fight against them.
As you state – unless they put their religions aside and begin to look at each other as neighbours and not enemies – they will never achieve a Zionist community.
When Jesus taught the well known parable of the good Samaritan, he knew what he was saying! All would do well to remember that the Jews and Samaritans were enemies – yet it was not until a humble Samaritan assisted the wounded Jew that anything constructive was done – and guess what? Loving they neighbour is not just a Christian thing!
So, in conclusion – I declare to all those who read this – no matter what religion there is one commandment we all have in common – love thy neighbour as thyself. I guess until people are willing to put aside their hatred and suspicion, Zion will never be established and neighbour will continue to fight against neighbour. Truly the words of Isaiah are coming true – there is no mystery here – they are coming true because people are blindly following whatever malice they choose. They hate their neighbour and therefore hate themselves. I guess they don’t sleep well at night either.
Sigh. Everyone should watch “The Grinch who stole Christmas”.
Read about the One Secular Democratic State solution. A state for all its citizens regardless of their religions, and backgrounds. That doesn’t work with the Zionists ideology who want to have Palestine as a “Jewish state”.
Also if you don’t know much about the situation, educate yourself about some basic history facts, and study a little bit about colonialism, Zionism, and the history of the region, because you are clearly mixing between European Zionist colonial settlers and the Arab natives population of Palestine which include Arab Jews, Christians, Muslims and non religious groups.
Also if you are interested of a solution find out first if your state is involved or assisting the Israeli apartheid state. And ask you government to stop aiding racist apartheid. Many European states, alongside, US, and Canada aided the racist colonial settlers in South Africa and their racist regime there, and used to call Mandela as a “terrorist”.
And to make it simple for you, when Mandela, who knows about apartheid very well, calls the Israeli occupation state as an apartheid, you need to stop and think about it, plus you already said that you don’t know much about the situation so don’t add misleading statement like: “Both parties are at fault” and make both, the occupier colonial settler and the native as equal in the crime, forgetting that Palestinians didn’t force themselves on the Russian and European colonial settlers who seek their “god promise land” it is the other way around, or maybe the Palestinians on their own wanted to be in refugee camps and the civilized colonial settlers had nothing to deal with it.
I already posted a comment before yours with documented quotes from the Zionist criminals themselves, they talked openly about their colonization to Palestine, go back and read them and try to answer to their racist ideology.
And here is what Mandela had to say, so you don’t need to say anymore that no body told me about apartheid Israel: “The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel’s racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a “Jewish” state.
Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.” From a letter from Nelson Mandela to Thomas Friedman.
See The Zionist Story documentary, you can find the full documentary on youtube and it is made by an ex Israeli soldier who served in the Israeli occupation forces.
Have you ever heard an israeli official admit that they are wrong. To them the Palestinians are always and the only ones at fault. If it wasn’t for the support and bullying of the United States and some europian countries, israel would have not been so strong. But you know what, those 22 useless arab states could have changed things a lot if they have known how to bargain better for their oil. Complete stupidity on their part.
Umm Owen you ruin your entire argument through sheer ignorance. The very uniqueness of “Jews” is that are a race and a religion and strive to be a nationality while Palestinians historically have been many various races, nationalities and religions.
What is astounding is the irrelevance of your statements.
Julia, yes you are correct, it is in the hands of the radicals at the expense of the common people on both sides however, it is much more than religious fervor and much more international intrigue.
Julia had a great comment. We can delve into the history and morality of zionism and israel all we want, but that does nothing to solve the problem. The fact of the matter is, there are two peoples claiming one land today, and there is legitimacy of both claims. The best answer to this problem is to divide the land, as the UN rightly reasoned in 1947. Unfortunately, the palestinians rejected that, and continue to reject it to this day. They have to give up the fantasy that israel is a temporary presence (no matter how israel allegedly came into being, whether through sin or through good), and sit down and make peace with it. That includes giving up the fictitious “right of return.” All we hear about today from palestinians, and their supposedly more palestinian western friends (who are really just israel-haters) is that there needs to be “justice.” This is code for the end of israel. I’m sorry guys, but that’s a non-starter.
“itâ€™s also important to point out that when zionism was initiated, there was no concept of palestinians, jordanians, lebanese, or any other type of contemporary arab nationality.”
My respond to this pathetic history and typical Zionist “facts”, that they are Arabs and the natives of the land including Arab Jews, and Christians, but the Zionists and based on their own documented confessions, which you ignored, wanted to have a “Jewish state” for European Jews in Palestine, and expel the Arab natives, See Plan Dalet.
Also it is up to the Arabs to call themselves what ever they want to based on their lands, provinces’ names, like Syria or Palestine, which been used for couple thousands of years, and the Zionist colonial settlers from Moldavia, Russia. Lithuania, US, Canada, Germany, Poland, England…. have legitimate claims in Palestine as much as the Indian Muslims have legitimate claims in Saudi Arabia, and these colonial settler thieves have no right to plan any thing in land doesn’t belong to them, but European racist colonialists had no respect for the natives, and their are still racists repeat the same old lies, and even dare to fabricate the natives’ history or even claim that they never existed!! No far back the apartheid of south Africa ended, the sister apartheid state to apartheid Israel.
Your problem, as any other Zionist, you can not see the racist core of your Zionist Ideology, and from history we can see that it was not a new thing, it is no different then the French colonialists in Algeria, who claims that Algeria is part of France, or the racist colonial settlers in south Africa, and again when Mandela calls the Israeli occupation state as an apartheid, Zionist propagandists need to zip it.
Also instead of agreeing with Julia who was honest about her little knowledge, just try to answer to the points I mentioned and try to back up your “facts” with some references, especially when stating that “The arabs were given self-determination on 99% of the territory on which they were the majority.” where did you get your info? And who beside the Arabs would have the right to give them rights or to govern themselves and their lands, your Zionists colonialists, like the Hungarian Herzl, the Russian Jabotinsky, or the other colonialists, the Brits and the French.
And when you say: “it is definitely not worth spending generations fighting over.” again Ben Gurion, the criminal himself answered to your logic long time ago, and he also hoped the Arab would forget the Zionists’ theft, he said: â€œWhy should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, itâ€™s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generationsâ€™ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So itâ€™s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipes us outâ€.
â€œBut how can you sleep with that prospect in mind,â€ I broke in, â€œand be Prime Minister of Israel too?â€
Who says I sleep? he answered simply.” (The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldman, p. 99).
Regarding the refugees camps, it is apartheid Israel who created the refugees issue but based on the stupid logic of the Zionists, their Arab brothers need to take care of them, and no body need to talk about the Israeli occupation state and its documented ethnic cleansing crimes, and by the way the apartheid own archive tell enough about these crimes, also don’t forget that the other Arab states are the result of the European colonizations, and they are stil struggling against, the uprising in Egypt was not only against Mubarak, the puppet, but mainly against the US who maintains this apartheid among the Arabs, while controlling their resources of the region, simply if it were up to the Arabs, they won’t be 22 carved states, but again your logic is part of this racist colonial mind, and you seem didn’t learn from history.
mike u need to be corrected there are no two people claiming the land, please read,your argument does not make sense,because jews are not like palistinians because they are nor a one race or one ethnic group but religious group like any other groups but palistinians are an ethnic group sharing common culture,history,customs and with different religions, but this is not a case to jews they dont share the same history,language and customs. on this note we have to undestand that the creation of israel was a gross injustice by the colonial powers. on the other hand of the argument of holocust we all know that eouropean jews suffred in the hands of a european dectator then this tell us that european jews were supposed to be given part of europe not the middle east. bernard ury you must read the proper history of the middle east before you make statement that are full of fallacy and error.
it’s also important to point out that when zionism was initiated, there was no concept of palestinians, jordanians, lebanese, or any other type of contemporary arab nationality. there was just one big giant territory populated mainly, but not exclusively by arabs. The arabs were given self-determination on 99% of the territory on which they were the majority. It was decided that self-determination would be granted to another people on one tiny little strip of land that was important to them. So if this land was “stolen” as the arabs allege, it is definitely not worth spending generations fighting over. However, instead of accepting this fate, the arabs have chosen to manufacture a palestinian identity, and to keep palestinian “refugees” in disgusting camps in their own countries, in the hopes of prolonging the conflict.
The arabs had 100% of the land inthe middle east and then someone from europe decided to give 1% to somebody else and you are saying that its ok to steal 1% of the land because its just 1%, what right does anyone have to do that?
The people that lived there that are now refugees should be allowed to go home and be compensated for the 60 years that they have had to live in refugee camps. The west bank and Jerusalem should be incorporated into Israel (they are controlled by Israel now anyway) and all people, no matter of religion, colour etc should be given the right to vote, Israel would then be a truly democratic state and one that the world could look up to instead of the apartheid state you have today. Over 90% of the worlds population is against Israel in its current format and it survival is through the support of the US, should it lose that support (nothing lasts forever) then Israel will either cease to be a Jewish state or the world will cease to exist as we know it today.
Mike, there are lies and flasehoods on BOTH sides so there needs to be questioning and discusion on facts.
The problems wih your argument is that you do not have an argument (statement) rather you appear to be regergitating sound-bites of data thus coming across as biased and/or ill-informed. For example, it is not “the little strip of land” that was given to the protestors at the time by the British that is the cause for the current unrest and mistrust, it is the expansion of this original area and the Isreali control of (non-military) supplies that is the problem eg: this is why they are called the “Occupied Territories” (this means an area of land occupied by an agressor).
Irrespective of the position of others on this, you seem to be wanting to stand on one or other side as a reason to flail and beat the ‘enemy’ without having a true appreciation of the situation, or indeed needing it. I can see you doing exactly the same under another flag – whichever gives you the most mileage.
And to Abumiz, the land was Jewish a long way back, yes they “lost” it as did many others, but they managed to “gain” it back when the whole world was in termoil. And as in my reply to Mike, they should be resptected and be allowed to retain the ORIGINAL land given to them. There needs to be focus and maturity in this situation. It is agreed, Isreal and its government are the source and cause of many atrocites but using inflamatory language make you appear in the same form as the zealots you have issue with.
Isreal needs to be brought to account and the only effective way will be to record and present these atrocities on the world stage. ALL countries have a politcal goal, there is no affiliation unless there is political gain. If more of the atrocities could be shown (without retaliation) the peole of the world would stand up and say enough – hey, there is even a growing number of Isrealis that abhore the actions of their own Govt. and with enough evidence even the bullying, gun totin’ USA would step back and let there be reconcilliation.
Be strong, be true but take care you do not fall into the same trap.
The Jews that you are talking about were never there history only shows Canaanites which were Palestinians and black non Zionist Jews which were called Israelite so get your facts straight.
It is amazing to me, how israel, the most tolerant, pluralistic state in the entire middle east, and zionism, one of the most liberal ideological movements in the history of humanity, are consistently maligned by those claiming to be “anti-racist.” Tell me, are the palestinians racist because their national charter demands a “palestinian ARAB state” that is part of the greater “arab nation?” What about all the non-arabs who live in the region? Please spare me the “zionism is racism” claim. States have a right to have ethnic identities, especially when that ethnic identity has been the cause of terrible persecution, as is the case with Jewish ethnic identity. The Jews have a right to have a homeland of their own, provided they give equal rights to non-jews living in it, as they do. The arabs also have a right to have a homeland of their own, and currently they have 22 such homelands. Jews have one. And it just so happens that that Jewish homeland is the ONLY country in the middle east where arabs are truly free. There are arabs in the israeli knesset, arabs in the israeli army, arabs on the israeli supreme court, and even a few years ago there was an arab “Miss Israel.” So get over this israel is “racist” claim. In addition, get over this idea that israel was created for “european” jews. Modern political zionism may have been started by jews living in europe, but israel is for ALL jews. More than half of israel’s jewish population today is made up of Jews from arab and persian lands in the middle east. The real racism in the middle east is arab racism against jews. Why is it that in israel, the jewish state, there are 1.5 million arabs, but in all 22 arab countries, you’d be hard-pressed to even find 1000 Jews.
Mike, what planet do you live on? Your comment that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Arabs are truly free is so patently absurd that it’s insulting. Israel is the ONLY country that has a system of roads that are for Jews only, and if an Arab has the temerity to use them is liable to serve a mandatory 6 months in prison, and this is but one example of the racist policies that the Israeli Government uses to persecute the Palestinian people. South Africa was rightly considered an international pariah for this same sort of treatment of black Africans, and the ONLY reason that Israel is not treated the same way is the fear in the minds of other counties of the hysterical cries of “Anti-Semitism” that inevitably follow any criticism. Perhaps you should try to move around Israel with Palestinian ID papers and see how you are treated.
Could you please provide a contact for the webmaster. Your website seems very interesting and certainly for any intelligent discourse on any topic you need to base it on facts, not opinion. I would be interested to know who the moderators are (not necessarily your identities) but your motivations, qualifications, prejudices, etc.(Often websites contain this kind of info: “Who We Are”.) I am not interested in wasting my time with either a pro-Palestinian or a pro-Israel web site, although I would be very interested in a web site that is trying to establish fact from fiction and opinion. After a quick reading of above commentary it would appear that this site is not moderated by a pro-Zionist outfit since there seems to a lot of negative commentary regarding your site.
You are welcome to contact us at [email protected] We try to be as neutral as possible. You can also interact with us at http://www.facebook.com/PalestineFacts.
this is a great website for facts and im learning this in socila studies now
All of these negative comments are just bs. Most are Muslims trying to once again defame the rightful existence of the State of Israel. It must be nice to live in a world where you just ignore history and make up your own facts. Even the PLO and terrorist elements of the so called Palestinians – which are not even a real people – admit there was no such thing as Palestine but used it successfully to drum up the Islamic support to fight Israel and gain support for their racist intent to commit genocide against Jews. It all goes back to the issue of legitimacy stemming from the birth of Ishmael. As we all know, Ismael’s mother was not Abraham’s wife but her hand maiden/servant. Nothing is going to overcome that as it is the basis and start of it all. The bible is clear and even Judaism and Islam have prophecies similar to armagedeon, There is no way to appease the Islamic people that hate Israel. Even if they stopped settling,agreed to the 1947 borders, – Jerusalem is the next issue and then what comes from the original Temple mound and that Muslims purposely built the Dome there to disrespect the Jews and state their dominance over them. Idiots here are spreading lies in support of their Islamic jiahadist goals – it is not about a homeland and wanting to live in peace. They will never offer peace and they have proven this by repeatedly engaging in warfare, threats, and terrorism against the Jewish people, then trying to deflect their evil ways upon the Israelis. Sickening.
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
Hatshepsut, also spelled Hatchepsut, female king of Egypt (reigned in her own right c. 1473–58 bce ) who attained unprecedented power for a woman, adopting the full titles and regalia of a pharaoh.
Why is Hatshepsut so famous?
Hatshepsut was a female king of Egypt (reigned in her own right c. 1473–58 BCE) who attained unprecedented power for a woman, adopting the full titles and regalia of a pharaoh.
How did Hatshepsut come to power?
Hatshepsut married her half brother, Thutmose II, who inherited the throne from their father, Thutmose I, and made Hatshepsut his consort. When Thutmose II died, Hatshepsut became regent for her stepson, Thutmose III, and eventually the two became corulers of Egypt. Hatshepsut was the dominant king. In representations, she wears traditional regalia.
What was Hatshepsut’s reign like?
Hatshepsut’s reign was essentially a peaceful one, and her foreign policy was based on trade rather than war. Restoration and building were important royal duties, and she undertook extensive building programs, namely on the temples of the national god Amon-Re the Karnak temple complex and the Dayr al-Baḥrī temple, a funerary monument for herself.
What was Hatshepsut's family like?
Hatshepsut was born to Thutmose I and his consort Ahmose. She married her half brother, Thutmose II, and had a daughter, Neferure. When Thutmose II inherited the throne, Hatshepsut became his consort. The throne later passed to his son, Thutmose III, born to a lesser harem queen. Hatshepsut acted as regent and then coruler.
How did Hatshepsut die?
The cause of Hatshepsut's death is not known. Her mummy was missing from its sarcophagus when her tomb was excavated in the 1920s. There are several theories about her demise, including that she either suffered from cancer or was murdered, possibly by her stepson. No theory has been proved, nor has her body been conclusively identified.
Hatshepsut, the elder daughter of the 18th-dynasty king Thutmose I and his consort Ahmose, was married to her half brother Thutmose II, son of the lady Mutnofret. Since three of Mutnofret’s older sons had died prematurely, Thutmose II inherited his father’s throne about 1492 bce , with Hatshepsut as his consort. Hatshepsut bore one daughter, Neferure, but no son. When her husband died about 1479 bce , the throne passed to his son Thutmose III, born to Isis, a lesser harem queen. As Thutmose III was an infant, Hatshepsut acted as regent for the young king.
For the first few years of her stepson’s reign, Hatshepsut was an entirely conventional regent. But, by the end of his seventh regnal year, she had been crowned king and adopted a full royal titulary (the royal protocol adopted by Egyptian sovereigns). Hatshepsut and Thutmose III were now corulers of Egypt, with Hatshepsut very much the dominant king. Hitherto Hatshepsut had been depicted as a typical queen, with a female body and appropriately feminine garments. But now, after a brief period of experimentation that involved combining a female body with kingly (male) regalia, her formal portraits began to show Hatshepsut with a male body, wearing the traditional regalia of kilt, crown or head-cloth, and false beard. To dismiss this as a serious attempt to pass herself off as a man is to misunderstand Egyptian artistic convention, which showed things not as they were but as they should be. In causing herself to be depicted as a traditional king, Hatshepsut ensured that this is what she would become.
Hatshepsut never explained why she took the throne or how she persuaded Egypt’s elite to accept her new position. However, an essential element of her success was a group of loyal officials, many handpicked, who controlled all the key positions in her government. Most prominent amongst these was Senenmut, overseer of all royal works and tutor to Neferure. Some observers have suggested that Hatshepsut and Senenmut may have been lovers, but there is no evidence to support this claim.
Traditionally, Egyptian kings defended their land against the enemies who lurked at Egypt’s borders. Hatshepsut’s reign was essentially a peaceful one, and her foreign policy was based on trade rather than war. But scenes on the walls of her Dayr al-Baḥrī temple, in western Thebes, suggest that she began with a short, successful military campaign in Nubia. More-complete scenes show Hatshepsut’s seaborne trading expedition to Punt, a trading centre (since vanished) on the East African coast beyond the southernmost end of the Red Sea. Gold, ebony, animal skins, baboons, processed myrrh, and living myrrh trees were brought back to Egypt, and the trees were planted in the gardens of Dayr al-Baḥrī.
Restoration and building were important royal duties. Hatshepsut claimed, falsely, to have restored the damage wrought by the Hyksos (Asian) kings during their rule in Egypt. She undertook an extensive building program. In Thebes this focused on the temples of her divine father, the national god Amon-Re (see Amon). At the Karnak temple complex, she remodeled her earthly father’s hypostyle hall, added a barque shrine (the Red Chapel), and introduced two pairs of obelisks. At Beni Hasan in Middle Egypt, she built a rock-cut temple known in Greek as Speos Artemidos. Her supreme achievement was her Dayr al-Baḥrī temple designed as a funerary monument for Hatshepsut, it was dedicated to Amon-Re and included a series of chapels dedicated to Osiris, Re, Hathor, Anubis, and the royal ancestors. Hatshepsut was to be interred in the Valley of the Kings, where she extended her father’s tomb so that the two could lie together.
Toward the end of her reign, Hatshepsut allowed Thutmose to play an increasingly prominent role in state affairs following her death, Thutmose III ruled Egypt alone for 33 years. At the end of his reign, an attempt was made to remove all traces of Hatshepsut’s rule. Her statues were torn down, her monuments were defaced, and her name was removed from the official king list. Early scholars interpreted this as an act of vengeance, but it seems that Thutmose was ensuring that the succession would run from Thutmose I through Thutmose II to Thutmose III without female interruption. Hatshepsut sank into obscurity until 1822, when the decoding of hieroglyphic script allowed archaeologists to read the Dayr al-Baḥrī inscriptions. Initially the discrepancy between the female name and the male image caused confusion, but today the Thutmoside succession is well understood.
Early Life and Taking Control of the Hunnic Empire
Born in Pannonia, a province of the Roman Empire (present-day Transdanubia, Hungary), circa 406, Attila the Hun and his brother, Bleda, were named co-rulers of the Huns in 434. Upon murdering his brother in 445, Attila became the 5th-century king of the Hunnic Empire and the sole ruler of the Huns.
Attila united the tribes of the Hun kingdom and was said to be a just ruler to his own people. But Attila was also an aggressive and ruthless leader. He expanded the rule of the Huns to include many Germanic tribes and attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in wars of extraction, devastating lands from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and inspiring fear throughout the late Roman Empire.
Although Louis XIV’s mother, Anne, had become his regent when he took the throne as a child, Chief Minister Cardinal Jules Mazarin held the true power throughout Louis XIV&aposs early reign. It wasn&apost until Mazarin died in 1661, when Louis XIV was in his 20s, that the young king finally took control of the French government. Upon assuming full responsibility for the kingdom, Louis XIV quickly set about reforming France according to his own vision.
His first goal as absolute monarch was to centralize and rein in control of France. With the help of his finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV established reforms that cut France&aposs deficit and promoted industrial growth. During his reign, Louis XIV managed to improve France&aposs disorganized system of taxation and limit formerly haphazard borrowing practices. He also conveniently declared members of nobility exempt from paying taxes, causing them to become even more fiscally dependent on the crown.
In implementing administrative reforms toward a more orderly and stable French government, Louis XIV forced provincial nobles to relinquish their former political influence. In so doing, he constructed a more centralized administration with the bourgeoisie, or middle class, as its foundation.
Along with his changes to the government, Louis XIV created a number of programs and institutes to infuse more of the arts into French culture. In this vein, the Academy of Inscriptions and Belle-Lettres was founded in 1663, followed by the Royal Academy of Music in 1666. Louis XIV also had Colbert oversee the construction of the Paris Observatory from 1667 to 1672.
The Statler Brothers
Named after a brand of tissues, the four members of the Statler Brothers did not in fact share a fraternal bond what they did share, however, was the distinction of being one of the most successful vocal harmony groups in the history of country music. Formed in the group's home base of Staunton, Virginia, in 1955, the Statlers were originally a church trio comprised of bass vocalist Harold Reid (born August 21, 1939), baritone Phil Balsley (August 8, 1939), and tenor Lew DeWitt (March 12, 1938). In 1960, Reid's younger brother Don (born June 5, 1945) signed on to take the lead vocal reins, and the quartet performed gospel music under the name the Kingsmen.
After arranging a meeting with the promotional department for a local Johnny Cash concert, the Kingsmen were asked to open the performance. Cash was so impressed that he invited the group to join the tour, and after changing their name to the Statler Brothers, they remained on the road with Cash from 1963 to 1971. The Statlers signed to Columbia in 1964 and a year later scored a huge country and pop hit with DeWitt's "Flowers on the Wall," which also lent its name to their 1966 debut album. 1967's The Statler Brothers Sing the Big Hits held true to its title's promise, generating a pair of Top Ten singles in "Ruthless" and "You Can't Have Your Kate and Edith, Too."
In 1969, the quartet moved to Mercury Records, where they remained for over two decades their first single for the label, 1970's "Bed of Rose's," was a Top Ten hit. In the same year, they held their first Fourth of July picnic for decades, the celebration remained an annual holiday staple, drawing tens of thousands of fans each summer. Throughout the first half of the '70s, the Statlers remained fixtures on the Top 40 charts thanks to a string of nostalgic singles like 1972's "Do You Remember These" and "The Class of '57," 1973's "Carry Me Back," and 1974's "Whatever Happened to Randolph Scott." Their LPs of the period were often concept records: 1972's The Statler Brothers Sing Country Symphonies in E Major was whimsically formatted like an orchestral performance (complete with side-break "intermission"), while 1975's joint release Holy Bible/Old Testament and Holy Bible/New Testament fulfilled the group's long-standing dream to record a gospel project. 1973's Alive at the Johnny Mack Brown High School, on the other hand, was a tongue-in-cheek effort recorded under the group's comic alias Lester "Roadhog" Moran & the Cadillac Cowboys.
The sentimental "I'll Go to My Grave Loving You" was a Top Five hit in 1975 and was included on the Statlers' first best-of compilation, released later in the same year. After a series of Top Ten hits that included 1977's "The Movies" (another recurring Statler theme) and "I Was There," they earned their first chart-topper in 1978 with "Do You Know You Are My Sunshine," from the album Entertainers. On & off the Record. In 1980 the Statler Brothers celebrated their first decade on Mercury with 10th Anniversary, which featured the smash "Charlotte's Web," taken from the film Smokey & the Bandit, Pt. 2, in which the group also co-starred.
After 1982's The Legend Goes On, DeWitt was forced to leave the band as a result of Crohn's disease the illness ultimately killed him on August 15, 1990. The remaining Statlers tapped Jimmy Fortune as his successor, and immediately Fortune earned the group its second number one with his "Elizabeth" (an homage to actress Elizabeth Taylor), from the album Today. Their next two LPs, 1984's Atlanta Blue and 1985's Pardners in Rhyme, were credited simply to the Statlers each record generated a number one hit -- "My Only Love" and "Too Much on My Heart," respectively -- again composed by Fortune. They returned as the Statler Brothers for the 1986 inspirational release Radio Gospel Favorites, followed later in the year by Four for the Show. 1987's Maple Street Memories produced the Top Ten single "Forever" 1989's "More Than a Name on the Wall," which peaked at number six, was their last significant hit. They continued releasing albums, however, and in addition to remaining a popular touring act in the '90s, the Statler Brothers also hosted a long-running variety show on TNN.
In 2002, the group announced their retirement from the road. On October 26, they played their last concert at the 10,000-seat Salem Civic Center in Salem, Virginia, not far from Staunton, where they'd started out and where they continued to maintain their headquarters. Although no longer touring, the group remained active, releasing a new gospel album, Amen, on Crossroads Records and following it in 2003 with a CD/DVD of their final show. In 2006, Mercury released Favorites, a 12-song compilation handpicked by the band's remaining members. The album features only the group's original works recorded after the departure of DeWitt, ranging from 1983 to 1993. Founding member Harold Reid died on April 24, 2020 due to kidney failure he was 80 years old.