The Myth Of Palestine

Crusaders in Palestine, 14th July 1099, painting hanging at Chateau de Versailles, France

 

DON'T MISS READING THE MYTH OF PALESTINE PART II

Our thoughts today are with Israel, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his family.

The Palestinian people [do] not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.  (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)

The facts are as follows based on UN records:

   1. Palestine was a British invention after WWI and never existed as an independent state. Most of this "Palestine" is called Jordan today.

   2. The small number of people (700,000) occupied the entire Palestine Mandate which included Israel, the West Bank, Golon Heights, Gaza and Jordan today. Most of the Arab populations lived East of the Jordan River.

   3. The common usage of the word "Palestinian" refers to people who live in Palestine:  Arabs (a "mixed race of Arabic speaking peoples"), Bedouins, Christians, Druze, and Jews.

   4. Under Muslim rule the region had been reduced to a barren wasteland. Jews were the only people that produced anything causing resentment from the masses of illiterate and poverty-ridden Arabs. Jews never held any political power until 1948.

   5. The British didn't want a Jewish majority in the region.  This led in later years to a policy of systematically reduced immigration quotas, and indirectly to the death of millions of Jewish refugees in Europe twenty some years later. The British would illegally partition the region into Jordan, (forbidding Jews from living there) then stripped off the Golon Heights giving that to France and Syria. Calling the remainder "Palestine" then flooding it with outside Arabs.

   6. Constant agitation by outside Arabs and others leading to riots and murders of Jews. The British did nothing to stop this. Immigration and travel restrictions were almost universally applied only to Jews, no restriction was placed on Arab immigration to help flood the region with Arabs the British favored. Jews were the only economic success even with all of this going on.

   7. Whenever there were Arab riots, Jewish immigration was restricted.  This was the beginning of the British Policy of Appeasement, and the success of terrorism. The success of terrorism goes on today and appeasement still fails today. When will they ever learn?

   8. All lands acquired by Jews were purchased, not taken according to Arafat's Nazi Uncle in 1937 and the British. Haj Amin al-Husseini was a Nazi war criminal wanted in Yugoslavia and mixed Nazi ideology into Islam. Arafat in fact wasn't even a Palestinian, but was born, raised, and educated in Egypt. According to Forbes, his estate is estimated to be worth over $300 million while he locked his own people into concentration camps.

  9. Between 1950 and 1967 when Jordan and Egypt annexed the West Bank and Gaza, they flooded the area with more Arabs. Even today most Arabs in the West Bank, etc. hold Jordanian passports and Jordanian citizenship. After 1967 Jordan/Egypt relinquished claims to the area then started to scream for a second Palestinian state in addition to the first Palestinian State of Jordan. Before that, they claimed Palestine meant land of the Jews.

  10. Even with immigration from Russia in the 1990's, the majority of Israelis are descended from Arab, Asian, and African Jews including two-thirds of the 870,000 Arab Jews expelled from surrounding Arab Nazi states. Druze, Bedouins, Christians, and some Arabs sided with the Jews in 1948 and serve in the Israeli Army today. The Israeli military has three Arab generals.

  11. Why did the British do this? It's about oil, stupid! Britian didn't give a damn about Arabs or Jews. Just like America today ignores Saudi terrorism it's still about oil.

"If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right?

Well, as an Arab-American journalist says who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than his share of rocks and mortar shells, these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing.

Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland?

"Well, Farah," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem."

That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.

Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.

I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites."

Not true. In fact, the Qur'an says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.

So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Qur'an the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.

The latest round of violence in Israel erupted when Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon tried to visit the Temple Mount, the foundation of the Temple built by Solomon. It is the holiest site for Jews. Sharon and his entourage were met with stones and threats. Can you imagine what it is like for Jews to be threatened, stoned and physically kept out of the holiest site in Judaism?

So what's the solution to the Middle East mayhem? Well, frankly, I don't think there is a man-made solution to the violence. But, if there is one, it needs to begin with truth. Pretending will only lead to more chaos. Treating a 5,000-year-old birthright backed by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence equally with illegitimate claims, wishes and wants gives diplomacy and peacekeeping a bad name."

UPDATE: Sigmund Carl & Alfred has an incredible must read article on the above subject, and kindly quotes from my post here. The darling Anchoress in turn quotes him, and the circle is complete.

Sigmund:

We are asking- no,telling- the Israelis that they must dance with Palestinians and the Arab world. Let's be more succint. We are telling these Jews, that have contributed so much to society and have elevated our culture to heights unknown with their contributions to art, philosophy, medicine, all the sciences and virtually every endeavor known to man, that they must sit down with the very barbarians that threaten to annihilate them in the name of God.

And Michelle Malkin has the answer to 'Sharia banking' in the U.S, hence in total compliance with  the Muslim law. Well that's comforting to know....

DON'T MISS READING THE MYTH OF PALESTINE PART II

Comments

[Alexandra]

AA,

Why are you shouting all in capitals,(which have now been taken out)? No one else here is cursing or shouting in case you have not noticed.

The answer to your question is you are an Arab, with a heritage that can be traced to one of your neighboring countries, as I have explained extensively in my post above and in the subsequent Part II

[a a]

This is all [deleted by ATB]! I am a Muslim Palestinian born in Jerusalem. If there is no Palestine, then why in the world do you keep referring to it? And if there is no Palestine what am I?

[Liquid]

John, again, sharing scripture when one feels inspired is a good thing where I come from, again, I think anyone reading this can see that I never once applied any of my own interpretation of Numbers when I posted it...that was your inflection and it just boggles my mind still that you, a vicar try to tell me to stop it or now in your explanation are trying to save me in the future from "scripture battles???" and although I am trying truly to appreciate your effort, since its pretty easy to assume now that you meant future "scripture battles with you" LOL But seriously, I don't care to get into interpretation of God's word with you, as I am sure you and I would not agree on many things let alone what Job meant or Matthew so, That is no insult to you at all, its just when you quoted the part of Amos and stopped where you did, it told me alot. I would go on with this, but I just can't help thinking about something I read today on Godwin's blog so I guess I will call it a night because your liberal convictions and my conservative ones would never agree on Palestine.

And I promise you right now John, I won't ever 'directly quote' any of God's word to you if you promise to never quote any of Noam Chomsky's to me. Deal? LOL

[John Wilkins]

Not sure why it matters if Fisk is banned from coming to the US. Is he a terrorist? It seems to indicate that the government is afraid of something. There seem to be enough facts about Sharon that Belgium thinks he should stand trial.

So what about the libel? The problem comparing Fisk and Time is that Fisk actually has the facts to back it up. Time, however, relied on shoddy journalism. Besides, Sharon didn't really win, did he? Time never retracted.

For lots of us allowing a fascist group to go in and murder children is... a war crime. 1800 people died in the sabra and shatila massacre, and the Kahan commission was criticized immensely in Israel for its whitewash.

But all this seems to me is a way of discrediting Sonn and Fisk without actually reading what they say, which is quite typical.

Liquid - my point in quoting scripture was to demonstrate that scripture doesn't prove anything about Israel's right to the land. It is very clear about a few things: social justice is crucial to Israelite consciousness - and God is not simply a God for the Israelits. He frees everyone.

As far as the Messianic closing of scripture, who knows when that might be or what it means? We simply don't know. It probably meant the restoration of the temple by the Persians. That was a long time ago.

To be more precise: you can use scripture all you want, but it doesn't prove anything, and it might not prove what you want it to.

I'm not interested in being a policeman. I was just saving you from ridiculous scripture battles.

[Nasty_ninety]

One other thing of interest here John, I am not attacking Sonn as a person, I am attacking her justifying Johnny Walker as merely following Islamic teaching on jihad. As far as Fisk is concerned, I didn't attack him personally, I merely pointed out that he made the exact same accusations that the Times made concerning Ariel Sharon. Sharon sued them for libel and he won. I can't help it if they printed utterly false things about Sharon and I can't help it if other people believe false things about Sharon either. Truth and knowing the facts doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people anymore.

[Liquid]

"Liquid, My point about not using scripture is that most people don't know what they are talking about when quoting it. Which was the case with your examples"

Johm, ha ha...could say the same for journalist that speak arabic huh? Doesn't change their bias does it?

Anyway...When you told me in your post to STOP USING SCRIPTURE, instead of perhaps simply asking why I had put it there, you chose to quote part of Amos, trying to make your point and btw, leaving out the restoration part when you decided to police the scripture I had shared. Apparently, you interpreted the scripture which I had put down prior onto your own personal demons and now are trying to claim it was irrevalent to this thread because, YOU..."the self appointed religous police"...simply made that conclusion, but any of the readers here can scroll right on up and see I shared a scripture and NEVER once added any of my own words in that post to try to manipulate what the scripture meaning was. (some things can be left to the spirit for that job)

BTW John, since I know you won't ask...the reason that I felt inspired (guess what...some people do) to put that scripture down was NOT because of anything I had read IN YOUR POST....but because I had read what Alexandra had written, "Israel is thus the thorn in their side"

The only thing I see as promising about you so far John, is that you admit that Alexandra is smart which is much improvement over confused eh?

[Nasty_ninety]

John, there is nothing wrong with doing a Google Search to quote people accurately at all. I happen to like quoting what people say with as much accuracy as possible. I didn’t facts like Fisk is banned from coming to the US (I guess he ranks right up there with other undesirables). There is nothing wrong with exposing deceitful people in my opinion. I would like you to tell me whether you think muslims should be able to practice all forms of jihad in the USA with impunity however? Would I be a bigot to you if I said I think that Islamic jihad (war) against non-muslims is evil? Or do you think that 9-11 was permissible and a good thing? Maybe you do? Incidently, I am not the only one who thinks that Sonn is indeed sympathetic to muslims being allowed to wage all types of jihad.

[John Wilkins]

Alexandra,

I'll accept what you say about the plan for battle after the Oslo accords. I'd like evidence, but - I hope I've made it clear - I was never a fan of Arafat or his cronies. But one could say the same thing of the Israelis: did they ever really plan to stop the settlements?

As far as memory - yes, we do remember: but I don't blame the Italians or the Pharisees for killing Jesus. As you say, Motive is important.

Which brings me to my last point: the motive of most Palestinians and Israelis is security and peace. I suspect that for their leaders, it is power and glory. Alas, we need leaders who are creative enough to find some sort of peace.

Nasty - so, what did you do, a Google search on Sonn and Fisk so you could use ad hominem attacks upon them? Sonn is one of the most well-respected scholars on Islam in the US. Fisk is one of the only journalists who actually reads and speaks Arabic. Go and read and give me a point you disagree with, not by attributing guilt by association. It just confirms both your arrogance and ignorance.

Nasty, I do happen to think that Sharon was a war criminal. And there are plenty of Israelis who think the same. Look of thie history of the PHalangists sometime.

Liquid, My point about not using scripture is that most people don't know what they are talking about when quoting it. Which was the case with your examples.

Why am I on this blog? I love the pictures. And the host is smart. Can't ask for much more.

[Alexandra]

John,

Barak almost offered something. They were very close, but in the end, Arafat wasn't offered anything concrete. If you can find a copy of the actual document that Barak offered Arafat, and not merely hearsay, I will submit to your superiority.

No diplomat ever releases anything but signed agreements, you should know that, so I am not sure what you are referring to.

As for "hearsay": Marwan Barghouti, Nabil Sha'ath and others high in Arafat's regime admitted openly that Arafat began planning the Oslo war many months in advance; this means, of course, that he went to Camp David knowing in advance that he was going to reject whatever was put on the table, and went there with the only aim to get Israel to make more public concessions, so that they could serve as the starting point for the next round.

If you go to the public reports of the times, as well as the testimony of the people involved (including Bill Clinton, as well as the Palestinians), you will see that the Palestinians never attempted to deny that they had rejected Barak's offer, because they were not willing to compromise on the demand that they be allowed unlimited immigration of 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation "refugees" and their cousins, in-laws, etc., not into their new state of Palestine, but into Israel.

....why should I care that the PLO was formed in 1964?

I don't know why you personally should care for anything as you seem to be

amused that [I am] still fighting those old battles. Of course, lots of Israelis and Palestinians are still talking about what people have done to them in the past.

Just as we Christians talk about The Passion "ad nauseam", and all the other atrocities that have been carried out in the name of religion and otherwise, world-wide, so do the Israelis and Palestinians talk about what has been done to them in the past.

The difference is that they are still forced to live these atrocities every single day when they walk out into the street, and you and I are not. It is incredibly judgemental to belittle this major factor.

As for the date I gave earlier I actually said:

Unfortunately, most people are historically illiterate, so they do not realize that the PLO was founded in 1964, years before the Israeli "occupation" ever began…and, as you will recall, that "occupation" of Israel's own historical heartland (about 80% of the territory of which is unpopulated) would have ended immediately, if any Arab whatsoever had been willing to negotiate or acknowledge Israel's existence at that point (this was before the Arabs formulated the plan of Israel's destruction in phases).

That makes it quite obvious why I give the date, and it has nothing to do with their existence but everything to do with their motive, but I am sure you understood that quite well.

[Nasty_ninety]

Now that I have admitted that I am a bigot to the prophet mohammed... now that my confession to you is out of the way preist... you go on to say that I should read Frisk. "How many books on Islamic or Arab history have you read? Not just articles. Not merely Bernard Lewis, who gets all his sources from Turkey, but others, like Robert Fisk or Tamara Sonn? It doesn't matter: that you think you can understand billions of individuals with such sweeping generalizations merely indicates that yes, human beings prefer simple thoughts"

First of all I would like to address one of the sources you are allowing yourself to be influenced by… Robert Fisk. He accuses Ariel Sharon of being a “war criminal”. Interesting thing is, he’s not the only one who has made that accusation! Were you aware that the Times magazine also published the same accusation against Ariel Sharon? Did you know that he sued them for libel? The case was tried in US courts? Sharon won. Since the New York Times article was in full agreement with Fisk’s opinion concerning Ariel Sharon being a war criminal, and you are also in agreement with this opinion, and the New York Times was guilty of libel, what about Fisk being guilty of libel? I think I would agree with the court’s decision here, wink wink.

Then there is Tamara Sonn, who testified at the defense trial of Johnny Jihad Walker (Lindh) who converted to Islam and became the American Taliban. She argued on Johnny Walker’s defense that he was merely obeying the Islamic teaching of waging jihad (as though this is a lawful activity, don’t forget Johnny Walker was fighting along side the Taliban against the US soldiers besides the Northern Alliance). The following is a quote concerning exactly what she said in this case…

"Since the Taliban believed they were fighting a war of self-defense against the Northern Alliance, they believed they were engaged in a jihad," Sonn said. "I was therefore asked to comment specifically on the nature and meaning of jihad."
In addition, Sonn examined Lindh regarding "his understanding of Islam and jihad" … "I questioned him – and found that he seemed deeply devout and had a mainstream understanding of jihad as being of two kinds," Sonn said, citing both "‘greater jihad' – the ongoing struggle to become a better person" and "‘lesser jihad' – the military action, which is required in self-defense or in defense of those under attack."
Do you see the contention here? It’s that Johnny Walker was just practicing what Islam teaches. Do you also wish muslims should be allowed to freely wage all forms of jihad here in the USA and never be prosecuted as well because this falls under “freedom of religion”? All people who would say “we don’t want that in the USA” would without a doubt be bigots to you!

[Liquid]

John's quote "How many books on Islamic or Arab history have you read? Not just articles. Not merely Bernard Lewis, who gets all his sources from Turkey, but others, like Robert Fisk or Tamara Sonn? It doesn't matter: that you think you can understand billions of individuals with such sweeping generalizations merely indicates that yes, human beings prefer simple thoughts."
---------------------

Wow John, I have to wonder what your real agenda on this blog is about..so I back tracked a bit and on your own blog and after you insult All things Beautiful implying that it is confused you go on to say this...

----------------------
"Although, as a human being, I hope that Sharon is only taken in God's time, Sharon is one of the world leaders I have truly despised, like Arafat (I think they needed each other), Mugabe, Mobutu (a good friend of Sharon), Somoza, Pinochet, and Kissenger. He was a brutal soldier, and deeply corrupt. Lord forgive me." then you go on to say on your blog "Sharon was found by the Kahan commission to be responsible for the 62 hour rampage, resulting in the murder of infants, children, and women."
------------------------

NOW before I go on...I would like to add for the loyal readers here of Alexandra's blog that "Any reference to the 1982 massacres should always include mention that it was the Lebanese Christian militiamen who carried out the massacres and that Israel's Kahane Commission found that Sharon was indirectly responsible for the massacres because he did not anticipate that the Lebanese Christian militia allied with Israel would engage in such killing, and did not take appropriate action to prevent the massacres"
Check out the SOURCE

Now I have to admit I was shocked John to find out you were a vicar of a parish, because seriously, my first interaction with you on this blog here was you playing the religious police telling me to STOP USING SCRIPTURE.

I gotta ask you up front John, do you teach your members in your church to stop using scripture? And yet when I look back at it, you had said this after you yourself used scripture. I felt that hypocritical actually, in fact you shared Amos 6:14 and Amos 10:7 with us all and yet you stopped right there and didn't go on to share Amos 9 8Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD. 9For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. 10All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us. 11In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. 13Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 5And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

I guess you left it out like you did the "indirect responsibility for sharon" huh?

As for your reply to me about the president of Iran...the more I read your sources like Fisk or Sonn, IMHO, I have come to the conclusion that, even though you say you are not, you are definately pro palestinian state and very anti Sharon. You are entitled to your own opinion, I just don't agree with yours and I am definately not confused about mine nor do I think Alexandra's All Things Beautiful is either. The nice thing about being on her blog is that there are no religious police BUT Alexandra...and I have never seen her rope even the back pews off yet. *wink wink*

[John Wilkins]

Nasty: i'm a priest. I can fnd some pretty disturbing stuff in my own Christian literature. Has nothing to do with my own faith/ You can quote the Koran, but it doesn't show you know anything about Muslims.

[Nasty_Ninety]

I proudly admit that I am bigoted and the following is a quote from the "prophet" himself... if you can tell yourself it is wrong to be a bigot against a "prophet" who proclaims things like the following.... I don't know what is wrong with you... please read the following quote from Mohammed himself (keeping in mind his followers hold that this is also lawful for them as well)...

Ishaq:326 "Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’"Ishaq:327 "Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’"Ishaq:517 "Khaybar was stormed by the Apostle’s squadron, fully armed, powerful and strong. It brought certain humiliation with Muslim men in its midst. We attacked and they met their doom. Muhammad conquered the Jews in fighting that day as they opened their eyes to our dust."

You know most people in western societies would really frown upon a man who makes claims like this. When they slaughter people who are not in their "true religion" and enslave people, and steal their property because they claim God Himself said "It's OK for you to commit crimes against others", what do you propose we do with such people? Should we tell the cops "don't do anything" because it would be bigoted to do so? Is that what you would like? What if people who follow such a prophet as this came to your home obeying his commands and teachings as you can plainly read above on you? Would you say come on in and obey God at my expense? Seems to me that a truly "un-bigoted" person such as you are, would have to be consistent and let them!! As for me, I choose to be a bigot against such a false prophet and those who would do as he does.

[John Wilkins]

Hi Alexandra,

Barak almost offered something. They were very close, but in the end, Arafat wasn't offered anything concrete. If you can find a copy of the actual document that Barak offered Arafat, and not merely heresay, I will submit to your superiority. I don't think the issue, however, is if Arafat a good guy. I think Barak was a much better guy.

As far as immigration, there are creative solutions out there. Take one for example: change some of the west bank boundaries so that the settlers stay where they are, and add a little land on the south for some immigrants. Offer compensation for those who do not return but had their homes destroyed. This can come from international and Arab sources, and not from Israel. Let there be symbolic right of return, while practically restricting it.

As far as historical heartland goes, I'm not sure what the criteria are for "historical." some argue that most Jews are descendents of the Khazars. But does it matter? Arabs think its their historial heartland, but it gives them no right to kick Israelis out.

I admit, I'm amused that you are still fighting those old battles. Of course, lots of Israelis and Palestinians are still talking about what people have done to them in the past. That's not going to help us create peace. In otherwords, why should I care that the PLO was formed in 1964? When was the IRA formed? Did that mean the Irish didn't exist beforehand?

Nasty, why don't you just admit you are a bigot. The antagonism with Islam came first from the crusades. Have you read any of the Islamic histories? Christians were experts at their brutality. We were superb at our instruments of torture. BTW: I do think Islamic fanaticism is dangerous. I do, however, think that Osama and other "fundamentalists" are more interested in political games than religion. That's my opinon, and i'll back it up if I must.

How many books on Islamic or Arab history have you read? Not just articles. Not merely Bernard Lewis, who gets all his sources from Turkey, but others, like Robert Fisk or Tamara Sonn? It doesn't matter: that you think you can understand billions of individuals with such sweeping generalizations merely indicates that yes, human beings prefer simple thoughts.

Liquid, if the president of Iran called himself whatever, then he would be whatever. But why go from the particulars to the abstract or the fantastic here? I mean, he's not claiming that, is he? We're not talking about a single person, either, but millions of people. They call themselves Palestinian, whether we like it or not. It's a fact on the ground, just like the settlers.

[Alexandra]

John,

You are simply wrong.

Arafat rejected Barak's offer because he showed his hand openly: Arafat demanded, not the right of return of "Palestinians" into "Palestine", on 95% of the 1949 armistice lines, but, rather, the "right of return' of "Palestinians" into Israel, in order to destroy it demographically from within. Who ever heard of someone defining a national aspiration as the immigration of his people into someone else's country?

Unfortunately, most people are historically illiterate, so they do not realize that the PLO was founded in 1964, years before the Israeli "occupation" ever began…and, as you will recall, that "occupation" of Israel's own historical heartland (about 80% of the territory of which is unpopulated) would have ended immediately, if any Arab whatsoever had been willing to negotiate or acknowledge Israel's existence at that point (this was before the Arabs formulated the plan of Israel's destruction in phases).

[liquid]

I have heard alot of people say, "Well, they won't bother me because I am not Jewish" since the Jews get blamed for everything by the islamist media and I think this is how many decieve themselves into thinking that this "domination" idea is limited in the world to the middle east, but people better wake up and understand it is for all the nonbelievers of allah! It doesn't matter if you are athiest or angelican or buddist or a muslim that is in the wrong place at the wrong time because when this wild eyed jihad feels it's "chess pieces are in place" or that they have become the majority, their goal is to make all bow down to allah. The wahabbi mindset along with the spirit of jihad and visions of the mahdi are unleashing in open society and here in the west it is silently using our own freedoms for their agenda behind the doors of patience watching people try to catch up to what is going on.

As for Israel and the Oslo Accords...I feel it was like signing a pact with the devil in that how good is a piece of paper or a truce of peace with a forked tongue? Did the suicide bombings really stop? Wasn't arafat saying one thing to the world and another to his blood thirsty jihadist? BTW...take a look at RELENTLESS

[nasty90]

Apparently John, you don't know the history of Islam very well do you. Perhaps you were also unaware that Islamic armies attacked non-muslim nations since it's inception? Perhaps you are unaware that muslims were kicked out of Spain and when the train bombings took place there (by muslims incidently), they sited this very expulsion from Spain as part of the reason for the bombings. What you don't get is this, that once muslims occupy a land and set up an Islamic state in it, they think it's thier land from that point on. Truth of the matter is this though, they have bigger ambitions then just tiny Israel. They have plans of taking over the whole world. The situation with Israel is unique however. Tiny Israel is less then 8,500 square miles (especially since they the Gaza strip to the muslims). Israel is 265 miles long and at it's widest point 70 miles wide. Get real buddy, this small peice of land isn't the cause of the conflicts.

[Liquid]

Quoting John, "The notion that there "aren't" Palestinians boggles my mind. If someone identifies as such, then they are. That's the best way to look at it. Of course, we could just give them all American passports. And why not?"

Now John, so according to 'your logic', when the president of Iran starts having grand illusional visions that he is the twelve iman ... if he were to identify as such, then I guess in your eyes he would be?

[John Wilkins]

The notion that there "aren't" Palestinians boggles my mind. If someone identifies as such, then they are. That's the best way to look at it. Of course, we could just give them all American passports. And why not?

The notion that all Muslims think the same is, simply put, racism and bigotry. I suggest reading Nagib Mafouz, Edward Said, or Muhammad Asad, to learn actually about how Muslims think. Why should I trust any source that can't read and speak Arabic? Jordanians protested when the hotel was bombed. The PA rejected Iran's anti-semitism. Admittedly, there is great anger against Israel, but this is because there is a steady stream of greivances that are reported continually in the Arab world. Some comes from Anti-Semitic sources, unfortunately. Others simply relate how miserable the Palestinian condition is.

I have no more sympathy for Palestinians, really, than Israelis, and I'm confused, Nasty, by your hypothetical question. You go from a discursis on Islam to something about Palestinians, to a question about what would happen if I were in a Muslim country. It is pure speculation, but I think the issue of affirming the rights of Christians and Jews in Muslim countries is a worthy cause.

Weekendman - both intifadas occurred for two reasons - the corruption of the Palestinian Authority; and the reneging of the Oslo Accords by Israel, after settlements continued to be built. Thus the inspiration for the Israeli organization Peace Now. Check them out.

Whenever someone says "this is Christianity" or "this is Judaism" or "this is the Arab or Muslim world" the red flags get raised. Which Muslims? Which Arabs? I could easily say that all Americans care about are their SUVs, cocaine and Oil. Plenty of Americans fit that description. But it wouldn't be true.

Of course, do Arabs have a screwed up view of the west? No doubt. All this says is that... they are a lot like us. They can't tell the difference between us.

[weekenderman]

"And what has been well-documented is that Palestinian violence has usually followed the breaking of the implicit agreements that there would be a halt of settlement building."

Funny, I've never seen any of that "well-documented" evidence. What I HAVE seen, on the other hand, is Palestinian terrorists attacking Israeli CITIZENS in retaliation for the Israeli military targeting known TERRORIST bastions.

[nasty_ninety]

After having read the content on this thread I thought I would throw in my two cents as well. The contentions that there is no such people as the Palestinians is absolutely correct. There never has been any such nation or people in the history of the world until they were invented by muslims. The only reason there is a conflict between muslims who claim to be Palestinians and Israel is this... Mohammed the inventer of Islam himself. There is no other reason for the conflict other then his teachings and commands. Mohammed commanded his followers (Bukhari Volume 4 Book 52 Number 288)...

"Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama"

Now this was one of the reasons Al-Queda justified the attacks in the USA on 911. Who exactly are the pagans? Anybody whom they deem to be a non-muslim is the answer. This includes Jews and Christians (there are many sermons in the middle east being preached by Islamic clerics concerning the annhilation of all Christians and Jews incidently).

I guess what I am trying to say here is that there really is no other reason that muslims hate Jews and want to annhilate them other then Mohammed told them to do this. There is no other reason.

I just want to pose a question to those who think they are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause... and that is this... "Do you think that muslims will treat you any differently then they have treated people like Nick Berg? Or Paul Johnson (in Saudi Arabia)?" Why do you suppose they decapitated those men and many others? Was this something they came up with themselves? Or was it something Mohammed thier Prophet told them to do? The truth of the matter is this, this is the very thing Mohammed did to the Jewish community of Medina in Saudi Arabia in his day. Mohammed is the only example that muslims follow and they are taught that all other books are corrupted, including the Bible. The only reason there are conflicts in the world today between muslims and non-muslims is because of one person... the prophet of Islam... Mohammed. You cannot understand why muslims are doing what they are doing in the world today unless you understand what is motivating them. And what is motivating their hatred isn't God, it is one man... Mohammed who claimed he was the only source of truth concerning God. Get used to this ugly reality.

[Huan]

I have a simple principle to determine who owns what piece of land, when it comes to nation-states, and that is the right of conquest. This and only this have been the enduring principles throughout history. It does not care who was there first, tracing one's lineage back as far as one can, it does not care who is there most. For better or for worse, the Israeli has managed to hold that sliver of the Middle East by force of arms, and triumphed over those who would try to take it for themselves. There is no morality to conquest. But there is morality afterward, as to how you treat the conquered, and how you behave as the conqueror. As far as I can surmise, the Palestinians are treated better in Israel than in Jordan or Egypt; better than the Jews would have been treated had the situation been reversed.

Unfortunately, I fear the "Palestinians" are a lost people, whose only culture is hate and violence. They have become this way not from occupation but from manipulation and encouragement of their Arab brethrens.

[Liquid]

John, I can bring up scripture any time I want to...and I don't think anyone is exclusive to anyone...When each of us stand in front of our maker we will be accountable and we will be treated fairly and just. God will keep his promises and his covenant.

[John Wilkins]

Hi Sig. Let me get this straight:: You think that muslims and Arabs are particularly good at ethnic cleansing? You have a very generous attitude towards the rest of humanity. As a religious man, I'm pessimistic: I think the temptation to genocide is universal. Know that Primo Levi quote...?

Serbia, Cambodia, Rwanda. The tools for a very easy genocide were surely created by the British, who had plenty of practice, on the Irish, poor Dutch farmers, and the decedents weren't too kind to the first Americans. The germans just took what other people had done better. Perhaps we should give the Israelis credit that its taken them so long. But read the good book, some time. Look up "Amelkites." But the Israelis are different, I suppose, for, they had God on their side.

Sig, I suspect you have some sort of personal interest in Ashwari being a whore. So be it. It doesn't matter. Your statements on Moustapha Barghouti are perplexing. Do you know who he is? He is the one person who has revealed the PA's sorry human rights record and corruption of power. But that doesn't fit neatly in Israeli phantasies about Palestinian aggression. His institute was created to democratise the PA. I wonder why Israel doesn't support his work. Perhaps they fear a non-violent movement more than Fatah or Hamas.

Israeli and Palestinian public opinion on the solution comes pretty close. As always, it will depend on the leaders.

Liquid: Amos 6:14 For, behold, I will raise up against you a nation, O house of Israel, saith The Lord, the G-d of hosts; and they shall afflict you from the entrance of Hamath unto the Brook of the Arabah.

And if you think God is exclusive to the Jews: Amos 10:7
Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith The Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?

My point: stop using scripture.

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

John, it's time to deal with reality. Ashrawi is a whore- putting out for power and influence.

Publicly accusing Israel of 'ethnic cleansing' is an outrageous charge- and an even more outrageous deceit.

The Israelis, as I have noted, have proved to be remarkably inept at 'ethnic cleansing'. The Palestinian population has exploded- as have Israeli paid for services to the Palestinians.

If you want examples of real ethnic cleansing, I'll be happy to provide you with a long list, starting with GIA of Algeria raping and dismembering of children, or the ongoing Arab slave trade in Mauritania.

Got time for the Sudan examples?

[John Wilkins]

Or worse in Chrls I's case.

[John Wilkins]

I think one of our sticking points is that I am making implicit distinctions between the Palestinians and the PA, Hamas, and the Arab League. They have competing interests, and sometimes the PA doesn't know what its real interests are.

As I said, I think that the Palestinians have been ill served by other Arabs and Muslim countries, who exploit their suffering for their own political ends. It doesn't mean that they don't deserve justice themselves. You'll find, also, plenty of Palestinians who have mixed feelings about Arafat. We know that Arafat was corrupt; and through his generosity to his supporters, he corrupted many Palestinians who merely wanted peace. I'm not an idealist.

But there are openings, and plenty of Israelis are aware of them. And it seems that there are Palestinians who do want to get rid of the lot of corrupt officials. Ironically, while the PLO was corrupt, Hamas, internally, is much more fair and effective in distributing health care and services. This has created problems - although Israel surely benefits from such a division for it helps confirm their worst fears.

I'm not sure if I think we can identify "root causes" constructively. What I would do is look at places where Israelis and Palestinians are working together - say the people at Bitterlemons. Expecting people who are always ready to fight to suddenly drop their guns and support peace is unlikely. That is why Abbas is still the best thing going - he was the only PLO leader to object to Arafat's continued war [and for this, he was excluded for a time]. If Israel were to offer Abbas a bit more - and this might merely mean being serious about not allowing settlements to expand - Abbas would gain a bit more power and authority. As it is, most Palestinians think he's a stooge. It's funny, that, for Israelis haven't given him a damned thing.

As I said, there are good plans out there. One common thing about these plans is that they are not imposed with preconditions. It's pretty simple. The Palestinians get 92% West Bank, without criss-crossing or walls, with some border changes so that the current settlements get the same amount of land. There will be some movement.

There is a "formal" nominal, limited "right of return" in the form of some kind of payment, made by international bodies that may not actually include returning to Israel. The Palestinian state agrees not to have a military [like Japan]. It's better than occupation, but it requires Israel to give up some settlements, and the Palestinians to give up weapons. It's not my idea - this was the better offer that Clinton gestured towards [but couldn't quite put on paper].

It's actually a plan that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians support. It's not the choices Likud or Hamas offer. For Likud, its either apartheid or suicide. For Hamas, its either all or suicide. If I were an Israeli, of course, given those choices, I'd choose apartheid. And if I were a Palestinian with that choice, then all. But these are not the only choices.

I remember reading an interesting book that argued that sometimes it is personality that allows for peace or war to happen. Clearly figures like Charles I, Lincoln, or Lyndon B. Johnson are ndividuals with such force of personality they can make things happen for the better. I don't think Sharon or Arafat were the sorts of persons who could really bring peace. There are others. I think the missing link, really, is an American who has a vision. Clinton was close, but then, Barak couldn't put anything on paper, and Arafat couldn't agree to what he couldn't see.

As far as the other comments go, calling Ashwari a whore sounds simply like name calling to me, and merely affirms the depths of our meanness. Even I, in my blog, seek forgiveness for my despising of another human being.

[Liquid]

I agree they are a tool that is being used! They get used to keep the hate going! Arafat himself I think was a tool too because those that supported him used him so they felt their hands were not getting dirty! If people really don't understand the mentality of the Palestinian then you should go read THIS

[Alexandra]

"...how your own view does legitimize such ethnic cleansing. Isn't that what you are saying?"

Absolutely not! What I am saying is that Israel is dealing with a neighbor whose leadership together with its Arab league sponsors at large have done everything to prevent the ordinary man on the street from building a sustainable life for themselves and from obtaining a vision of a prosperous future. The reason for doing so is to maintain the oppressed status in order to prolong the struggle. Arafat & Co. need that struggle to achieve their goal.

Israel certainly has pushed for settlements in an effort to push out disenfranchised Palestinians who were and still are being kept down by their own leaders as a matter of course. That may be a controversial strategy, but certainly does not amount to ethnic cleansing.

But the root cause is the double standard applied by the PLO/PNA vis-a-vis its own people in the way they manipulate these poor sods into believing that they are fighting a noble cause; by duping them into believing that their, as you put it, "Muslim self-consciousness" is being attacked. It's not, but if your leaders prevent your every chance of attaining prosperity all the while carefully spinning such home-grown disenfranchisement as solely caused by the devil incarnate Israel, you have only two choices if you want to protect yourself: (1) educate them about their own lot and incentivise them to kick the entire PLO/PNA/Hamas leadership out or (2) widen the gap between yourself and those brainwashed fanatics as much as you can.

So, if you don't like option (2), what do you suggest is to be done to achieve option (1)?

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

"why should I accept Mushein's words as canonical, and not Ashwari, or Moustapha [not Marwan] Barghouti?"

Simply stated because the Palestinians you mention speak on behalf of a government that is has made vile hatred a part of it's identity. Every day, in schools, in the media and preached from the pulpit, hatred is what the Palestinians are taught is reality.

We are sitting at the table with racists, bigots and worse.

Asking the Israelis to take the word of Barghouti, Ashrawi, et al, is like looking for high mindedness from the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi party.

At least the Nazis hid their agenda- the Palestinians can't be bothered. Just listen to them, in their own words.

If Ashrawi made the least bit of effort to clean her own house before telling Israel to clean theirs, maybe then she wouldn't come across as a whore lecturing in family values.

[Liquid]

And the Lord spake unto Moses, ... saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
... But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

-- Numbers 33: 50–52, 55 (KJV)

[John Wilkins]

Alexandra,

I'm not sure why we should start off with an Arab fantasy, rather than an Israeli one, or one by people who've been working together for peace.

If you are saying that Arabs benefit from the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, I have to concur. It is my suspicion that a real peace with Jordan and a demilitarized Palestinian state would force Arab countries to directly deal with their own internal unrest, which is conveniently distracted by daily reports of Palestinian misfortunes.

Every day, your Arab peasant says, "at least I'm not a Palestinian" and then condemns Israel. Imagine what would happen if Israel and Palestine made peace. Israeli Hawks would find themselves jobless, and the Arab regimes would fall one by one, being unable to handle the inevitable prosperity created by a free trade alliance between Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. My point is simple, oppression breeds rage, and rage is easy for terrorists to exploit. And as long as a pragmatic, non-violent institutions in the West Bank don't succeed in bringing wealth and some stability, utopian, fascistic and violent ones [say, Jihad or Hamas] will replace them.

Dearest Alexandra, why should I accept Mushein's words as canonical, and not Ashwari, or Moustapha [not Marwan] Barghouti? Is what he says credible in 1977? If there is a peace to be made, we should deal with Palestinian and Israeli consciousness as they are now, and work within them. There are a couple good proposals out there.

I'm not being particularly radical on this. Most of the information I get is from Israeli sources - Peace Now, for example. And what has been well-documented is that Palestinian violence has usually followed the breaking of the implicit agreements that there would be a halt of settlement building. I wouldn't want to let Arafat off the hook at all; but it is incredible that the Israelis don't bear some of the responsibility - in particular, Sharon, who always held in contempt other Israelis who were working for peace.

As far as my quote, I think that you might want to note how your own view does legitimize such ethnic cleansing. Isn't that what you are saying? that the Palestinians, or... perhaps we should just call them exiled Israeli Arabs have to be taken off the land that was theirs for generations? That Muslim self-consciousness is wrong or trivial?

I'll be fair. If anything I say assumes that I would want Israel to be eliminated - I'll take my beatings.

[Alexandra]

Hi John

"Unless Israel decides to cleanse the West Bank, a simple end to building settlements would go a long way to discouraging Palestinian rage."

This fatal piece of misinformation is what causes most secular democracies to fail addressing the conflict from the very outset in the appropriate way.

This is not about peace between Palestine and Israel. You mustn't fall into the all-too-comfortable-thought-patterns and familiar retorts when confronted with this argument and just try for one moment to allow for this fact to gain weight in your perception.

If it doesn't, then please start the debate supporting your case, as to why you are persuaded that that is so, and why my position is in fact flawed. The one thing I ask of you is not to brush this key point aside as you will agree with me that it is central to any meaningful debate; meaning, without establishing one's understanding of this very key point, any further debate is by default doomed to be at cross purposes.

Let me start you off: Palestine and the so called 'Palestinians' are mere pawns in the Arab nations' game plan at large, aimed at ridding itself of all Jews from all Arab land.

Israel is thus the thorn in their side. They couldn't care less for the fate of those poor settlers newly referred to as 'Palestinians' were it not for the political and geo-tactical gain derived from their 'struggle' against the hated Zionist regime. Just re-read the opening quote from PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein and before you comment on any other points, specifically consolidate your position with Zahir Muhsein's crystal clear statement.

PS. Your comment about my piece on your own blog I guess we'll leave for another day:

It's the same old: how do we justify the cruelty to Palestinians and undermine the claims that Muslims have in that part of the world. It's the early phase of ethnic cleansing. How easy it is for good people to do.

The early phase of ethnic cleansing, phew heavy accusations there.....

[Dave Schuler]

I'm not sure why European travellers would be reliable interpreters of Arab culture in the 19th century. Why trust them over Arab portraits?

Actually, that was my point, John. And you don't need to interpret culture to determine whether the land has people in it or not, whether the buildings are being maintained, or whether commerce is thriving.

[John wilkins]

Alexandra - as far as "nationality" goes - the nation state is, in itself - a modern concept. The palestinian "nation" may be recent, but there were still twice as many Arabs as Jews in 1946 in Israel [1.3 million to 600,000].

But what does 5000 years of a "birthright" have to do with anything? That's not even the claim the first Zionists used - most of them were secular to begin with.

The point of such historical memory is made, generally, to dehumanize the legitimate complaints of Palestinian people, complains they could make against Arabs as well as Israelis.

Unless Israel decides to cleanse the West Bank, a simple end to building settlements would go a long way to discouraging Palestinian rage.

I'm not sure why European travellers would be reliable interpreters of Arab culture in the 19th century. Why trust them over Arab portraits?

[Dave Schuler]

The situation on property ownership in what is now Israel is a little more complicated than that. To understand you have to go back to the Ottoman. Under the Ottoman there were several different kinds of land: private land (a very small amount mostly owned by Christians), productive land (owned by the State), land reserved for religious use, and waste land (owned by no one but in practice owned by the state). I may be leaving out one or two types.

The Arabs in what is now referred to as Palestine did not own their land under the Ottoman. They were tenants and paid rents.

The question (from the point of view of Arabs living in what is now Palestine) is did the British (and later the Israelis) have the right to sell State land? From their point of view it was entaille.

One factor you leave out is that contra the president of Iran quite some number of the Jews in Israel aren't Ashkenazic but Sephardic, ejected (or the descendants of those ejected) from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, etc. after World War II. From that perspective the just solution to the problem would be a population swap—ejected Jews (and their descendants) to remain in Israel, Arabs to be re-patriated to the majority Arab countries. Never happen, of course.

I've read 19th century American and European travellers' accounts of what's being referred to as Palestine and it tallies pretty closely with what you've described. There's a recent book on 18th and 19th century Arab travellers' accounts of the Jerusalem governate. Unfortunately, it's only available in Arabic but it would be interesting to know what the characterizations were like.

Finally, in a vestigial oral culture like the Arab what is repeated is true, anything that is not repeated is lost. From the point of view of Palestinians living today the stories they've heard are true regardless of their historicity.