Infidel's muddled history

Submitted by Bader S (Saudi Arabia), Mar 11, 2006 at 06:48

In answer to my question, Did the Jewish Europeans not snatch land from Palestinians through violence, deceit, terror etc? "Infidel's" answer was categorically NO

Infidel then recommends that I stop listening to Muslim lies.

Well here is what I am listening to:

"One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled" (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html)

The words "fled" and "expelled" in the above quotation from the UN would support the fact that land was snatched from Palestinians who "fled" or were "expelled"

Infidel's muddle of who owned or lived on the land can be seen in his statement " the world has come to believe that the nation of Israel was created from land owned and inhabited by Arab Palestinians. Nothing could be further from the truth"

But according to the U.S. Library of Congress ,
"As a geographic unit, Palestine extended from the Mediterranean on the west to the Arabian Desert on the east and from the lower Litani River in the north to the Gaza Valley in the south. It was named after the Philistines, who occupied the southern coastal region in the twelfth century B.C. The name Philistia was used in the second century A.D. to designate Syria Palestina, which formed the southern third of the Roman province of Syria"

AND

"Demographically its population was overwhelmingly Arab, mainly Muslim, but with an important Christian merchant and professional class residing in the cities. The Jewish population of Palestine before 1880 consisted of fewer than 25,000 people, two-thirds of whom lived in Jerusalem where they made up half the population (and from 1890 on more than half the population). These were Orthodox Jews, many of whom had immigrated to Palestine simply to be buried in the Holy Land, and who had no real political interest in establishing a Jewish entity. They were supported by alms given by world Jewry." (http://countrystudies.us/israel/6.htm)

For a graphical representation of Land ownership see map here: http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg (enlarged view)
Clearly, the map shows an overwhelming ownership of the land of Palestine by Palestinians.

With regard to Britain, the Balfour Declaration, and the League of Nation mandate, here are some historical pointers:

"In principle, the Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the League's Covenant, but in fact the Mandate's historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation."

"The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora"."

"The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. "

The assurances mentioned above refer to what the British promised the Arabs for their assistance in the war against the Turks. Prior to the Balfour Declaration there was an explicit understanding between Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, and Sherif Husain, Emir of Mecca, who held the special status of the Keeper of Islam's most holy cities, who " acted as a representative of the Arab peoples."

"the Sherif unequivocally demanded "independence of the Arab countries", specifying in detail the boundaries of the territories in question, which clearly included Palestine. McMahon confirmed that "Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca". "

Obviously the British proved to be liars with regard to these assurances.

Now with regard to the Jewish home land:

"Herzl mentioned Palestine and Argentina but, the following year, the first Zionist Congress held in Basle declared that the goal of zionism was to "create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law"."

"Following rejection by the Ottoman authorities of his ideas, Herzl approached the British, German, Belgian and Italian Governments and such far-flung locations as Cyprus, East Africa and the Congo were considered, but did not materialize."

The above quotes can be found here
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument

There are facts, truths, and collective memories regarding the Question of Palestine which cannot be hidden, overwritten, or glossed over by the Zionist propaganda that some people shovel out constantly in order to blind rational and just people to the truth.

If Mark Twain did not see any Palestinian inhabitants in 1840 then that is his problem. And if the owners of the land, which has been proved to be predominantly Palestinian Arabs, wanted to leave their land barren then that is their prerogative.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".