I am all for a more enlightened view!

Submitted by Salomon Benzimra (Canada), Apr 5, 2006 at 05:41

Let me just pursue the enlightenment process:

1) The geographical region called Palestine has never been the "ancestral land of the Palestinians". Census data from Ottoman and British sources confirm this. The British, together with Syrian official sources, also confirm the massive, illegal immigration of surrounding Arabs to Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s. Even Sir Winston Churchill recognized this.

2) As for which party has "better title to the land", it is useful to remember that Israel is there by international law. The Mandate of 1922, voted by the Council of the League of Nations made this abundantly clear when it "recognize[d] the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national homeland in that country". It is also useful to recall that all the surrounding Arab countries (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan) were created through the same process, and at roughly the same time. The difference is that the Arabs got a total land area over 100 times of what was allocated to the Jews. This should put the notion of "land for peace" in a proper context.

So, if the Palestinians believe that the history of the region started in 1967, they should be reminded of 1922 and the Mandate, which is, or should be, the central document in any attempt to solve the conflict rationally.

---

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".