Palestinian....Fact or Fiction

[Picaro]

They bought like 7 %, but they own more than 80 %. Most land has been dispossessed, to use the friendlier word.

Israel is not sitting on anywhere near 80% of the Mandate.

This is speculative.

It is borne out by numerous travelogues dating from the end of the 18th century up to the end of the 19th century, and the Ottoman desire to develop the region. After that, Jewish immigrants developed most of the land and infrastructure far beyond what was there before. This is not 'speculative'. It's documented well enough.

 

[Picaro]

Picaro> You claim that the Vatican was given to the Church by Mussolini. That is FALSE.

your inane trolls are not even funny any more. Go ahead and claim something I never said as FALSE is merely stupid, in fact, though it probably qualifies as 'wit' to you.

It has belonged to the Church for hundreds of years.

Again, I never said the Church didn't own it. What grade are you in, anyway? I'm just curious ...

A more accurate statement would be that it wasn't TAKEN AWAY by Mussolini.

Wrong. I made the more accurate statement, and that it was Mussolini that gave the Catholic Church its' own little country, where the Vatican City is sitting, in 1929, and this was done in return for political favors, of course which can take up a whole thread of it's own.

Why do you have to call me ignorant for pointing out the truth of the matter ?

Because you obviously are, and are merely trolling.

 

[Volker]

Israel is not sitting on anywhere near 80% of the Mandate.

This is true. What I wanted to say is, that nearby 80 % of the land of Israel is owned by the government, administered by the Israel Land Administration.

It is borne out by numerous travelogues dating from the end of the 18th century up to the end of the 19th century, and the Ottoman desire to develop the region. After that, Jewish immigrants developed most of the land and infrastructure far beyond what was there before. This is not 'speculative'. It's documented well enough.

Yes, but you can not tell, how Palestine has been developed during the last 50 to 100 years otherwise. No one can. There are many landscapes on earth, which have been developed during this time span.

 

[ludahai]

Again, I never said the Church didn't own it. What grade are you in, anyway? I'm just curious ...

It was much more than own it, the Church was the sovereign power over that are for hundreds of years (and much more)

Wrong. I made the more accurate statement, and that it was Mussolini that gave the Catholic Church its' own little country, where the Vatican City is sitting, in 1929, and this was done in return for political favors, of course which can take up a whole thread of it's own.

The Church was already sovereign over it, so Mussolini could hardly give it to the Church. Several European states actually had diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

 

[Picaro]

This is true. What I wanted to say is, that nearby 80 % of the land of Israel is owned by the government, administered by the Israel Land Administration.

I wasn't aware of that. I knew they were a Democratic Socialist state, but not the details of land ownership, other than kibbutzes were popular among the Pioneers, and later groups as well.

Yes, but you can not tell, how Palestine has been developed during the last 50 to 100 years otherwise. No one can. There are many landscapes on earth, which have been developed during this time span.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying it would have been developed anyway, without Jewish immigration?

 

[Picaro]

It was much more than own it, the Church was the sovereign power over that are for hundreds of years (and much more)



The Church was already sovereign over it, so Mussolini could hardly give it to the Church. Several European states actually had diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, everybody else will chose facts over self hypnosis.

 

[Volker]

I wasn't aware of that. I knew they were a Democratic Socialist state, but not the details of land ownership, other than kibbutzes were popular among the Pioneers, and later groups as well.

Well, it is a market system, but with strong government participation.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying it would have been developed anyway, without Jewish immigration?

Yes, sorry, my formulation was not good. This is essentially, what I wanted to say, there is at least an opportunity, it could have been developed, too.

 

[ludahai]

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, everybody else will chose facts over self hypnosis.

What the heck were the Papal States then?

 

[Pacridge]

Really? Maybe before being such a smug dilletante, you might bother to do a little reading of your own ...



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1118_vaticanstgate.html

Now, do we need post yet another link to who was running Italy in 1929? Just ask. I'll be glad to help you pull your head loose from your sphincter.

[Mod Mode On]
There's absolutely no need for comments of this nature.
[Mod Mode Off]

 

[Mark A Shrider]

Palestinians consisted of Jews & Arabs. When Israel was established by the UN for the Jews; Trans-Jordan (later shortened to Jordan) was established for the Arabs. Today's Palestinians are the ones that didn't leave Israel & move to Jordan as they should have & as was directed by the UN. Many of the other Arab nations rejected the UN's plan; thus creating the problem we have today.

I know there's a little more to it than this; but, this it in a nutshell...

 

[Volker]

The UN plan was about dividing Palestine. It was not about dividing Transjordan. Transjordan was a more or less independent state at this time, it changed it name to Jordan later. It was a neighbouring country of Palestine. The fact, that the name Transjordan was used for the area of Palestine and Jordan together before, can lead to misunderstandings.

The UN wanted to divide Palestine in an Arab part and a Jewish part. They did not want Palestinians to leave Palestine, they did not direct anything like this.

 

[battleax86]

"Trans-Jordan" was just the name for the area of Palestine east of the Jordan River. Palestine was originally considered to be the region consisting of all of modern-day Jordan, modern-day Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza Strip), and a little part of southern Lebanon. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration designated that entire area as a Jewish state that would become independent as soon as the region had a sufficient infrastructure, as it was mostly barren and sparsely inhabited. The British took control of the region from the Turks in WWI. In 1921, Abdullah, the brother of Iraqi King Faisal, demanded that the British give him all the area east of the Jordan River as his own kingdom, arguing that Britain had reneged on its promises to give him land stemming from the Arab revolt against the Turks (which proved minimal). Abdullah's claims weren't valid, but the British had just fought a costly campaign in Iraq and weren't interested in another conflict with the Arabs and gave in.

So, when people say that Jordan is the Palestinian state, they are telling the truth. Of course, there's not really in difference between a "Palestinian" or a Jordanian or a Lebanese or a Syrian or an Iraqi aside from accent. This whole mess about giving the "Palestinians" a state is just another Arab tactic to whittle away at the Jewish state until they can destroy it completely.

 

[Volker]

"Trans-Jordan" was just the name for the area of Palestine east of the Jordan River.

Yes, my assumption, the term was used for both areas, was wrong.

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration designated that entire area as a Jewish state that would become independent as soon as the region had a sufficient infrastructure, as it was mostly barren and sparsely inhabited.

I don't think so. It talks about a national home for Jewish people in Palestine. It does not even talk about a Jewish state. And it says nothing about the borders. Maybe they promised Jewish people something and promised Arabian people the same, you know, British colonial policy. The problem, which I have with Balfour declaration is, how can Britons offer land to anyone, which they do not own? If Britons want to make land gifts, this land should be situated at an island.

So, when people say that Jordan is the Palestinian state, they are telling the truth.

No, they do not. Palestine is the Palestinian state. Jordan is the Jordanian state.

 

[battleax86]

I don't think so. It talks about a national home for Jewish people in Palestine. It does not even talk about a Jewish state. And it says nothing about the borders.

Yes, it does.

Maybe they promised Jewish people something and promised Arabian people the same, you know, British colonial policy.

They did promise the Arabs land, but I think that they more than delivered on that promise, given that the Arabs control well over 90% of the Middle East.

The problem, which I have with Balfour declaration is, how can Britons offer land to anyone, which they do not own? If Britons want to make land gifts, this land should be situated at an island.

I agree that British colonial policies sucked. They created the nations of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, splitting some Arabs tribes among two or even three countries.

No, they do not. Palestine is the Palestinian state. Jordan is the Jordanian state.

What's the difference between a "Palestinian" and a Jordanian? The West Bank used to be part of Jordan before they lost it due to their aggression in the Six Day War of 1967. For that matter, what separates a Gazan from an Egyptian? They were part of the same country until 1967. The fact is that there is no "Palestinian" Arab national identity. It was created in the late 20th century as a tool to combat Israel with.

 

[Volker]

Yes, it does.

I can not find this in Balfour declaration.

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors 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.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour

You can?

The West Bank used to be part of Jordan before they lost it due to their aggression in the Six Day War of 1967.

What does it mean, their aggression? This war was startet by the Zionists.

For that matter, what separates a Gazan from an Egyptian? They were part of the same country until 1967. The fact is that there is no "Palestinian" Arab national identity. It was created in the late 20th century as a tool to combat Israel with.

They can have common states, if they want them. Maybe they will develop a common national identity. But this is their decision.

 

[battleax86]

I can not find this in Balfour declaration.

You can?

Actually, the borders were under the same 1920 League of Nations mandate that also established British and French authority in the region.

What does it mean, their aggression? This war was startet by the Zionists.

It was a pre-emptive strike against massing Arab armies. Allowing the Arabs the first shot would have been suicidal.

They can have common states, if they want them. Maybe they will develop a common national identity. But this is their decision.

And it was their decision prior to 1967 that they were Jordanian and Egyptian. Once the Israelis came and they found that they couldn't defeat them militarily, they decided that they were "Palestinians" and that their "nation" had been driven from its homeland by the evil Zionists. You don't have to have Einstein's IQ to see through that load of BS.

 

[Volker]

Actually, the borders were under the same 1920 League of Nations mandate that also established British and French authority in the region.

These were the borders of Palestine, not the borders of a Zionist state.

It was a pre-emptive strike against massing Arab armies. Allowing the Arabs the first shot would have been suicidal.

Oh, sure, a pre-emptive strike. The problem with pre-emptive strikes is, they do not exist in the real world, they only exist in propaganda.

And it was their decision prior to 1967 that they were Jordanian and Egyptian.

No, I don't think, they considered themselves Jordanians or Egyptians at this time.

 

[battleax86]

These were the borders of Palestine, not the borders of a Zionist state.

They were the borders of that region and the British had promised to create a Jewish state in that region.

Oh, sure, a pre-emptive strike. The problem with pre-emptive strikes is, they do not exist in the real world, they only exist in propaganda.

No, they exist in the real world, and the Six Day War was a prime example of it. The war was coming whether Israel wanted it or not and allowing the Arabs to have the initiative would have been suicidal for Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

No, I don't think, they considered themselves Jordanians or Egyptians at this time.

Really? Then why wasn't Yasser Arafat so concerned about "Palestine's liberation" (referring to the West Bank and Gaza) before 1967? Why was there no "Palestinian" resistance to Jordanian or Egyptian occupation? Why was the word "Palestinian" never even used to refer to Arabs before the 1960s? All historical evidence points to the fact that the "Palestinians" are a made-up national identity that is being used a tool to combat Israel with, since the Arabs are too weak to take them down militarily.

 

[ludahai]

These were the borders of Palestine, not the borders of a Zionist state.


Oh, sure, a pre-emptive strike. The problem with pre-emptive strikes is, they do not exist in the real world, they only exist in propaganda.

The Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, a violation of international law and an act of war.

 

[DeeJayH]

I have found this thread very enlightening
thank you all for your contributions and thoughts
much more than i expected.
the lack of responses i got after initially posting it, was what i expected

 

[mpg]

I can't add anything that hasn't already been said in this thread, but some people fail to accept the facts, so I'll add my own two cents by summarizing what's already been said.

1.)Palestinians are NOT an ethnic group.
2.)Palestine was never a country.
3.)The name "Palestine" is derived from a Roman word that means "sea people". They named the area after Greek settlers who lived there.
4.)The Brits promised to create a homeland for Jews because they were an ethnic group that was unwelcome in the region that they are originally from.
5.)The Brits called this Jewish homeland "Trans Jordan". It was a piece of land that encompasses present day Jordan, Israel, and Palestine, but it was smaller than ancient Israel.
6.)The Brits changed their minds, and decided to give the Jews half of Trans Jordan.
7.)The Brits changed their minds again, and decided to give the Jews a much smaller piece of Trans Jordan. They called this area "Palestine".
8.)The UN decided to divide Palestine into a Jewish part and an Arab part. the Jews named their part of Palestine "Israel".
9.)When modern Israel was born, the PLO was also born. The purpose of the PLO was to destroy Israel. The PLO was NOT founded to create a Palestinian homeland. At the time that the PLO was founded, there was already an Arab portion of Palestine.
10.)The demand for a Palestinian state came much later.

Does all this mean that Israel is a perfect country? Ofcourse not. Israel violates international law and they should be stopped. Does that mean that Israel has no right to exist? Ofcourse not. Israel is already a country, it was a country thousands of year ago, and many of its residents belong to an ethnic group that is illegal in neighboring countries. They are living in their ancient homeland. Israel has more religious freedom than any other country in the region. It is also a democracy. Modern Palestine is an invention intended to destroy Israel. That's far worse than any of the wrongs committed by Israel. It's easy to see why Israel has a right to exist. If you agree that Israel has a right to exist, then it's hard to justify a Palestinian state that's purely intended to destroy Israel.

 

[Volker]

No, they exist in the real world, and the Six Day War was a prime example of it. The war was coming whether Israel wanted it or not and allowing the Arabs to have the initiative would have been suicidal for Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Ok, good point. I checked this source to find out, what pre-emptive strike means and I was wrong about the meaning.

I use the German version and try to translate it:

Mit Präventivschlag wird allgemein ein militärischer Angriff (mitunter auch der Polizei gegen geplante Verbrechen) bezeichnet, der einem objektiv drohenden (oder auch nur vermuteten oder propagandistisch vorgeschobenen Angriff) des Gegners zuvorkommen soll.

Preventive strikes generall name military attacks (every now and then also the police against planned crimes), which is to forestall an objectively threatening (or also only assumed or propagandistically put forward attack) of the opponent.

So if some influentual persons get paranoid or make up some propaganda, it can go through as pre-emptive strike. I didn't know that.

Really? Then why wasn't Yasser Arafat so concerned about "Palestine's liberation" (referring to the West Bank and Gaza) before 1967? Why was there no "Palestinian" resistance to Jordanian or Egyptian occupation?

The PLO was founded in 1964. It was called Palestine Liberation Front and it's purpose was and is to have a free Palestinian country.

 

[Volker]

The Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, a violation of international law and an act of war.

Yes, this was a violation of international law. However, it did not start the war. Israel was not disconnected from the sea, so it did not have to start a war. The closing of the Straits of Tiran sure was a provocation.

 

[cnredd]

The PLO was founded in 1964. It was called Palestine Liberation Front and it's purpose was and is to have a free Palestinian country.

The PLF is a Palestinian organization centered in Lebanon. It was set up in April 1977 as a result of a split in the the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine - General Command led by Ahmad Jibril. The new organization was headed by Muhammad Zaidan (Abu Abbas) and Tal'at Ya'akub.

The organization split again into three small organizations in 1983-1984. Each faction continued to carry the original name and each claimed to represent the mother-organization. In November 1989 Abu Abbas's and Tal'at Ya'akub's factions reunited again, after Tal'at Ya'akub's death. The general secretary, Abu Abbas, was elected to the PLO's executive committee and the organization became in fact a satellite of Fatah.

The PLF staged a strategy of "armed struggle" against Israel, mainly by terrorist attacks through the Lebanese border. The Abu Abbas faction was responsible for the famous hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in 1985 and the 1990 failed seaborne attack against the Israeli coast, both acts which embarrassed the PLO leadership. After the Oslo agreement the main PLF faction accepted PLO's policy of stopping terrorist activity against Israel.

Originally the Palestinian Liberation Front was founded by Ahmad Jibril in 1961, but in December 1967 it merged with the Heroes of the Return group and The Youth of Revenge group (the military wing of the Arab Nationalist Movement - ANM) to form the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), under the leadership of George Habash. Ahmad Jibril split from the PFLP in April 1968 and formed a new organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC).
The Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF) was set up on April 24, 1977 due to a split in the The Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine - General Command. The split was the result of the confrontation between Syria and PLO in Lebanon and Jibril's PFLP-GC support to the Syrian intervention in Lebanon on the Maronites' side. The new organization was headed by Muhammad Zaidan (Abu Abbas) and Tal'at Ya'akub.

The PLF was essentially active on the Israeli northern border and staged attacks against civilian and military targets, trying also to take hostages during its operations.

When you align your organization with groups called "Heroes of the Return" and "The Youth of Revenge", it doesn't sound to me like "it's purpose was and is to have a free Palestinian country."

 

[Volker]

When you align your organization with groups called "Heroes of the Return" and "The Youth of Revenge", it doesn't sound to me like "it's purpose was and is to have a free Palestinian country."

Yes, parts of the PLO were formed by terrorist groups in the past and parts of the PLO practise terrorism in the present. This is wrong and there is no excuse for it.

Is it contradictory to the statement mentioned above?

Yes, and Yasser Arafat an his al-Fatah party joined the PLO in the late sixties, but al-Fatah was founded in the late fifties and it stands for Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Filastini (literally: "Palestinian National Liberation Movement").