Since 1922, it has been a tradition to take Jewish land and give it to arab states and pseudo-states.
Posted on 09/17/2010 8:49:37 AM PDT by ventanax5
Palestinian demography of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has never been just a matter of numbers. It has always been—and consciously so—a front-line weapon used in a life-and-death struggle for nationhood among two peoples living in what used to be known as Palestine, each having competing ideologies and competing claims to territorial inheritance and rights to national sovereignty.
The problem with staking so much on so narrow a focus as past demography is that the data generated by demographers and others since the early nineteenth century are so lacking in precision that, in some matters of dispute concerning demography, "anyone's guess," as the saying goes, "is as good as any other." Or almost so. Of course, people still engaged in this high-stakes game of Palestinian demographic warfare will argue otherwise. With few exceptions, they insist that their own sources are superior, their own estimates more scientific, and their critics more ideological.
There are really two issues—or two battlefronts—associated with estimating Palestinian demography. The first has to do with sheer numbers, i.e., measuring over time the size of Palestine's total and subgroup populations. The second battlefront is considerably more contentious. It is estimating the percentages of population growth among subgroups attributed to natural increase and to immigration.
This immigration factor—or its absence—is paramount. If a significant percent of a population is composed of recent arrivals, then claims of historic tenancy are compromised. This explains why Arab Palestinians and others use the term "intruder" to describe the Jewish population of Palestine. The importance of Jewish immigration to the Jewish population of Palestine in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is undisputed. But Jewish claims to territorial inheritance and to national sovereignty lay elsewhere, in history rather than demography.
(Excerpt) Read more at meforum.org ...
Reading this brought up a question in my mind: were the Muzzies all about converting and proselytizing and blowing up martyrs, etc. back in the early 20th century, or is the fanaticism a relatively recent event?
Was the area previously known as Palestine, or actually part of Jordan?
I didn’t think there was previously a Palestine, that the name was an arab invention used to de-legitimize Israel.
See http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com
Wahabbism, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem & his ties to Saddam, Hitler, Arafat, etc., comes from a tradition of using assassins. The word itself comes from the “Hashishin” political assassins.
WOW! Thank you so much CB. The Islam thing has been a curiosity of mine recently, and I love to read about the historical angles. So the Muzzies were in the business of political assassinations back then, huh?
Actually, that makes sense. Wasn’t the Black Hand a Muslim group? They were the outfit that assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand, as I recall.
Yes. The Black Hand.
June, 1914
Time = 10:10 am.
“Dimitrijevic sent three members of the Black Hand group based in Belgrade, Gavrilo Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez, to Sarajevo to carry out the deed.
Unknown to Dragutin Dimitrijevic, Major Voja Tankosic, a senior member of the Black Hand group, informed Nikola Pasic, the prime minister of Serbia, about the plot. Although Pasic supported the main objectives of the Black Hand group, he did not want the assassination to take place, as he feared it would lead to a war with Austro-Hungary. He therefore gave instructions for Gavrilo Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez to be arrested when they attempted to leave the country. However, his orders were not implemented and the three man arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina where they joined forces with fellow conspirators, Muhamed Mehmedbasic, Danilo Ilic, Vaso Cubrilovic, Cvijetko Popovic, Misko Jovanovic and Veljko Cubrilovic.”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWarchduke.htm
There was a different Black Hand group in the US, but it was, IIRC, cosa nostra. http://tonij16102.multiply.com/journal/item/662
It’s funny. Neither my high school history courses nor the few I took in college EVER mentioned that the Black Hand was a Muslim group. I had to research that on my own.
Thank you for this information, CB. I’m absorbing it as you read this.
Since 1922, it has been a tradition to take Jewish land and give it to arab states and pseudo-states.
Oh, you’re welcome. For my part, I remember the guy as being described as a ‘lone gunman’ type, which clearly wasn’t the case. And a loon. Looks like that wasn’t the case either.
My view on WWI came to be that it was a war for markets and world control. The brutality of gassing people and the trench warfare must have been, well, horrifying to see, let alone experience.
The Black Hand in the coal-mining states of the US was another story. When I was very little, I remember older people talking about it in hushed tones. Apparently, an image of a Black Hand was left as a calling card and warning every time someone ended up dead. People I sometimes came in contact with had relatives in those parts, and no one talked.
I think a very simple test can be exercised to determine ownership. Which group has utilized and been the best care-taker of the land they live on? Same test can be applied to the Mexico vs. US vs. Native American ownership. Stated another way, how has the land ownership benefited the local population and the population of the world at large?
Very similar to the test Solomon used to determine which woman was the mother of the live baby. I Kings 3:25-27
They were always like that.
There was only a lull in their aggression towards the west since the west was too strong back then, but they still persecuted the non-muslims under their control.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
If a significant percent of a population is composed of recent arrivals, then claims of historic tenancy are compromised. This explains why Arab Palestinians and others use the term "intruder" to describe the Jewish population of Palestine. The importance of Jewish immigration to the Jewish population of Palestine in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is undisputed. But Jewish claims to territorial inheritance and to national sovereignty lay elsewhere, in history rather than demography.
Jordan is a modern invention of the British, who gave refuge and territory to the Hashemites when the Saud family kicked them out of Mecca and Arabia. The territory was called Trans-Jordan (because it was on both sides of the Jordan River) by the British; formerly it was part of the Turks’ Ottoman Empire, and called Filistin (after the Biblical Philistines, who were at the very least heavily influenced by the Hurrians). The map linked below shows the O Empire with the Filistin name, others show it as part of the province of Syria. The independent Hashemite Kdm of Jordan dates from 1946; Syria in 1946; Israel in 1948; Lebanon in 1943; Egypt in 1952.
http://www.ottomansouvenir.com/img/Maps/Ottoman_Empire_Map_Largest_Borders.JPG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
