How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?-Exactly who has the right to claim "I had it first?"

There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:

§ As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.

§ If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.

§ If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back.

So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:

§ The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:

§ The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:

§ The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from

§ The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:

§ The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:

§ The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:

§ The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:

§ The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:

§ The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.

As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The terroritories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history.

The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.

In any case, today's "Palestine," meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, aeons ago. Major "native" tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17^th century. India's caste system reflects waves of fair-skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on.

The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?

Back to the Arabs

I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?

To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.

Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted. The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict. Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67).

The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.

Not to mention that Israel owns most of the land (around 70% I believe, not 95%) because the Brits owned it and gave it to Israel.

The Brits owned it because the Turks owned it, it wasn't private property. Arabs who stayed still own their property, Arabs who fled and didn't file claims by 1954, and few did, still anticipating an Arab victory, were out of luck. Israel's position is that they'd be glad to negotiate compensation, though only in conjunction with compensation to Jews expelled from Arab lands. Needless to say, that's a non starter.

Are you aware that those who lost property did so as a result of siding with nations at war with Israel?

The "refugees" were promised that, if they left Israel, abandoning their property, and sided with the aggressors, they would be rewarded with property seized from the Jews in the region.

It is not about property rights because they voluntarily abandoned their property and aided the enemies of the legitimate government of Israel.

Many Arabs, and "Palestinians" own property in Israel. Many Arabs serve in the Israeli army. In fact, a large number of the career soldiers are Bedouin.

Agreed.
In fact, the original Balfour Declaration covered all of Palestine, which was then Israel, Judea, Samaria, and what is now Jordan.
However, Winston Churchill decided to prohibit Jews from settling east of the Jordan River.
His decision was resented bitterly by elements within the Zionist leadership but was accepted reluctantly by David Ben-Gurion and others. In retrospect, the decision to accept Churchill's decision was a wise one, given the historical consequences that concentrating Jewish settlement in what is now Israel (and especially Galilee) made the establishment of a Jewish state possible.

Once again:

The Jews of Israel have the same right to the land that America has to Nebraska.

They conquered it, they moved out or suppressed the indigenous barbarians, and they are productively using the land in furtherance of civilization.

The Israeli fixation on "legitimacy", as something that can or should be given by a fictitious international "community" is likely to destroy them in the long run, because any non-Jewish supranational organization powerful enough to bestow "legitimacy" or a "right to exist" is also powerful enough to take it away.

Israel's (and America's) right to the land it now occupies grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Never forget.

The Phillistine - Palestine connection..
This is from memory, no "source"...

As I recall from my readings, it was the Romans that called the region "Palestine"...
Myth or fact, the tradition is, upon conquering the Jews after their rebellions, ( about the time of Christ's execution ) the Romans named the area Palestine..
It was a reference to the Phillistines, an ancient enemy of the Jews.. and intended as an insult to the defeated jewish people..
They would henceforth live in a land named for their enemies..

I don't know how much truth there is to the story, but it sure sounds like the romans..

How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?-Exactly who has the right to claim "I had it first?"

Read From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters for a very good overview of the situation. Especially interesting was the massive Arab immigration into the areas surrounding Jewish settlements to take advantage of the stability and employment. They moved into that small area of Western Palestine in numbers over a short period of time that far exceeded anything that could be accounted for by simple reproductive population growth of settled, non-transient populations. What is more, they came from virtually every country of the Middle East as well as Arab Africa and even Europe.

I don't claim to be a historian, but as I understand it the area was not designated Palestine until the second century A.D. In approximately 135 AD the Jews revolted. The Romans, tired of suppressing insurrections in Judea, deported all (or almost all) the Jews.
And as a mark of dishonor on the Jews, the Romans changed the name from Judea to Palestine, which was supposed to reflect the name of the most powerful of the inhabitants (the Philistines) who lived in Canaan before the Hebrews moved in after the Exodus. If this is true, then this area was considered during antiquity to be the home of the Jewish people. If my facts are faulty, I'm ready to be corrected.

Timeline of Palestinian History, from Biblical to 1850

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel ping list.

WARNING: This is a high volume ping list

>>>. So they migrated back to Palestine.

Migrated back to Palestine? Or SENT back to 'Palestine' to displace Israel?

Let's not forget that the six day war started after Lewis Weeks filed his report that Israel has an estimated 500 million to 2 billion barrels of oil to be recovered.

Do you think the Mid East REALLY wants a 'Palestine'? Or does the Mid East want control of the oil?

Philistines actually arrived in the Land of Israel shortly AFTER Hebrews. They were seafaring people of Greek origin. They were more technologically advanced than Hebrews - they used iron. Philistines lived in Gaza area and never advanced deep into the country.

During anti-Roman revolts the country was emptied of all inhabitants - after all they had almost 200 years of war.

The term "Palestine" should not used for any events prior to 135 CE.

Jews did not take the entire Palestine from British. Mandate Palestine also included territory used for Trans-Jordan.

One should also note that the term "West Bank" is very new. Trans-Jordan renamed Judea and Samaria in 1950 in order to annex it.

Agreed. The Philistines were of Greek origin and their
settlements were confined to the Gaza area and not the whole of Canaan. Still, the Romans decided for whatever reason to rename the country Palestine.

Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, decided to pro-
hibit Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River. This decision was resented bitterly by some within the Zionist movement but was accepted by David Ben Gurion.

Agreed. "West Bank" is a term of very recent lineage and like Palestine is a concocted one.

The article does not go into the origins of Palestinians. Aren't they the descendants of the Philistines, the seafaring warring people who helped destroy the Egyptian empire (I forget if it was the middle kingdom or not).
No. The Pilishtim and other sea people, destroyed the Hittites and, more importantly for Canaan, the Ugaritic tribes. The Philistines existed from about 1100 to 800 BCE. By the end of this time they were a conquered people, whose cities were destroyed and population decimated. They disappear from the historical and archeological record. In other words, they ceased to exist as a nation or people.
The "Palestinians" are Arabized Christian and Muslim-converts and Muslim-Arabs. The Arabs invaded Byzanitine Palestine (the name was imposed by the Muslims in 135CE in a spiteful attempt to deJudaize Israel) in the 630's after the battle of the Yarmuk. The area, already in ruin after a Jewish and Samaritan revolt during the last Byzanite war on the Sassanid Persians, was easy to conquer. The land was Arabized through conquest, rape and enslavement, migrations, and dhimmitude.
The "Palestinians" are an artificial people, indistinguishable from their former compatriots, the Jordanians.

The article does raise a very important issue. At what point of history do we go to to assert "squatter" rights? Specially since we really don't know how human migration took place over the centuries. If evolution is true, then we all should move to Africa. And if the Bible is true, then we all should move to Iraq
Huh?
Why would we move to Ur of the Chaldees?

Arabs rarely owned land. Over 80% of 1947 "Palestine" was "owned" by the British as the land had been public under the Ottomans.

Renters have no real long-term property rights.

Do you fellows ever obey the dictates of your own religious scholars, or only when it is convenient to you?

"When a man hires a workman to labor in his field ... the workman is considered as the owner of the field ..." (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Metzia, pp-23-24)
- http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t06/me102.htm

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.