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

FrontpageMagazine ^ | 8-30-04 | Lawrence Auster

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Yes, the Byzantines began as Romans but by the time of the Middle Ages were quite distinct, and even spoke Greek as their official language. They would not have considered themselves Latins by the time they lost the Holy Land, in any event.

When the Romans lost the Holy Land, they still dominated Italy, Roman Spain, and Roman Africa. Emperor Heraclius had reorganized the Empire a few decades previously, and made Greek the official language, but this hardly changed who the people were, or what they called themselves.

There are Romans who speak Romance languages, and there are Romans who speak Greek (and now Arabic).

The Phoenicians were Lebanese.

Don't you mean the Lebanese are (some of) the Phoenicians? And the Phoenicians also lived all along what is now the Israeli coast, besides having colonized north Africa. Haifa was a Phoenician city, was it not? The core territory of ancient Israel proper is the Jerusalem area and the West Bank, not the Philistine/Phoenician coast.

Many Jews did live relatively peacefully among the Arabs, as long as the Arabs were in control.

Not just in Palestine, but all over the Arab world.

[Alouette]

Some falsehoods in your arguments:

I think your comments are directed at someone else. I don't recall making these arguments you refer to.

Many Jews did live relatively peacefully among the Arabs, as long as the Arabs were in control.

...And as long as they behaved like proper dhimmis, which you know what that means.

Add to that the fact that the area was considered a largely uninhabited backwater, and the Arabs really didn't care about it much at all. It only became a problem when Jews took over. Oh, and why don't you tell us about the nice plans the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had for the Jews there in WWII?

Oh, the Grand Mufti, the uncle of Arafat? The one who suggested to Hitler that instead of expelling all the Jews from Europe, he should just kill them?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Post 56 was directed at you!

[SoCal Pubbie]

Yes, it was for Hermann the Cherusker. Sorry!

[anthony_a_c_b]

ping

[SoCal Pubbie]

"Byzantium is the name given to both the state and the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire in the middle ages. Both the state and the inhabitants always called themselves Roman, as did most of their neighbors. Western Europeans, who had their own Roman Empire called them Orientals or Greeks, and later following the example of the great French scholar DuCange, Byzantines after the former name of the Empire's capital city, Constantinople.

These names give witness to the composite nature of Byzantium. It was, without any doubt, the continuation of the Roman state, and until the seventh century, preserved the basic structures of Late Roman Mediterranean civic culture: - a large multi-ethnic Christian state, based on a network of urban centers, and defended by a mobile specialized army. After the Arab/Muslim conquest of Egypt and Syria, the nature of the state and culture was transformed. Byzantium became much more a Greek state [perhaps best seen in the emperor Heraklios' adoption of the Greek title Basileus], all the cities except Constantinople faded away to small fortified centers, and the military organization of the empire came to be based on a series of local armies."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/

"The dawn of recorded history found Lebanon inhabited by its native people who it would seem called themselves the Kena'ani (Akkadian: Kinahna), the "Canaanites". Canaan was therefore earliest native name applied to the land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. In Hebrew the word kena'ani has the secondary, and apt, meaning of "merchant", a term which well characterizes the Phoenicians because the nature of the country and its location, forced these ancient Lebanese to turn to the sea, where they engaged in trade and navigation."

http://www.cedarland.org/phoenicia.html

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Byzantium became much more a Greek state [perhaps best seen in the emperor Heraklios' adoption of the Greek title Basileus]

Heraclius adopted the title "Pistos in Christos Basileus" after the defeat of Persia. Its meaning is "Great King, Faithful in Christ". "Great King" was the traditional title of the King of Persia. By adopting it, Heraclius was claiming to have superceded their empire. Adding "Pistos in Christos", Herclius was dilineating what seperated him from the Zorastrian Persians.

[rmlew]

This BCE thing really bugs me. It's obvious we still reference dates as either before the birth of Christ, or after. What's wrong with B.C.? Must we all be so politically correct?
I mean no disrespect, quite the opposite. I am using the standard Western dating system, without making a religious affirmation contrary to my faith. Calling Jesus "Christ" is an affirmation that he is the Messiah. As I do not believe this, it would either be disengenuous or contemptuous for me to use the terms "BC" and "AD."

[quadrant]

I decided to add this before reading you most recent comment.
If I am "simply totally evil", then you have nothing to fear. People like me are no threat because our "evil" is recognized by all and immediately. We can be avoided or ignored.
It is those who are partially good and evil that should concern you. They hide their evil by doing good; then when the foolish have been deceived, it is too late.
To paraphrase from the Bible: beware false prophets. Outwardly they preach good but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

[rmlew]

"'Dhimmitude'"?
The condition of being a "dhimmi".
http://www.dhimmitude.org/

[rmlew]

That seems like a disingenuous claim. Of course nobody attempted to "own" the Negev or the wastes SW of Jerusalem. The land was also more lightly settled then, so large areas probably lay fallow as grazing commons.
1. Not all arible land was owned.
2. Arabs still own much of the best farmland. The Jews simply improved other land.

[rmlew]

Do you really want me to quote the Talmud on non-Jewish occupiers of Israel?
For that matter, would you preffer that I quote the Torah?
I was talking about unmiversalist ideas. If you wish to go to religion, the Arabs have no leg to stand on.

[quadrant]

Finland and Switzerland are too small to be reasonable examples. As for Poland: I wonder if the Jewish minority - or the German, for that matter - would agree with you.

I agree that Austria did not suffer from nationality problems because the ruling German and Hungarian minorities suppressed dissident minorities.
Tsarist Russia was called the prison of nationalities. If you've seen the movie Fiddler on the Roof, you know how the Tsar dealt with Jews.

The conclusion that there was no nationality problem in Europe until the French Revolution overlooks two groups. The Irish were unhappy with English rule, and the Huguenots were forced to leave France when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I was thinking of pre-partition Poland.

The Irish were not a nationality program, but a case of one country invading another and colonizing it.

The Huguenots were not a nationality, but religious didsidents who had started a civil war which they then proceeded to lose.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What would be the relevance of your quotations?

I was pointing out the Talmud grants property rights to tenants who work the land, who you were disdaining and dismissing as having none. This is a universalist ideal as well.

If you really want to start talk about Divine Land Grants though, lets talk about Deuteronomy 28 and 29.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Then why bother to reference the birth of Jesus at all? Again, there is an elephant in the room that no one wants to recognize.

By your logic, I should never use the word "kosher", or refer to the "Yom Kippur" war. Besides, I really don't have a problem with Jews who hold your view. I fear the practice will become standard in ALL circles, and B.C. and A.D. will go the way of Christmas Break, that is now called Winter Break or the like.

[quadrant]

Which Partition of Poland? To my recollection, Poland has been partitioned four times, the last of which was between Hitler and Stalin.

The Irish were a ethnic group with a distinct territory, a separate language, and religion. If that doesn't qualify as a nationality, I don't know what does. I wonder what the Irish thought they were, if not a nationality distinct from the British.

The Huguenots were a Protestant religious minority. The Treaty of Alais in 1629 stripped them of political power but confirmed liberty of conscience. They were allowed to worship as they pleased, to publish religious texts, and to seek civil and military employment.
In 1665 - for no good reason - Louis xiv began to strip away the protections of the Edict of Nantes, which had been in force since 1598. Finally, in 1685, he revoked the document outright.
Though prohibited from leaving France, thousands of Protestants fled the country. This exodus may not qualify as a population transfer in the strict sense of the word, but its about as close as you can get without being one.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I was speaking of prior to the 1st to 3rd partitions of Poland.

The Irish were not a nationality problem inside Britain. Rather, Britain came over to Ireland and conquered their island. Britain created a nationality problem through war and conquest. There was no preexisting dispute.

[quadrant]

There was never been any great affection between the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons, not to mention between the Normans and the Celts.

If you contend that there was little ethnic conflict before the first partition of Poland, I lack the knowledge to dispute you. However, the Poles never displayed much affection for the Jews during period after Poland disappeared from the map. Neither was there much love between Poles and Jews after WWI.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Jews had sided with the Germans and Austrians, since they shared their language (mostly) in Yiddish, and mostly lived in the cities of Poland which also had many Germans.