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

[SJackson]

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.

[sharktrager]

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.

[sheik yerbouty]

Deuteronomy 1:8 is the official deed to the land.

[quadrant]

As I said, Britain was at war with the Ottoman Empire and as
the victor Britain had the right to carve up the territory any way they pleased.
And please note that the Arabs followed the same policy, when they conquered the land from the Byzantines.

[dfwgator]

There is already a Palestinian homeland, it's called Jordan.

[newheart]

You are referring to the Phoenicians. I don't believe they are predecessorsof the "palestinians'. ButI could be wrong.

[quadrant]

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.

[Jim Noble]

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.

[Drammach]

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..

[aruanan]

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.

[quadrant]

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.

[Alouette]

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

[Calpernia]

>>>. 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?

[chukcha]

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.

[quadrant]

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.

[rmlew]

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?

[rmlew]

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.

[newheart]

Thanks for the history.

'Dhimmitude'?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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