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

[Ima Lurker]

Very interesting read.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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

Fleeing a war zone to avoid being killed is not "voluntarily abandoning ... property". But then, I know how some have twisted the divine Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal" to "allow" precisely what you describe.

Unfortunately for you, the civilized world, through the Geneva Convention, does not subscribe to this barbarism.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Just as Southerners discovered after the Civil War, the victorious power has the right to dispose of your property in any way he deems fit.

France discovered learned this after the Franco-Prussian War when Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine.

Germany learned the same lesson after WWII, when it was forced to cede East Prussia to Poland.

You are confusing "rights" with "power". There is certainly nothing in the rules of conduct of the civilzed nations of the world which allows for mass dispossesion and expulsions. And only in the last case, East Prussia, was their a wholesale disposession and expulsion of the native inhabitants by the conquerors.

Either we believe in property rights, or we believe in the rule of the strongest with the most guns.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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.

I can't speak for Nebraska, but out in my part of the country (Pennsylvania), the land was legitimately bought from the Indians for a fair price in a settlement made without war. My right to my property in this state is based upon real title, not force. The force enforces my title. It does not create it.

[sharktrager]

You do know most of them left before it was a war zone...

guess not.

Also, fleeing a war zone to go to the nation of the invader is not the same as simply fleeing the war zone. It is collaberating with the enemy.

I suppose you think the plantations of the south should be returned to the slaveholders?

[razoroccam]

"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?"

That was sarcasm, my dear fellow, sarcasm. I don't put alerts such as barf, sarcasm, etc - I assume that for most part, the intent of such statements are obvious. For example, the idiocy of billions of humans living in Mesopotamia or Kenya/Tanzania is (or should be) self-evident.

[Non-Sequitur]

Interesting that your map shows a Palestine state.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Some falsehoods in the article:

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.

This assumes that the illegitimate League of Nations that was never recognized by the US (so why are purported US citizens using this to justify Israeli actions?) had some sort of power to give away willy-nilly the land inhabitated by other people to various occupying powers. Americans rejected that concept in 1920, when we refused to ratify the League of Nations treaty.

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.

Well, strictly speaking, the British wrested it from the Turks by using a mainly Arab force from free Arabia to take the land from occupying the Turkish Army.

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 Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:

This just goes to show you what a biased twit the writer is. "Byzantines" were and are Romans. The Arabs and Turks still correctly call both the Greeks and the Arabized Christians of the Middle East "Romans".

As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up.

The claim is not so much to sovereignty as to the write to live in the land of your birth secure in your property. This is an obfuscation and smoke screen.

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

Not true as far as Jordan, Syria, and western Iraq go. These areas were the Roman province of "Arbaia Felix" and were of course inhabitated by Arabs. The Punic inhabitants of Tunisia and Algeria and Lybia and Morrocco were Carthaginian Phoenicians, Phoenicians being the direct continuation of the Canaanites. The Arab conquest of these areas from the Romans caused most Romans to flee to the East Roman Empire or Italy or Spain, while the Punics and Berbers became integrated with the Arabs.

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.

The Phoenecians were the direct continuation of the Canaanites (who were clearly not displaced by the Hebrews as openly admitted by the Bible - "So the children of Israel dwelt in the midst of the Chanaanite, and the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite: And they took their daughters to wives, and they gave their own daughters to their sons, and they served their gods." - Judges 3.5-6).

See: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/histcult.html

And also:

"In the Tell-el-Amarna tablets Canaan is found under the forms of Kinakhna and Kinakhkhi. Under the name of Kanana the Canaanites appear on Egyptian monuments, wearing a coat of mail and helmet, and distinguished by the use of spear and javelin and the battle-axe. They were called Phoenicians by the Greeks and Poeni by the Romans."

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/canaanites.html

So obviously, the native inhabitants of Palestine at 1917, and those who moved to the land from Syria and Lebanon were undoubtedly Canaanite/Phoenician in origin. This especially applies to the Palestinian Christian population, which has no Arab admixture. And also, as noted above, the native population of North Africa outside Egypt.

"In the days when the trading Phoenicians held a prominent place, especially among the Canaanites, this word (Kena'ani), and even Canaan (e.g. Is., xxiii, 8), got the signification of "merchant, trader." As the name of the country it occurs under the forms Kinahhi, Kinahni, and Kinahna, as early as two centuries before Moses in the cuneiform letters of Syrian and Palestinian princes to Egyptian Pharaos, found at Tell el-Amarna; and earlier still in Egyptian inscriptions, in the form Ka-n-'-na. The Phoenician town of Laodicea calls itself on coins from the second century B.C. "a mother in Kena'an". In Grecian literature too, evidence remains that the Phoenicians called one of their ancestors, as well as their country, Chna, and even at the time of St. Augustine the Punic country people near Hippo called themselves Chanani, i.e. Canaanites." - Catholic Encyclopedia, Cana, Canaanites

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03569b.htm

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.

As far as any normal history shows, the Canaanites were the first known civilized inhabitants of the land, and the Palestinian Arabs are partially descended from the Canaanites. See above.

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.

There are many more than this. We could start with the Armenians, Kurds, Georgians and other Caucassians, Basques, Picts, Dravidians, Australian Aboriginies, Ukranians, the Queycha Indians of Bolivia and Peru, etc., etc. This is totlally disingenuous lies.

Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states.

This isn't a "fact". It is a situation created by colonial aspirations of Britain and the European Jewish population. many Jews had lived relatively peacefully among the Arabs for centuries until the poison of Zionism was thrown into the mix.

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.

Brenner Pass has never and still does not mark the division of Latin and Germanic Europe. The south slope of the Alps is inhabitated by Germas in an autonomous Italian province seized by Italy from Austria called South Tirol. More proof that this fellow simply has no idea what he is talking about.

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).

As far as the undemocratic Arab governments, they have nothing to complain about, and are fortunate they have not been wiped out. As far as the Arab inhabitants who had nothign to do with the fighting, they have every right to complain about dispossesion.

[Alouette]

Interesting that your map shows a Palestine state.

My map shows TWO Palestinian states. It also shows how "expansionist" those naughty Zionists are.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You do know most of them left before it was a war zone...

Generally people flee ahead of the arrival of the fighting. Perhaps you don't have experience with this in your family. I do, since my mother's family was dispossesed in Georgia and fled ahead of Sherman to Jacksonville. We didn't wait for the fighting so we could be burned up in our home.

Also, fleeing a war zone to go to the nation of the invader is not the same as simply fleeing the war zone. It is collaberating with the enemy.

The Palestinians could hardly flee to the nation of the invader when they fled from a part of Palestine under Jordanian or Egyptian or Lebanese control to a part of those countries outside Palestine. They remained within the same sovereign territory the entire time.

Worth reading:

David Ben-Gurion declared in 1938, "after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine" In 1948, Menachem Begin said, "The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever".

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/1947%20Partition%20plan%20for%20Palestine

I suppose you think the plantations of the south should be returned to the slaveholders?

Yes, I'd like my family's property back, or at least fair compensation. It is currently held by the US Government as Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base. We were never given anything for it or for the senseless or needless destruction of our property and possessions.

[SoCal Pubbie]

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?

[quadrant]

You are incorrect.
Until after World War II the concept of mass deportation was a political and diplomatic tool used often employed and was considered quite humane.
The term used was population transfer.
Diplomats considered that it was better to resettle a restive population in another area rather than allow it to remain in an geographic area that being annexed by conquest or political settlement by another power.
If you want to read more about this, I suggest PARIS, 1919 by Margaret Macmillian, a book which details the machinations that led to the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI.
In fact, problems arose when population transfer was difficult or impossible, as in the case of the Sudetenland or in the Balkans.

And I do not confuse "rights" with "power". "Rights", however natural, do not exist in a vacuum. "Rights" are not self-enforcing, nor can they exist in a state of anarchy.
"Rights" depend for their existence on the protection of the state. For this reason we have a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, the political document that established the government (the state) under which we live in this country.
Property rights are rights as real and valid as the right to speak or worship. In fact, I believe property rights are the essential element that separates a free state from a tyrannical one.
Power is a more subtle concept and too long to be detailed here. However, it can be one of raw force, a who-whom relationship when the a police officer arrests a criminal. Power can be a voluntary action, as when one submits willingly to the orders of a superior officer in the military.
Or power can spring from an elective decision, as when the cardinals submit to the authority of a brother they have just elected pope.

[Alouette]

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.?

BCE and CE are designations used by Jewish authors in books and essays intended for Jewish readers, when referencing dates in the Gregorian calendar. These terms have been in use since the early 1800's, so it's not some new liberal PC fad.

Maybe we should use the Islamic calendar and reference dates before 637 AD as BM.

[Jim Noble]

I can't speak for Nebraska, but out in my part of the country (Pennsylvania), the land was legitimately bought from the Indians for a fair price in a settlement made without war. My right to my property in this state is based upon real title, not force. The force enforces my title. It does not create it.

So, West of the Mississippi and North of Rio Bravo, what?

We give it all back?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Until after World War II the concept of mass deportation was a political and diplomatic tool used often employed and was considered quite humane.

The term used was population transfer.

Diplomats considered that it was better to resettle a restive population in another area rather than allow it to remain in an geographic area that being annexed by conquest or political settlement by another power.

I'm sorry. People like you are simply totally evil. "Population Trasnfer" or whatever other bland name you want to give to it, is an enormous crime against humanity.

Perhaps instead of annexing by conquest, we could expect that minorities would be left in peace in their mother countries, or given a semi-autonomous status if in a multi-ethnic state.

It is only when we begin to constrict freedom and deny people the right to be who they are, live as they wish, and speak and worship as they are wont, that the "problems" "requiring" "Population Transfer" surface and make it a "necessity".

Civilized people recognize the travesties carried out in Acadia, Posen, West Prussia, Silesia, Trabizond, Smyrna, Cilicia, Transylvania, East Prussia, Pommerania, Sudetenland, Slovakia, Galacia, Kalmykia, Crimea, Banat, Bosnia, Kosovo, and numerous other places as barbarism and a descent to evil.

Rights", however natural, do not exist in a vacuum. "Rights" are not self-enforcing, nor can they exist in a state of anarchy.

Then you must believe rights come to us at the sufferance of the government, rather than being self-evident, self-existant, and naturally ours from God. The existence of a Government is not necessary for my rights as a human to exist. They are mine by reason of my existence, and I don't need a government to defend them, since another of my rights is to self-defense.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Some falsehoods in your arguments:

Whether the US ratified the League of Nations doesn't affect the situation. The fact is the Jews got the land from the British, not the Arabs, just as the article states.

The makeup of the fighters who took the area from the Turks also doesn't matter. It was in fact the British who ruled the land taken from the Turks.

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.

Of course the claim is for sovereignty. If it was just the right to live in the land of your birth secure in your property, then the "Palestinians" would pursue the courts or the political process within Israel (they can vote you know). Show me the Arab with a map with Israel on it and I will show you an Arab that doesn't care about sovereignty.

"Arabia Felix" consisted of what is today Yemen and possibly Oman. Syria would be found in "Arabia Petria", with Bostra, about 70 miles south of Damascus, as the capital of Roman Arabia.

The Phoenicians were Lebanese.

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

The Brenner Pass IS the border between Austria and Italy. The fact that Mexicans live on our side of the Rio Grande does not mean it is not the natural border between us and Mexico.

Yes, they have every right to complain about dispossession. They don't have the right to blow themselves and their neighbors to bits with bombs strapped to their chests.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Fine, but this is not a Jewish book, and the term is also now used for the general audience. And it still references the birth of Christ, whether it acknowledges it directly or not. It just seems like trying to ignore the elephant in the room to me. I would even have a problem if everything was referenced as "3,000 years before the present time" or something like that.

Oh, and I'm a supporter of Israel, if you didn't know.

[quadrant]

Just remember that the great peace in Europe came after 1815 and the Congress of Vienna, an agreement which kept the peace in Europe for a century.
This peace was made by men - conservatives all - who understood that not all desires of people could be met. Some had to be discomforted that the general welfare might be secured.
Wasn't it better that a few be unhappy than that the world be plunged into the madness and evil that has plagued it since the end of WWI?

Crimes are wrongs; more specifically they are a recognition of wrongs. Almost no one before the 20th Century recognized population transfer as a crime, any more than society recognized salvery as a crime during antiquity.

Of course, it is desirable that races, ethnic groups, and tribes live together in harmony. This ideal situation is not now the case, nor is it likely to be the case anytime soon. It is foolish to think otherwise.
Peaceful (and democratic) multi-ethnic and racial states are the exception - an extraordinary exception, some would argue - in history.
Is it not better that groups be separated than for the population to endure an endless series of violence and retaliation?
Separation of ethnic groups may be unfortunate, but I've come to the conclusion that those who believe otherwise have spent too much time watching Star Trek.

No one reading history can but come to the conclusion that in every period some group will be dissatisfied with its lot. At this point in history, the Palestinian Arabs are one of the dissatisfied groups. At a future time, some other group will feel it is being ground down.
It is not evil to feel this way, but simply a recognition that no all desires can be satisfied at the same time; this recogniton is a component of maturity.

I did not say that rights come at the sufferance of government. I am a believer in natural rights, but I am not so foolish as to believe that I can enjoy my rights without the power of the state to protect me and them from the predations of a hostile world.
I believe in self-defense. That is why I own a firearm, but I realize that others can do the same. And since I do not wish to spend my time violently protecting my rights, I (for the moment) trust in the police power of the state to act on my behalf.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'm not familiar with the course of establishing land title in those areas. In the areas I've lived in, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin, the land was equitably bought or ceded by the Indians under various purchase agreements and treaties, and the purchase agreements and treaties remain in force, giving the Indians various privileges (such as access to hunting grounds and fisheries not enjoyed by Americans).

I would enjoy your enlightenment regarding the establishment of title by Americans beyond the Mississippi.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Congress of Vienna established a peace without population transfers, and without a vengeful treatment of France, which was even left with some of its illgotten gains of the Napoleonic wars in Alsace and Lorraine. It is in fact the exact opposite of what occured 100 years later at Versailles.

You are right about the greatness of the men involved, starting with Metternich.

I would remind you that he represented a peaceful Catholic State, Austria, which then encompassed many nationalities and which did not suffer from the nationality problem until it embraked on ill-advised adventures in Bosnia. The world would be a much better place had Austria-Hungary been left intact in 1919.

Some examples of other states where different ethnic groups have coexisted in harmony - Finland (Swedish minority), Switzerland (French and Italian minorities), Poland (Ukranian and Lithuanian minorities).

There was no real nationality problem in Europe until the French Revolutionary period and the subsequent Romantic period.