Usurpers

Israel National News ^ | December 13, 2004 | Steven Plaut

[yatros from flatwater]

"Usurpers"

by Steven Plaut
December 13, 2004

So, let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists claim that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was re-created in 1948, it had been almost 1,900 years since the last time the Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1,900 years ago.

And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim to these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the Arabs last exercised sovereignty over that land 1,000 years ago.

You all with me? 1,900 year-old-claims are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old claims trump them and are indisputable.

Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the same thing as a claim on behalf of Palestinian Arabs. After all, the last time that Palestinian Arabs held sovereignty over the lands of "Palestine" was... never. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in Palestine.

Ever.

It is true that Arabs once exercised sovereignty over parts or all of historic Palestine. There were small Arab kingdoms in the south of "Palestine" already in late Biblical days, and they were important military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty back then in the Land of Israel. After the rise of Islam, historic "Palestine" was indeed part of a larger Arab kingdom or caliphate. But that ended in 1071, when Palestine came under the rule of the Seljuk Turks. That was the last time Palestine had an Arab ruler. After that, it was always ruled by a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British, and - briefly - French. And in any case, why does the fact that Palestine once belonged to a larger Arab empire make it any more "Arab" than the fact that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish, or British empires? (For a brief history of "Palestine" and sovereignty over it, see http://www.eylerz.net/brief_history.htm.)

Now, it is true that historic Palestine probably once had a population majority who were Arabs, but today it has a population majority who are Jews. So, if population majorities are what determine legitimacy of sovereignty, Israel is at least as legitimate as any other country.

So why exactly do the anti-Zionists assert that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs, never Palestinian Arabs, has legitimacy, while a 1,900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947? The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel, because it is the most recent!

The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved there from some other places. Never mind that there was actually always a Jewish minority living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks or British. Does the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there? The claim would be absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact that most "Palestinian Arabs" also moved to Palestine from neighboring countries, starting in the late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that a people moves from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to legitimate sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?

If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes, of course, will be asked to move aside - in fact, to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands - to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly, the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arab imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners - which would, of course, be the Jews.

And right after all this, Israel will be happy to implement the Road Map in full.

[yatros from flatwater]

A succinct discussion of the land claims to Palestine in the context of human migrations.

[kingsurfer]

I find the past a none issue. Claims of what is right and wrong are pointless. The Israelis are there the Palestinians are there. People need to deal with it and respect each others right to life.

[Personal Responsibility]

I have always seen the "claim to land" issue as more of a question on "When does history start?". The people who hate the jews and love the palestinians say it started 1000 years ago. The Jews say 1900 years ago.

Basically it comes down to those who say the palestinians should be there just want the palestinians there and the jews out. This ridiculous claim that a 1000 year old claim "trumps" a 1900 year old claim because it is more recent, but that the most recent claim is irrelevant, is just smokescreen. They want the jews out and are trying to find reasons to justify it.

[boofus]

Did Europe ever control the Holy Land during the Crusades? They could make a claim to it too then.

[redgolum]

Good point.

How about the Byzantines? The Arabs stole the land from the Greeks first you know.

[kingsurfer]

Yeh we controlled it for a long time.

I believe some of the fortifications and castles are still there.

[massgopguy]

So how come no one told Hitler and Stalin they were killing the wrong Jews?

[massgopguy]

No, but Suleiman the Magnificent layed siege to Vienna. And you know what Fatah is.

[massgopguy]

I am responding to those who say that the Jews who live in Israel now are not the Jews of Biblical times. Joshua divided up the land between the 13 tribes and called the land Israel.
Now that they have returned to the land after being forced out by the sword, time and time again, the Euro-trash back the Palestinian claim.

[Alouette]

A Short Review of the Different Governments in Palestine in the Above Periods.

In the year 3828, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, Palestine was under the dominion of the Romans.

In the year 4092 (332), under Emperor Constantine, the Greek — Romano-Greek Empire.

In the year 4374 (614), under King Kusarai (Chosroes?) for a brief space, Persian, but later, again under the government of the Greeks.

In the year 4397 (637) under Calif Omar, Arab or Mahomedan.

In the year 4502 (742), it was for a short time under the dominion of the Turks or Tartars, but at a later period again under the Arabs.

In the year 4628 (868), under the Califs of Egypt.

In the year 4800 (1040), again under the Turks or Tartars.

In the year 4859 (1099), under the European Christians.

In the year 4947 (1187), under Saladin, Calif of Egypt.

In the year 5004 (1244), under Casiunus, i.e. under Turks or Tartars.

In the year 5051 (1291), under Sultan Asa of Egypt, under Mameluks.

In the year 5161 (1401), under Timurlan [Tamerlane], for a short time, i.e. under Mongols, than again under the Mameluks.

In the year 5278 (1518), under Selim of Constantinople, under Ottomans.

In the year 5591 (1831), under Mahmud Ali, Pacha of Egypt.

In the year 5600 (1840), under Abd al Medjid, Ottoman.

Here would well apply the passage from Judges 9:2: “What is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubaal, should rule over you, or that one man should be your master?”

[marron]

Historical Palestine was divided into two pieces, a sliver for the jewish settlers, and the rest for the arabs.

Jewish palestine was renamed "Israel", and arab palestine was renamed "Jordan".

That part of palestine that is not Israel, is Jordan. That part that isn't Jordan, is Israel.

No third country is necessary, nor is it legal, nor is it even viable. An arab west bank separate from Jordan is not economically viable, and cannot survive in isolation. Separate from Jordan, it has no markets, no jobs, no connection to the outside world. It is destined, or doomed, to be a lawless enclave, and lawless enclaves are doomed to be ruled by lawless men. Such a territory should not even be considered at all.

Israel should simply choose a border she can live with, and seal it. Those arabs living on the Israeli side of the line who are not prepared to live in peace should be compensated and expelled. And land across the line used to launch attacks should be seized, cleared, and incorporated as permanent Israeli land.

Any land not claimed by Israel should be ruled by Jordan. If Jordan refuses to accept responsibility for its west bank citizens, she can deal with them as refugees.