Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims

[D.J]

Arab propaganda has been successful in presenting a picture of the Palestinian people as the helpless and innocent victims of Israeli aggression, potential friends of America who have been alienated by America’s support for Israel and its failure to support a Palestinian national state. This decision is itself the result of a “Jewish Lobby” run by “neocons” and “receiving its orders” from Israel. The fact that Palestinians are now led by two terrorist organizations, Fatah and Hamas, is also blamed on Israel and the United States rather than on the Palestinians who elected terrorists as leaders.

According to Palestinian revisionism, the Palestinians lived from time immemorial in historic Palestine, a veritable paradise of flourishing orchards and fertile vineyards, teeming with happy peasants. Then, the evil Zionists came and, with the support of the British, stole the Palestinians’ land, exiled their people, and initiated a reign of terror and ethnic cleansing that has not abated until this very day.

Goebbels died more than 60 years ago, but his core propaganda strategy lives on in the Great Arab Lie that there exists a Palestinian people who have suffered great injustices at the hands of Israel, the UK, and the USA. Arab leaders know that if they just keep repeating the same lie often enough, eventually people will believe it - and the greater the lie, the more readily will people believe it.

Since the Six-Day War, the Arab world’s most powerful leaders have waged a war of words against Israel. Having failed to defeat Israel by means of naked military aggression, these leaders and their advisors decided, sometime between the end of the war and the Khartoum Conference of August-September 1967, to bring about the destruction of Israel by means of a relentless terror war.

To justify to the world their ruthless murder of Israeli civilians and their undying hatred of the West, these leaders needed to invent a bizarre and apposite reality. Slowly but surely, the reality of the “little David” Israel assailed by the “giant Goliath” of the entire Arab world has been reversed. Now the “Goliath” Israel is depicted as the racist, apartheid, war-mongering, oppressive, illegal occupier Jewish State, regional superpower, hell-bent on the destruction, indeed, the genocide of the poor, defenseless Palestinian people - the Middle East’s new “David.” This grotesque fiction could be foisted upon the world only if there were indeed a “little David” for Goliath Israel to oppress; only if Israel’s combatant in the conflict were not the entire Arab world, but rather some poor, enfeebled people who could mount no real defense against the Jewish superpower, but nonetheless had a stronger claim to the land of Israel than Israel itself.

Thus the PLO, under the tutelage of the KGB, invented “The Palestinian People.”
This propaganda war has developed a mendacious narrative which works in two directions at once. On one hand, Arab propaganda sources claim the Canaanites were Palestinians; Abraham was a Palestinian; so were David, Solomon, and even Jesus. And the Jews were interlopers, invaders, and conquerors in the days of Joshua, just as they are now.

On the other hand, Israel is discredited and delegitimised in the present by the endless anti-Israel resolutions in the UN, orchestrated in large part by the Arab bloc and their Russian (formerly Soviet) mentors; and by the constant clamor of Arab states to the world at large, promoting the risible assertion that Israel is the aggressor. This occurs even though Israel has sued for peace after winning each war, Israel has agreed a dozen times over to the creation of a Palestinian state on part of its land, even as Hamas’ qassam rockets fall daily upon Israeli civilians, even as Hezbollah declares vociferously its goal of the annihilation of world Jewry, and Iran looks forward perpetrating a nuclear Armageddon in order to create a world without Israel. If only Israel were destroyed, they assert, then the entire Middle East would know peace.

This mendacious narrative is stalwartly bolstered by a growing host of pseudo-academics in Western universities, and by a cadre of Western journalists, who churn out books and articles that effectively rewrite history and archaeology in order to erase Israel’s connection to the Holy Land and thus deny both the Christian and Jewish historic and religious roots in the Land of Israel.

This propaganda campaign to legitimize the 60-year-old Arab war against Israel and to create the fiction of the “Palestinian people” as the poor oppressed victims of imperialist colonialist Israel, illegally occupying “Historic Palestine,” is a veritable war against History. It deals in lies, just the kind of lies Goebbels had in mind. And the biggest lie of all is the existence of a “Palestinian People.”

After he took over as leader of the PLO, Arafat sent his adjutant, Abu Jihad (later the leader of the PLO’s military operations), to North Vietnam to study the strategy and tactics of guerilla warfare. Arafat was struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success with left-wing sympathizers in the United States and Europe. “Progressive” activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam War from a Communist conquest of the South into a struggle for national liberation. An insight into this North Vietnamese PR campaign, which provided the key to the Communist victory and a lesson for PLO operatives, was offered by Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap: “Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”

Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation. And the key to all this was creating an image that would help Arafat manipulate the American and Western news media.

The PLO also looked to other examples of a “people’s war” to find both military allies and ideological paradigms. Thanks to input from the late Romanian President-for-Life Ceausescu, General Giap, and the Algerians, Arafat developed the images of the “illegal occupation” and “Palestinian national self-determination,” both of which lent his terrorism the mantle of a legitimate peoples’ resistance. After the Six-Day War, Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962), imparted to Arafat some wisdom that echoed the lessons he had learned in North Vietnam:

Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression...that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.
​

Of course, there was one ingredient missing in this imaginative reconfiguration of the struggle: There had never been a “Palestinian People,” nor a “Palestinian Nation,” nor a sovereign state known as “Palestine,” nor even any specific territorial entity that could rightfully be called “historic Palestine.”

 

[senojekips]

For just once in your life stop being a pathetic fukwit,... grow up, grow some functioning balls, and man up to the truth.

FACT: You cannot invade and occupy another's land, killing those who resist that occupation, and claim to be the victim, anymore than you can commit rape upon a person and claim to be the victim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even Israelis realise that they have a history of always presenting themselves as the victim

Israelis have always loved victimization, not only when we were real victims, as often was the case in our history, but also when we were the aggressors, occupiers and abusers.
By Gideon Levy | Monday, May 13, 2013 - Sivan 4, 5773

Once upon a time the staple piece of clothing was the blue shirt of the Labor Movement, and songwriter Mordechai Zeira sang about it: "And it's much better than all jewels." A new generation has arrived, and its shirt is darker. Today it's black and bears the legend: We are all the victims of Goldstone.

Dozens of friends of the two Givati Brigade soldiers arrived wearing these infuriating shirts at a military court a few days ago. Their friends had been convicted of overextending their authority while risking the life of an 11-year-old, and to be precise, of conduct unbecoming of soldiers. The soldiers received the scandalous support of senior officers, and the two convicted men have become heroes. (I bet this whitewash of the facts is all very familiar to you D.J.)?

Israel is proud to present: The aggressor-vicitim. History has known crueler and even longer occupations than the Israeli one, and there have been much worse attacks on civilian populations than Operation Cast Lead. But there has never been an occupier who presented himself like that, as a victim.

From the days of Golda Meir, who said we will never forgive the Arabs for forcing us to hurt their children, to the combatants who shot and wept, we have set, courtesy of the Givati troops, a new record of Israeli chutzpah: We are all the victims of Goldstone.

The victimhood, it turns out, belongs not to an 11-year-old child whose life was put at risk and who has been suffering from insomnia ever since, but the soldiers who ordered him to check for explosives, in clear contradiction of a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Not the Samouni family, 21 of whose members were butchered when the same Givati Brigade, under the same commander, bombed the house into which the soldiers ordered the family, but the brigade commander, Ilan Malka, whose conduct is now being investigated, shamefully late. And certainly not the residents of Gaza, who experienced Cast Lead with its hardships, horrors, destruction and war crimes, but the soldiers, who share responsibility with the commanders and politicians.

We've always loved victimization, not only when we were real victims, as often was the case in our history, but also when we were the aggressors, occupiers and abusers. And we don't only cast ourselves as victims, but as the only victims. But observe our perception of our wrongdoing. It started with denial, then changed to suppression, then to shamelessness, then to dehumanization and demonization, until we arrived at the current stage: A pride parade.

The soldiers taking pictures of themselves dancing with prisoners and posing with corpses are proud of what they do. They upload the footage onto the Web, for all to see, and friends of the two Givati troops are equally proud of what their mates have done. They're proud of the conduct of people who broke the law. Their solidarity may be understandable, but it's much more difficult to understand the support of their brigade commander, Col. Moni Katz, and Maj. Gen. (res. ) Uzi Dayan.

What are they saying - that the soldiers acted correctly? That they should not be punished? That they are victims? In that case, we have little to claim from the soldiers, who were only acting according to the spirit emanating from their superiors. But most difficult to understand is the widespread public support for the two. Just like the Nahariya policeman convicted of placing bombs to injure suspected mobsters, they are local heroes and national victims to many.

Do we really want to be proud of the soldiers ordering children to risk their lives, in violation of the law? Is this how we want the army to behave? Will Israeli public opinion never accept that war has rules and that if Israeli soldiers break them, they must be punished? True, they may have been carrying out orders, they may have been jaded and exhausted after three weeks of the assault on Gaza, as the court has heard. But casting them as victims testifies to the chaos overtaking Israel.

So we should go back to basics. The victims of Cast Lead are the 1.5 million residents of Gaza. The "victims" of the Goldstone report are not the two convicts, but their own victims. The shirts worn by their friends in court are proof that these basic truths have been blurred and distorted beyond recognition.

Redress Information & Analysis By Editor April 27, 2013
UK’s National Archives Reveal British Understood The Truth Re The Criminal Zionists

It is 65 years since Israel was forced upon the Middle East through terrorism, murder, ethnic cleansing and theft but so little has changed.
Then as now, Britain, the occupying power that handed Palestine to the European Jewish colonists on a plate, knew the truth about the Zionists.
Yet (they) chose to be the midwife of their offspring, the state of Israel, even as they murdered British soldiers.
And now Britain, which is possibly better informed about the reality of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict than anyone other than the primary victims of Israel, remains the loyal international spokesman and facilitator of this terrorist state, working on its behalf from the United Nations to the European Union.
This week, British intelligence documents released by the UK’s National Archives bring into sharp relief the extent to which the British government understood the truth about the Zionist criminals __ (that) Palestine (was) to be ethnically cleansed of its citizens and turned into the state of Israel.

The documents reveal that, just two weeks before Israel’s unilateral declaration of “independence”, the British government’s high commissioner for Palestine, Alan Cunningham, viewed the behaviour of Jewish terrorists as comparable to that of the Nazis. (Cunningham below)

In one dispatch, an account is given of the massacre at the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. In it, Cunningham wrote that 250 people were killed, with the attack “accompanied by every circumstance of savagery.
“Women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed and then slaughtered.”
Exposing the myth of the poor “Jewish David” heroically standing up to the “Arab Goliath”, the British documents also show that while the Jews were organized, the local Arabs were poorly served by their leaders and by neighbouring countries, despite “extravagant claims of victories”.
Cunningham wrote on 30 April that the Arabs’ “much vaunted liberation army” was “poorly equipped and badly led”.
Yet, 65 years on the Zionists’ barefaced big, fat lie, which claims that Israel is the victim and the Arabs are the aggressors, is still being peddled shamelessly by Western politicians and media. (April 27, 2013 @ 10:19)

 

[MontyB]

Of course, there was one ingredient missing in this imaginative reconfiguration of the struggle: There had never been a “Palestinian People,” nor a “Palestinian Nation,” nor a sovereign state known as “Palestine,” nor even any specific territorial entity that could rightfully be called “historic Palestine.”

This is a particularly sad argument as at some point in history not one of the nations on earth existed, Columbus didn't sail across the Atlantic looking at map of the USA, Vercingetorix never once set out to liberate France from the Romans sorry I mean Italians and the over blown myth of "Israel" was barely anything more than a Canaanite village.


At some point in its life everything begins, I realise it serves your actions to dehumanise those you oppress by pretending they don't exist but please understand that your argument is very transparent and as more people realise this you will find it becomes another reason Israel is disliked.

 

[operationmatador]

agree one hundred percent and add: "palestine" is a myth,never existed,there was only the Kingdom of Israel and Juda,it's history,facts,

 

[operationmatador]

"palestine" was a creation of nazi-funded arab nationalism

 

[MontyB]

agree one hundred percent and add: "palestine" is a myth,never existed,there was only the Kingdom of Israel and Juda,it's history,facts,

Really?
Who were the Canaanites?

I think you will find that the term "only" is a particularly poor one to use in this case.

 

[D.J]

This is a particularly sad argument as at some point in history not one of the nations on earth existed, Columbus didn't sail across the Atlantic looking at map of the USA, Vercingetorix never once set out to liberate France from the Romans sorry I mean Italians and the over blown myth of "Israel" was barely anything more than a Canaanite village.


At some point in its life everything begins, I realise it serves your actions to dehumanise those you oppress by pretending they don't exist but please understand that your argument is very transparent and as more people realise this you will find it becomes another reason Israel is disliked.

Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind. According to the United Nations weird standards, any person that spent TWO YEARS (!!!) in "Palestine" before 1948, with or without proof, is a "Palestinian", as well as all the descendants of that person.

There is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. And after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians - something they did not know the day before. Of course, these people having a new identity had to build themselves a history, namely, had to steal some others' history, and the only way that the victims of the theft would not complain is if those victims do no longer exist. Therefore, the Palestinian leaders claimed two contradictory lineages from ancient peoples that inhabited in the Land of Israel: the Canaanites and the Philistines.

The Palestinians cannot claim any descent from the ancient Canaanites - if so, why not to pretend also the Syrian "occupied territories", namely, Lebanon? Why do they not speak the language of the ancient Canaanites, that was Hebrew? Because they are NOT Canaanites at all!

There is not one single person in the world who may be able to prove Philistine lineage, yet, if Palestinians insist, they have to recognize themselves as invaders in Israel, and then they must ask Greece to return them back the Isle of Crete! The Philistines are extinct and claims to alleged links with them are utterly false as they are historically impossible to establish. In any case, claiming a Philistine heritage is idle because it cannot legitimate any land in which they were foreign occupants and not native dwellers. Philistines were not Arabs, and the only feature in common between both peoples is that in Israel they should be regarded as invaders, Philistines from the sea and Arabs from the wilderness. They do not want Jerusalem because it is their city, which is not and never has been, they simply want to take her from the Jews, to whom she has belonged for three thousand years. The Philistines wanted to take from Israelites the Holy Ark of the Covenant, modern so-called Palestinians want to take from them the Holy City of the Covenant.

No, they are not any ancient people, but claim to be. They were born in a single day, after a war that lasted six days in 1967 c.e. If they were true Canaanites, they would speak Hebrew and demand from Syria to give them back their occupied homeland in Lebanon, but they are not. If they were Philistines, they would claim back the Isle of Crete from Greece and would recognize that they have nothing to do with the Land of Israel, and would ask excuses to Israel for having stolen the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[MontyB]

The Palestinians cannot claim any descent from the ancient Canaanites - if so, why not to pretend also the Syrian "occupied territories", namely, Lebanon? Why do they not speak the language of the ancient Canaanites, that was Hebrew? Because they are NOT Canaanites at all!

But here is the fly in your ointment Canaanites were not Semites were they and if Jews are Semites what does that tell you?
Hell if we are being blunt Israelite's were just unwanted Egyptians.

Your problem is that you are trying to juggle multiple historical timelines none of which really support your argument so you muddying them all to create a history that never really existed and anyone that is prepared to look at the archeology will tell you that.

Seriously while I honestly wish I had studied archeology I didn't but I enjoy it and one thing that is becoming ever more apparent is that the history Israel is hiding behind while a great fairy story in religious texts does not stand up to archeological reality.

But by all means keep repeating it as I am sure you know what they say about a lie told often enough.

 

[senojekips]

The whole rotten invented Jewish "history" is gradually falling apart.

There is more and more evidence becoming available that today's Israelis who are for the most part descendants of European and Eastern European Jews are mainly Khazarian, a hypothesis that has been resisted by Jews for over 200 years. However a recent study by Johns Hopkins University has shown this to be the most likely course of events.
Source: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.1092.pdf

If you are up to it, read this, but unless you are prepared to spend a lot of time, and have a detailed knowledge of DNA sequencing and analytical interpretation of that material, I recommend that you just read the Abstract. (In the Box Below)

Abstract
The question of Jewish ancestry has been the subject of controversy for over two centuries and has yet to be resolved.
The “Rhineland Hypothesis” proposes that Eastern European Jews emerged from a small group of German Jews who migrated eastward and expanded rapidly. Alternatively, the “Khazarian Hypothesis” suggests that Eastern European descended from Judean tribes who joined the Khazars, an amalgam of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries CE and converted to Judaism in the 8th century. The Judaized Empire was continuously reinforced with Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews until the 13th century. Following the collapse of their empire, the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern Europe. The rise of European Jewry is therefore explained by the contribution of the Judeo-Khazars. Thus far, however, their contribution has been estimated only empirically; the absence of genome-wide data from Caucasus populations precluded testing the Khazarian Hypothesis. Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian Hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland Hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses — including principal component, biogeographical origin, admixture, identity by descent, allele sharing distance, and uniparental analyses — to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry.

As such, these people who have occupied Palestine, have no more connection with the ancient Judeans than almost all of the worlds European descendants, and therefore the Jewish claims have no legitimacy, on the supposed grounds that it was their "homeland" It was most peoples homeland to at least the same degree.

 

[D.J]

The Canaanites are historically acknowledged as the first inhabitants of the Land of Israel. Indeed, the correct geographic name of the Land of Israel is Canaan, not "Palestine" (a Roman invention). They were composed by different tribes, that may be distinguished in two main groups: the Northern or Coastland Canaanites and the Southern or Mountain Canaanites.

The Canaanites were a Semitic people because they spoke a Semitic language. Their language was adopted from their Semitic neighbours, the Arameans, and was closely related to Hebrew.

Whenever the issue concerning the Jewish population in Israel is discussed, the idea that Jews are "returning back" to their Homeland after almost two millennia of exile is taken for granted. It is true that such is the case for the largest number of Jews, but not for all of them. It is not correct to say that the whole Jewish nation has been in exile. The long exile, known as Diaspora, is a documented fact that proves the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel, and was the consequence of the Jewish Wars of independence from the Roman Empire.

If "Palestinians" allegedly are the historic inhabitants of the Holy Land, why did they not fight for independence from Roman occupation as Jews did?

How is it possible that not a single Palestinian leader heading for a revolt against the Roman invaders is mentioned in any historic record?

Why is there not any Palestinian rebel group mentioned, as for example the Jewish Zealots?

Why does every historic document mentions the Jews as the native inhabitants, and the Greeks, Romans and others as foreigners dwelling in Judea, but not any Palestinian people, neither as native nor as foreigner?

After the last Jewish War in the 2nd century c.e., the Roman emperor Hadrian sacked Jerusalem in 135 c.e. and changed her name into Aelia Capitolina, and the name of Judea intoPalestine, in order to erase the Jewish identity from the face of the Earth. Most of the Jews were expelled from their own land by the Romans, a fact that determined the beginning of the great Diaspora. Nevertheless, small groups of Jews remained in the province then renamed "Palestine", and their descendants dwelled in their own country continuously throughout generations until the Zionist pioneers started on the mass return in the 19 century. Therefore, the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel is justified by a permanent presence of Jews as the only autochthonous ethnic community existing in the Holy Land.

Along the centuries and under different dominations, the "Palestinian" Jews did never submit to assimilation but conserved their spiritual and cultural identity, as well as their links with other Jewish communities in the Middle East. The continuous flow of Mizrachim (Oriental) and Sephardim (Mediterranean) Jews to the Holy Land contributed to support the existence of the Jewish population in the area. This enduring Jewish presence in the so-called Palestine preceded many centuries the arrival of the first Arab conqueror.

 

[senojekips]

I'm pleased to see that the stupid argument about the Israelis being victims has been quickly and easily proven to be a typical Israeli lie and we've now been able to diverge onto other non related lies.

 

[D.J]

Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNA and mtDNA haplotyping, of modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation between the groups. Important studies include the University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of 2000, Doron Behar's study of 2008, Steven Bray's study of 2010, and others.

The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.

Eastern European Jews have significant Eastern Mediterranean elements which manifest themselves in close relationships with Kurdish, Armenian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Anatolian Turkish peoples. This is why the Y-DNA haplogroups J and E, which are typical of the Middle East, are so common among them.

At the same time, there are traces of European (including Northern Italian and Western Slavic or Eastern Slavic) and Khazar ancestry among European Jews. Many Greek and Roman women married Jewish men before conversion to Judaism was outlawed by the Roman Empire, and many of the Southern European ancestral lines in Ashkenazic families come from these marriages. Ethiopian Jews mostly descend from Ethiopian Africans who converted to Judaism, but may also be related to a lesser extent to Yemenite Jews. Yemenite Jews descend from Arabs and Israelites. North African Jewish and Kurdish Jewish paternal lineages come from Israelites. Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East, and that studies that take into account mtDNA show that many Jewish populations are related to neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally.

Some historians and scientists recognized the need for specifically testing the Khazar theory. Unfortunately, Y-DNA doesn't usually last more than 100 years in the remains of a dead person, so direct testing of Khazar bones may be impossible.

 

[D.J]

I'm pleased to see that the stupid argument about the Israelis being victims has been quickly and easily proven to be a typical Israeli lie and we've now been able to diverge onto other non related lies.

You have proved nothing
But since you are obviously an expert, tell me where is the proof that the so-called "Palestinians" are the original inhabitants and what right they have to take it back?

 

[senojekips]

You didn't even read what was said did you?

I'm sure that the researchers at Johns Hopkins are far better acquainted with the problems of DNA analysis than you are, and after years of research they have stated that their findings indicate that European Jews are mainly Khazar.

Of course we realise that real scientific research means nothing in Israel unless the findings fit your rather peculiar version of history gleaned almost exclusively from Jewish "scholars"

You have proved nothing
But since you are obviously an expert, tell me where is the proof that the so-called "Palestinians" are the original inhabitants and what right they have to take it back?

I showed that you cannot be the aggressor and the victim, The Zionists came to Palestine and occupied the land using the Palestinian resistance against this illegal occupation as an excuse to start a war in which the Zionists drove the majority of the occupants into adjoining countries, refusing to allow them to return. (Another War Crime). Therefore as the aggressors you cannot claim to be the victims.

Armed resistance to illegal occupation is not a crime (except perhaps in the eyes of the aggressor) but aggression and retribution is,.... a la Lidice, Maillé and Oradour sur Glane.

The Palestinians don't have to "take it back", it is already theirs, they were living there when the European Jews illegally entered and occupied Palestine.

 

[D.J]

They don't have to "take it back", it is already theirs. they were living there when the European Jews illegally entered and occupied Palestine.

Really!
Maybe we should give the U.S. back to the original inhabitants, since they lived there before the Europeans came.

 

[senojekips]

Really!
Maybe we should give the U.S. back to the original inhabitants, since they lived there before the Europeans came.

You forget that all this has been dealt with on this forum many times before and we know the answers to all of your Zionazi bullsh!t. The US was colonised in a time when it was not against the law in fact every major world power was doing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis

Robert J. Miller [FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]
Lewis & Clark Law School
[/FONT] [FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]August 30, 2011[/FONT]

[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] Lewis & Clark Law Review, Forthcoming[/FONT]
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-23[/FONT]

[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]Abstract: [/FONT]
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] The majority of the non-European world was colonized under an international law that is known as the Doctrine of Discovery. Under this legal principle, European countries claimed superior rights over Indigenous nations. When European explorers planted flags and crosses in the lands of native peoples, they were making legal claims of ownership and domination over the lands, assets, and peoples they had "discovered." These claims were justified by racial, ethnocentric, and religious ideas of the alleged superiority of European Christians. This Article examines the application of Discovery by Spain, Portugal, and England in the settler societies of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and the United States. The comparative law analysis used in this Article demonstrates that these three colonizing countries applied the elements of the Doctrine in nearly identical ways against Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the six settler societies analyzed here continue to apply this law today to restrict the human, property, and sovereign rights of Indigenous nations and peoples. This Article concludes that basic fairness and a restoration of the self-determination rights of Indigenous peoples mandates that these countries work to remove the vestiges of the Doctrine of Discovery from their modern day laws and policies. [/FONT]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is clearly not the case with Israel as Palestine had been "discovered" 2000 years previously.

My ancestors came from London, Amsterdam and probably Germany and Poland. If I were to attempt to use this as an excuse to just roll up, and throw the present owners off their land killing those who resist, I would be killed or at very least thrown into a lunatic asylum. Where one's ancestors may or may not have been resident 1300 years ago gives them no right of return and definitely no right to steal the land and murder those who resist. It's a fact of life.

Finally none of this has any connection showing Israel to be a victim, in fact it clearly shows the reverse.

 

[VDKMS]

But here is the fly in your ointment Canaanites were not Semites were they and if Jews are Semites what does that tell you?
Hell if we are being blunt Israelite's were just unwanted Egyptians.

Your problem is that you are trying to juggle multiple historical timelines none of which really support your argument so you muddying them all to create a history that never really existed and anyone that is prepared to look at the archeology will tell you that.

Seriously while I honestly wish I had studied archeology I didn't but I enjoy it and one thing that is becoming ever more apparent is that the history Israel is hiding behind while a great fairy story in religious texts does not stand up to archeological reality.

But by all means keep repeating it as I am sure you know what they say about a lie told often enough.

Let us compare the two societies, Jewish and Palestinian.

The Jews speak Hebrew, like they did from the 10th century BCE in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Same place.

The Palestinians speak Arab. Like they did in eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BCE. Other place.

The religion of the Jews, Judaism . About 3000 years old. Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions. Same place. Holiest place Jerusalem.

The religion of the Palestinians is Islam. 1400 years old. Saudia Arabia. Holiest place Mecca.

The literature of the Jews is from the classic era, (as is latin and Greek). Same place.

Palestinian literature is Arabic, which is from the Medieval era. Saudi Arabia.


No matter how you twist and turn, Jews were their before the Palestinians and never left. No one was able to expell all of them. Arabs, Americans, Australians and your folks (as well as some others) reside in a country where they've had no connection whatsoever in histroy and rule it and you are refusing to accept Jews who do have a historical connection to the land of Israel to come back and rule it????

You better start learning archeology because your knowledge is very limited.

Linguistically, the Canaanite languages form a group within the Northwest Semitic languages; its best-known member today is the Hebrew language.

You insist that there used to be a Palestinian society in history. Then tell me, mister know it all, what was its' name because there never was a Palestinian state until the Jews give it to them. What was the name of the ruler(s) and where did they reside? Why did they change the name into Palestine?

@ Seno:

Your Cunningham guy (High Commissioner of Palestine from 1945 - 1948) was just playing lip service to the Arabs. The British never intended to give the Jews what was promised by the International community. During his command he kept the contingents of the Arab Legion, brought to Palestine for police duty, in Palestine and to attack Jewish communities, although they should have left on December 11, 1947, as said by Foreign Minister Bevin.

He also did not interfere with the infiltration of Arab irregulars into Palestine. The British government reported to the Palestine Commission only six incursions involving small numbers. Although they knew from a secret report entitled "Intelligence Summary No. 68" by the Sixth Airborne Division, a detailed record of the Arab invasion on March 5 1948.

"The infiltration of Arab bands from the neighbouring Arab States is continuing and an Arab source thought reliable has estimated the strength of the Arab Liberation Army in Samaria as being approximately 5,000, organised into four detachments"​

The British knew where they were, who they were and what their intentions were and didn't do anything about it. They didn't even border to tell the Palestinian Commission.

About Deir Yassin. Cunningham was not a witness and as a pro-arab he was happy to believe the Arab side of the story. Jews who actually participated in the battle (yes Seno, a battle, not a massacre) were not believed. But before I'll go on first this:

"The presence of Germans and Nazis in the Arab ranks in Haifa was revealed by the Haganah in the truce terms which it laid down. These truce terms asked for the deportation of all foreign Arab fighters from Haifa and the handing over to the British military authorities of all Germans and Nazis in Arab ranks. Five Nazis were handed over."​

The presence in Haifa of well-armed foreign invaders, as far back as March 5, was verified in Intelligence Summary No. 68 of the Sixth Airborne Division.

The most extreme and bizarre version of Deir Yassin is that of Eliahu Amikam, a journalist on the staff of the tabloid Yediot Aharonot, who published on 19/08/1960: " In Deir-Yassin there were soldiers of regular foreign armies, including Nazis with swastika emblems. Among the corpses there were Iraqis, Syrians and Yugoslavs lying in their military uniform. Swastika ribbons were torn off their sleeves".

I found that hard to believe, not anymore. The British Intelligence knew about it.

"The intelligence documents cited below show that before the 15 May invasion, British intelligence knew that the Arabs terrorizing the future Israel were being led in part by Nazi advisers. These included Bosnian Islamist Nazis from the infamous Handzar Division of the Waffen SS. According to a French intelligence document published by The Nation seven months later, the British sent thousands of Nazi prisoners of war, including top war criminals, to assist the Arab attack. This was after the Arab invasion."​

The British Record on Partition as revealed by British Intelligence and other Official Sources.
A Memorandum Submitted to the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations - April 1948
Read it.

 

[MontyB]

Let us compare the two societies, Jewish and Palestinian.

The Jews speak Hebrew, like they did from the 10th century BCE in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Same place.

Ah yes you will notice though that once you remove biblical texts from the process there is literally next to nothing that proves these "great" kingdoms ever existed for example the great David that is mentioned absolutely no where in historical text and only once on a fragment of stone but then that guy may have just been talking about his local florist as there is nothing descriptive on the tablet to say other wise basically there is as much to prove King Arthur and Robin Hood existed as there is David.

However since logic will not sway you lets play bible games where reality can be overlooked because all you need is faith aka an imagination.

Who were Shem, Ham, and Japheth?
Which had a son named Canaan?
Which of those three are the Semites named after?

The Palestinians speak Arab. Like they did in eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BCE. Other place.

Tell me why don't the French speak Gaelic as they did 2000 years ago give or take a few years?

Would you argue that the French are not locals to France because they do not speak the original language of the land and as the Irish and Scots speak a closer version of Gaelic they have more right to France than the French (bloody hell maybe the French are invented, oh the humanity where was Arafat in 843AD)?

I would start on English being basically a derivative of North Sea Germanic, French and Latin and that almost no one spoke English until what the 11th century and even then it was old English as it wasn't until the 15th century that modern English started to develop but I am sure you understand my point.

Now there is another issue I would like to address and that is the failure to link source material as in my endeavors to provide accurate material I stumbled across this...

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28955

which looks awfully similar.

Basically it is common internet etiquette to link your sources where possible and in some cases a legal requirement so can we at least follow that process before we do something silly and give Redleg more problems than we already do?

 

[VDKMS]

Ah yes you will notice though that once you remove biblical texts from the process there is literally next to nothing that proves these "great" kingdoms ever existed for example the great David that is mentioned absolutely no where in historical text and only once on a fragment of stone but then that guy may have just been talking about his local florist as there is nothing descriptive on the tablet to say other wise basically there is as much to prove King Arthur and Robin Hood existed as there is David.

However since logic will not sway you lets play bible games where reality can be overlooked because all you need is faith aka an imagination.

Who were Shem, Ham, and Japheth?
Which had a son named Canaan?
Which of those three are the Semites named after?

Wether the biblical texts are right or wrong, certain is that at that time there weren't any Arab Palestinians but possible Israelis. King Shalmaneser III of Assyria fought a battle at Qarqar in 853 BC. He claimed victory and erected the Kurkh Monolith which give an account of the battle. Listed is :King Ahab of Israel sent 2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers

Tell me why don't the French speak Gaelic as they did 2000 years ago give or take a few years?

Because they were invaded and conquered by two main groups. The first were the Romans and in the 3rd century the Franks, who came from Germany. The original French (Gauls) had to intigrate twice.

Would you argue that the French are not locals to France because they do not speak the original language of the land and as the Irish and Scots speak a closer version of Gaelic they have more right to France than the French (bloody hell maybe the French are invented, oh the humanity where was Arafat in 843AD)?

We are departing from what we talked about: societies. The original "French" society, the ones who lived there before the Romans and later the Franks doesn't exist anymore. Language gone, religion gone. The Scots or Irish never lived in "France", not before nor after the Romans invaded. The French society is much closer the the Franks'. The name "France" comes from the Latin Francia, which means "country of the Franks". The Jewish society goes a long way back and certainly dates before the Arab speaking and Islam believing Palestinians. In ancient times people were chased away over and over again. Most didn't want to go back to were they were born, simply because they were afraid to do so. My country (Belgium) has been occupied by almost every state in Europe. French, Romans, Dutch, Spanish, Austria and Germans and raided by the Vikings but we stayed. The Jews stayed too. The Arabs were the invaders.
Ah, the treaty of Verdun! The partition of Charlemagnes (we call him Karel de Grote) empire. But involving Arafat is good. What do you think would have happend when one of the sons of Charlemagne refused his part of the empire? He would lose it forever. So, are you saying that by refusing their part of the Palestine Partition plan the Arabs lost their claim to the land? And if Arafat would have lived at that time do you think they would have given it to a foreigner? (Arafat is born in Egypt).

The French had to adapt twice. The region of Palestine was conquered by the Arabs and had to adapt. A lot did but not the Jews, they kept living as they did before the Arabs came. A lot of Arabs immigrated into "Palestine" just as a lot of Romans and Franks immigrated into what is now called France. The Franks were on the run from tribes comming from the east, invaded the Roman Empire and toghether with the Romans chased them away.

I would start on English being basically a derivative of North Sea Germanic, French and Latin and that almost no one spoke English until what the 11th century and even then it was old English as it wasn't until the 15th century that modern English started to develop but I am sure you understand my point.

Sure, they are not pure anymore. Imagine this. England is invaded by a foreign power with another language, culture and religion. They expell all the British exept for a small group who tries to survive and keep their language , culture and religion alive. Their holiest place is a temple in London which gets destroyed by the invaders and on the ruins they place a temple of their own religion. Some British tries to fight back from time to time to no avail. The British living in other countries keep their language, culture and religion and believe that some day they will go back to England and get their country back. Then a war erupts and the original invaders are pushed back. Then the British want to came back but get a hostile welcome. Even the ones who didn't flee are being attacked. But they manage to get their country back and are immediately attacked by the original invaders who claim that the British must all be killed because it is not their country! Who would you support, the British or the invaders?

Now there is another issue I would like to address and that is the failure to link source material as in my endeavors to provide accurate material I stumbled across this...

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28955

which looks awfully similar.

Maybe the poster and the writer of the article are one and the same or he forgot to list the link.
Remember "der Alte"? A lot of his posting were also copy and paste from articles without giving the link, yet he stood in high esteem. And to me he still does by the way.

Basically it is common internet etiquette to link your sources where possible and in some cases a legal requirement so can we at least follow that process before we do something silly and give Redleg more problems than we already do?

Have you read this link? The British Record on Partition as revealed in British Military Intelligence and other Official Sources
A Memorandum Submitted to the Special Session of The General Assembly of the United Nations
April 1948

or this one : With the Judaens in the Palestine Campaign.

both are pdf files. The latter is written in 1922.

 

[mmarsh]

Really!
Maybe we should give the U.S. back to the original inhabitants, since they lived there before the Europeans came.

We probably would these days, the problem is the land we stole (and we did steal it, trail of tears and all that) started to happen 400 years ago. Its a bit late to give it back. The Damage is already done.

Nonetheless, our treatment of the Native Americans remains one of the darker moments in our history and its not something we Americans are especially proud of.

I don't a single American who would justify our treatment of the native Americans (except the bigots and the crazies) and its certainly not behavior Israel should emulate or find justification for in its own deplorable treatment of its neighbors.