Palestine - who owns it?

rami_ayyash

Palestine belongs to Levantines (Canaanites, Assyrians, Aramaics, Hebrews and Levantine arabs)

nightlord

Great one liner.:lol


Got any proof?


nightlord

"alestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense
that England belongs to the English or France to the
French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews
on the Arabs...Surely it would be a crime against
humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine
can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their
national home." ~ Mahatma Gandhi.

http://www.jaihoon.com/watan/indarbsltngandhi.htm

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 25-9-2004 at 12:34 AM ]

nightlord

You and Sephiroth must be buddies.

You seem to like Mahatma Gandhi alot.

I dont really care for his opinion. His only virtue in his life time was that he stood up to the british. Thats all.

So as usual, answer the question Kenkid. Who owns Palestine.

I dont want Mahatma's opinion, I want yours.

nightlord

sonny~~

one simple question NIGHTLORD sire

wot did un divide so that israel can exist?  intelligent response now with HARDfacts  

peace

"alestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense
that England belongs to the English or France to the
French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews
on the Arabs...Surely it would be a crime against
humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine
can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their
national home." ~ Mahatma Gandhi.

This is amazing isn't it? English to England. French to France. Shouldn't it be Palestine to Palestinian? The same can be said of Egyptian to Egypt.

It may strike you with questions why are Egyptian recognise themselves as Egyptian by nationality but Arab as race? Nvm. Let's question Palestinian. Since when "alestinian" as a distinct identity begin to surface in history? ;) Funny enough, many of them including Kenn still recognise themselves as Arab not Palestinian. There you go....

About Mahatma Gandhi, when it came to identifying real evil, Gandhi was one of the most short-sighted people in history. This is what he wrote in May 1940:

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

Ahh... priceless and classic quote there!

Debmey

The reason for all that is because the majority of Egyptians today and not real  Egyptians, they are Arabs. The real Egyptians who built the pyramids are the Copts who make up about 15% of the population.

Same for Iraqis, they are really Babylonians who were Arabised under Arab imperialism.

Lebanese are Phoenicians Arabised.

Libyans & Algerians are Berbers Arabised.  

Arabs came from Arabia.

nightlord

When did the Palestine became the sole ownership of the Arabs.

This is ridiculous. When people say Palestinians they use to mean the Arabs and the JEWS living in Palestine...

Now the Arabs want total control. Absolute trash.


nightlord

Debmey

The term Palestinian traditionally mean Jews living in Palestine. It was only in the 60s that Arbs adopted this Palestinian label to fool thw world.

Originally posted by Debmey at 2004-9-27 08:42 AM:
The term Palestinian traditionally mean Jews living in Palestine. It was only in the 60s that Arbs adopted this Palestinian label to fool thw world.

How silly of you to form such a simple-minded conclusion.

Actually, if you listen carefully to Israeli politicians speak, you will realize that they do understand these Palestinian grievances well. Listen to David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, profess: "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" (Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in The Jewish Paradox, p121). Little did Ben Gurion know that Arabs are much more acquiescent than he thought, thanks to their "wise" and "pragmatic" leaders.

So, as arrogant as he may be, Ben Gurion understands that it is inevitable that Arabs hate Jews. After all, as he confessed, Jews stole their lands (give me a break about the "God promised it to us" bit:lol). And, to borrow another Zionist leader's words, "if you love your country, you cannot but hate those who seek to annex it卛f you love your mother, would you not hate the man who sought to kill her: would you not hate him and fight him at the cost, if needs be, of your own life?"

Israeli opposition and Meretz leader MK Yossi Sarid thinks he knows how to end the cycle of terror and bloodshed in the Holy Land. He is onto something when he said (Jerusalem Post, 04/03/2002), in response to an attack on Israelis by Palestinian militants, that the "terror wave would continue as long as the occupation does." Or, in the words of imprisoned Fatah activist Marawn Barghouti, before him, "Want Security? End the Occupation."

http://www.palestinechronicle.co ... y=20021117180501244

sonny~~

there u r

u hit em right on the head KENNY.  tq for info  

peace

sonny~~

n so jew luvers remain silent as graveyard to me HARDquestion - EXACTLY WHICH LAND DID UN DIVIDE SO THAT israel CAN EXIST  

peace

UK archives reveal Palestine plan

By Rick Fountain
BBC, London  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3681840.stm

Secret wartime discussions about Palestine between Winston Churchill and the future Israeli President Chaim Weizmann led to an icy exchange with Anthony Eden, the British foreign secretary, according to official papers just released at the National Archives at Kew, London.

A top-secret Colonial Office file from 1943 shows that Mr Churchill favoured a plan to try to bribe King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, with

n so jew luvers remain silent as graveyard to me HARDquestion

Nobody's giving you a toss of what you THINK. Jangan perasan. :lol I had given you the answer innumerous times but it seems to me repeating the same old question is your favourite pastimes.

lolrosie,
Still, the letter does not implies that Palestine belongs to the Arabs. In fact, it also proven that the British policy stands firm on preventing a Jewish-ruled state.

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-9-27 01:19 PM:

In fact, it also proven that the British policy stands firm on preventing a Jewish-ruled state.

Is that really the British policy?  So, do you agree with that 'British policy' ?

Adm Chingchong,

The reason the letter did not imply that Palestine belongs to the Arabs was because it was already a known fact then.  If the land had already been the Jews', why on earth would Mr. Churchill planned to bribe King Saud then (note:  the leadership of a new Arab confederation) in exchange for Palestine?

From http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/palestine.htm

The Great war was to unexpectedly turn the imperial spotlight onto this part of the world. As the Ottomans had thrown in their hand with the Germans, it was inevitable that the British would want to defend their strategic connection with India through the Suez. And, in 1915 they would even try to force a way through to the Russians through the Dardanelles. Palestine was suddenly thrust into an active theatre of war. At this period of time the most important indigenous group that the British had to work with was the Arabs. The number of Jews in Palestine were less than 60,000 at the outbreak of the war. Therefore, initial British contacts were, almost exclusively, aimed at the Arabs.

Indeed, the waters were even further muddied by a third commitment entered into by the British in 1917. The British government made a promise to prominent Jews in Britain that the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine would be looked on with favour by the British. The reason for this pledge is not exactly clear, but it seems to have been made for two reasons. The first was to secure financial support from prominent Jewish financiers in Europe. The second seems to have been a way of breaking their own secret arrangement with the French and Russians by promoting their own influence into Palestine at their supposed allies' expense.

The intense rivalry and competition between the Jews and Arabs was to afflict the British administration for virtually their entire period of governance. Unfortunately, the Zionists and the Arabs had mutually exclusive goals. The Zionists wished to create a Jewish homeland in their Holy Land. Whereas the Arabs were equally adamant that they should not lose their autonomy and rights in their own homeland. At this stage, the Arabs still massively formed the majority of the population. But what the Zionists lacked in numbers they more than made up for with political influence in the West and a zeal to succeed that bordered on fanatacism.

Samerosie: The reason the letter did not imply that Palestine belongs to the Arabs was because it was already a known fact then.  If the land had already been the Jews', why on earth would Mr. Churchill planned to bribe King Saud then (note:  the leadership of a new Arab confederation) in exchange for Palestine?

Yes, exactly.

My my... I never know it was so difficult to understand. ;)

The bribe only reveal Churchill's intention of getting whole of Palestine for the Jews as opposed to the British policy of mixed-race governance of Palestine with some part of predominant Arab territories rule by the Arabs and Jews territory by the Jews. The British never promised a Jewish homeland. They say national homeland for the Jews. I thought I've said this many times over. It is like Malaysian Indian/Chinese homeland is Malaysia but the government consists of various race. I guess that's the only way you people can keep the hatred for Jews alive. ;)

Funny thing is 2 persons thinking the same identical thing. Spirit of brotherhood. :lol

This letter does not prove the land belongs to Arabs. It also does not materialize. So, it is irrelevant to support the case that it belongs to Arabs. It never belonged to the Arabs.

[ Last edited by Adm_Cheng_Ho on 27-9-2004 at 02:29 PM ]

In fact, it also proven that the British policy stands firm on preventing a Jewish-ruled state.

By 1939 the British imperialists had decisively rejected any idea of an independent Jewish state. In the same year the British government published a new White Paper restricting Jewish immigration and offering independence for Palestine within ten years. After the introduction of 75,000 more Jews into Palestine during the ensuing five years, the gates would be closed.

The most famous example of this was the treatment of the Russian and Romanian Jews trying to sail to Israel on the 'Struma'. This vessel arrived in Istanbul on December 20, 1941, carrying 750 Jewish refugees fleeing from Nazi persecution. The Turkish authorities refused permission for these refugees to land in Turkey and enquired with the British whether they could go on to Palestine. The British refused them entry. Their ambassador in Turkey said that his government "did not want these people in Palestine." And he added, "卛f they reached Palestine, they might, despite their illegality, receive humane treatment." The logic was that if they were humanely treated then there was the risk of a flood of Jewish refugees wanting to enter Palestine. In the end the ship was towed out to sea and on February 24 sank as the result of an explosion. Only two people survived.

At that time the population of Palestine was about 700,000 of which 575,000 were Muslims, 75,000 were Christian, and only 55,000 were Jews.

In spite of this brutal attempt to stop the flow of Jews into Palestine, the carefully prepared plans of British imperialism were rejected by the Zionists, who organised terrorist groups and launched a bloody campaign against both the British and the Palestinians. The aim was to drive them both out of Palestine and to pave the way for the establishment of the Zionist state.

Organisations like the Irgun (Irgun Zwai Leumi, literally the National Military Organisation) did not limit their actions to fighting the Arabs. Although they co-operated at times in putting down Arab guerrillas together with the British troops, when it became clear that British imperialism was playing a double game and had no intention of granting the Jews their desired homeland, the Irgun turned against the British. Under Begin it was responsible for the famous bombing of the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946, where the British high command was stationed.

It was the Holocaust under the Nazis in Europe that had created a completely new scenario. The Zionist idea of creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine gained strength. More and more Jews were coming into Palestine. And these Jews had no intention of compromising over the question of the creation of Israel.

The Jews refused to submit to the British dictates, and their underground struggle resulted in the relinquishment of British Power in Palestine and also ruled out the transfer of sovereignty to the Arabs. The British were losing control of the situation. The position of the Jews was strengthened and they could no longer control the process. They thus referred the problem to the United Nations in early 1947.

The UN recommendation was for partition of Palestine with Jerusalem as an internationally administered city. The Palestinian Arabs, who accounted for 70% of the population and owned 92% of the land, were allocated 47% of the country! (UN resolution 181). A terrible crime was thus committed against the Palestinian people.

Nice try again. Long winded but incomplete account of actual situation.

Jews tries to enter Palestine which was not owned by the Arabs. Arabs also migrating illegally at the same time. Irgun and many others are a result of Arab hostility. King David Hotel was a legitimate military target. Moreover, they gave warnings beforehand. Lastly, the Partition Plan was never implemented. Yes it is terrible. If only Arabs keep their cool, they would have got it. Too bad. So? What do they do? They cry until now and telling lies about Jews. Bad boys! :lol