Brief History of Palestine

by Amazing 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing

    I found this article and thought it was worth sharing. President Bush recently told the UN that the USA supports a Palestinian state. This is a good move since it was the original plan. And the USA needs to stick with it. However, the real mandate was under the purview of the UK, and I believe that Tony Blair, PM of Great Britain should take the lead from the USA in settling the issue.

    Click on: Also, inside the article, click on "Mandated Territory" as this supplement is helpful. The article was written by Michel Le Gall, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History, St. Olaf College.

    The article helped fill in some gaps of history for me, and certainly makes a case that Israel and the PLO need to settle the matter of arranging for a Palestinian state ... then let the PLO deal with the terrorists.

  • ThiChi

    Your link did not go to the article. A Palestine state is fine. But to create a state and then let them “deal” with the terrorists is unrealistic since the PLO leaders are driving the terrorism. Remember, Israel was attacked in 1967 and won those territories now in dispute.

    Until they can recognize Israel, to allow another “state” to exist would be foolhardy.

    Also, why does the other Arab countries not allow Palestinians to absorb into their areas?

    There have been Palestinians in the Lebanon area much longer than in Israel, yet their “brother” arabs keep them in camps to segregate them from the other population. They are no better than Israel!

    History: Israel has a very long history in the area going back over 3,000 years!

  • ThiChi

    George F. Will: Damaging case of amnesia

    WASHINGTON -- The war on terrorism is suddenly going terribly wrong. Suicide bombers serving Yasser Arafat, the world's senior and most successful terrorist, have caused U.S. policy in the Middle East to buckle and become more accommodating. So more than six months into the war on terror, terror is more vindicated as a tactic than ever before.

    Whether or not Vice President Cheney dashes back to the Middle East to parlay with Arafat, President Bush's policy has become incoherent. This damage was done by saying the vice presidential dash would be made if Arafat would recite (in Arabic; we are quite stern) a perfunctory lie scripted by the United States -- yet another reiteration of his vow to abandon violence, which is the vocabulary of his life.

    The president professes himself "disappointed" by Arafat. But what are the presidential expectations for Arafat?

    It has been 37 years since his Fatah launched its first attack on Israel, which then (as when attempts were made to crush Israel in 1948, 1956 and in 1967) was within the 1967 borders that amnesiacs believe are the key to appeasing Arafat. Amnesiacs evidently believe that he wants only to be prime minister of a placid little Arab democracy, the only democracy in the Arab world, a sort of Middle Eastern Belgium. Amnesiacs evidently believe he can be mollified by removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank. His undisguised and unambiguous goal is to remove Jewish -- what? "settlers"? -- from Tel Aviv.

    Amnesiacs should read the opening paragraphs of Michael Oren's forthcoming (in June) book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East":

    "Nighttime, December 31, 1964 -- A squad of Palestinian guerrillas crosses from Lebanon into northern Israel. Armed with Soviet-made explosives, their uniforms supplied by the Syrians, they advance toward their target: a pump for conveying Galilee water to the Negev desert. A modest objective, seemingly, yet the Palestinians' purpose is immense. ...Their action, they hope, will provoke an Israeli retaliation ... igniting an all-Arab offensive to destroy the Zionist state." The explosives failed to detonate, but "the leader of al-Fatah, a 35-year-old former engineer from Gaza named Yasser Arafat, issues a victorious communique extolling 'the duty of Jihad (holy war)."'

    Arafat, writes Oren, had to have "a singularly limber imagination" to think that a small act of sabotage could trigger a war leading to the destruction of Israel. But give the devil his due: Arafat has been clear-sighted about the willful amnesia of the world's capitals, including Washington.

    Not three months have passed since Israel captured, and Arafat lied to the president about, the ship bearing 50 tons arms from Iran, a member of the "axis of evil," to Arafat. And yet today U.S. policy-makers, with their singularly limber imaginations, imagine that it is important to coax from Arafat yet another disavowal of violence.

    On "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Cheney was asked why there are suicide bombers. He replied that "I'm not sure I'm smart enough to understand it" but cited "the depth of feeling and emotion on the Palestinian side."

    Does Cheney think suicide bombing could have something to do with virulent and incessant anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda? Another broken Arafat promise is that the Palestinian Authority will stop this. Suicide bombers live in a social atmosphere heavily dosed with denial of the Holocaust, incitements to genocide, loathsome anti-Semitic libels (e.g., that Jews leaven pastry with the blood of non-Jewish adolescents), exhortations to the holy duty of destroying "the Zionist entity." Could the vice president not have leavened his musings with the thought that no grievance is fit for redress by shredding Jewish children with nail bombs?

    The president says regimes that harbor terrorists are as culpable as the terrorists themselves. Yet although Israel has acted against the Palestinian Authority regime, the source of daily terrorism, less aggressively than America has acted against the Afghanistan regime that was complicit in one day of terrorism, the president has said Israel's self-defense is "not helpful."

    Not helpful to what? To the Zinni mission for "bridging proposals" to reach the Tenet process for resuscitating the Mitchell plan for "confidence-building measures"? The Weekly Standard magazine recently concocted this parody of the president talking about "confidence-building" measures:

    "Say Arafat sends a suicide bomber to blow up a pizzeria on Monday, and then a disco on Tuesday, but then on Wednesday he doesn't send anybody. That's a confidence-building measure!"

    That parody is not easily distinguishable from U.S. policy.

    By George F. Will

  • Amazing

    Hi Thichi:

    The link works for me, but it is an AOL site. So it may not translate across from AOL hell to non-AOL users. If you type in on your search line, and then on AOL Search, type in Palestine, you should find the article.

    But to create a state and then let them “deal” with the terrorists is unrealistic since the PLO leaders are driving the terrorism.
    Yes, but if they have a "State" then they have no excuse left for terrorism. If they fail to deal with it ... then the rest of the world can pound them. I believe that moderates in Palestine will rise to the ocassion and tone things down once they get a State and get rid of Arafat.

    Until they can recognize Israel, to allow another “state” to exist would be foolhardy.
    The UN and its memebr states have recognized Israel since 1948. Israel got their state, and the palestinians did not ... there is part of the rub. Yes, I agree that the Arab world must recognize Israel.

    Also, why does not the other Arab countries allow Palestinians to absorb into their area? There have been Palestinians in the Lebanon area much longer than in Israel, yet their “brother” arabs keep them in camps to segregate them from the other population.
    Palestinians occupied the area before the Hebrews showed up from Babylon under the leadership of Abraham ... this fight goes back a long way. The term Palestine came from the Romans, meaning Philistia. The Palestinians go back to the land longer than the Jews.

    History: Israel has a very long history in the area going back over 3,000 years!
    History does not entirely support this as I noted above. The Palestinians go back longer. However, I believe that both groups have enough history with the land that they need to have two States and learn to live in peace.

    if they both have states, then any continued attacks will then justify much stronger response. I generally favor Israel on this issue ... but I can understand the Palestinian side ... and the article I linked to is very balanced in its presentation.

    If you cann find the site, I will use another search engine and get a better link and edit my post. In fact I will do that anyway.

  • Seven

    Amazing, The link you provided went to an ad. I agree there needs to be a Palestinian state.

    Carmel, I would like to read your take on the subject having lived there yourself for a decade or so.

  • happy man
    happy man

    I think perhaps Abraham make a bigg misstake when he putt out Ismael inn the dessert, isnt this what history learn us, as the bibel tell the problem start just here.

  • one

    Below is what i posted on another topic, hope the link amazing provided help, will clik on it soon.

    "history of the bible" i mean writting and compilation to present state.

    btw, a brief explanation that relate, link or explain bible history and present day israel.

    after all bible is mostly israel stuff

    WT dogma is bible based

    AND this forum exist because of the WT...

    Come on scholars shed some light! give us the historical perspective, not just the present political situation we all know somewhat.

  • one

    "Amazing, The link you provided went to an ad. I agree there needs to be a Palestinian state. "

    the link does not work, the "ad" does not promote a palestian state...(no offense, kidding)

    the link takes you to an "ad" page BLAME the cyber-terrorists they are everywhere

  • Hmmm

    The link goes to an ad for "Amazing's Amazing Neverending Stairway"

    Is this some sort of pyramid scheme? No wait, that was Russell


  • ThiChi

    Your claim that the Palestine peoples are directly related to the indigenous peoples (and of a national identification) of 3,000 years ago is improbable at best.

    History shows that the area was settled by "Semitic tribes."

    "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

    The present-day Palestinians' ancestral heritage

    "But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

    The “right of Return” argument is factually failed when one consults history. In 1948, 650,000 persons were recorded in the area, today over five million persons claim to be a part of Palestine!

    How did this exodus come about? In 1948, on the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel, five Arab armies invaded the new country from all sides. In frightful radio broadcasts, they urged the Arabs living there to leave, so that the invading armies could operate without interference. They could return after the expected quick victory in that "holy war," get their property back -- and that of the Jews. Things turned out differently. The invading armies were defeated. Those who had left became refugees -- people without a country. Those who stayed, and their children, are full-fledged citizens of the State of Israel.

    These so-called "Palestinian refugees" have not been allowed to settle in the "indivisible Arab nation." They have been supported in camps since 1948. So far, close to $1.8 billion has been spent on their maintenance. No end is in sight. Who pays for that? You guessed it: Through UNWRA Relief, the United States contributes more than 60% of the total cost.

    The Arab countries, among them some of the richest in the world who fritter away their enormous fortunes on undreamed luxuries, are satisfied to leave their Arab brethren in those miserable camps. They have never contributed a penny to their maintenance.

    From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled what is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was assigned to Great Britain.
    Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland here since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare the rebirth of Israel. (There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there were!) This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions.

Share this