Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.
Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.
And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
^^^^^same site you keep quoting states that "Palesrine" and the "Palestinian people" are a NEW PHENOMENON.
OOOOPS!
Troll.
From 1922. Stop trolling.
"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. "
See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
See this and then eat some shi'ite, you lying troll:
Appraisal of the Arab case
A 364 of 3 September 1947
163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.
166. Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.
175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".
the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.
So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.
Gee I don't know. Apparently it was called Palestine in the 5th century BC, it was never called Israel, so for the Israelites to say there never was a Palestine nor Palestinians that is incorrect. I have even read they referred to Palestine as a land without people for a People without a land.
The fact is there were people there and they disregarded them and have been taking and stealing land from them for decades. They are most likely the same people except the Palestinians have been Islamized, whereas apart from some of the Orthodox Jews , about half the Israelites there are secular and not even from there. The Palestinians have never left there, but yet they are treated like scum.
So the first claim is demonstrably false. The Bible repeatedly refers to the land as Israel (well the Hebrew is Eretz Yisrael which is translated literally as "The Land of Israel"). Second, you are again focusing on the *name* not what that name *stands for*. Saying it was called Palestine historically is the same problem I pointed out already: when people say there wasn't a Palestine, they don't mean there was nothing by that name, and that would in fact be a trivially false claim.
Most of your second paragraph is general conclusions and attitudes about broader narrative. It is extremely difficult in such complicated situations to change broader narrative claims, and so it is more helpful to focus on specific factual claims.
The Old Testament is not believed to be anything but a nice fairy tale by most people in the world. Even Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe it was superseded by the new Covenant. Why do you think anyone would believe a text which is self-serving?
Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.
Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.
And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
^^^^^same site you keep quoting states that "Palesrine" and the "Palestinian people" are a NEW PHENOMENON.
OOOOPS!
Troll.
From 1922. Stop trolling.
"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. "
See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
See this and then eat some shi'ite, you lying troll:
Appraisal of the Arab case
A 364 of 3 September 1947
163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.
166. Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.
175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".
You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.
Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.
And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
^^^^^same site you keep quoting states that "Palesrine" and the "Palestinian people" are a NEW PHENOMENON.
OOOOPS!
Troll.
From 1922. Stop trolling.
"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. "
See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
See this and then eat some shi'ite, you lying troll:
Appraisal of the Arab case
A 364 of 3 September 1947
163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.
166. Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.
175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".
You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?
Nope. Assessment of the Arab case at the UN. "No such thing as the Palestinians, it's a new phenomenon." Your own historical document. Ha ha ha.
anti semetic pig monte: "European Jew position".
So eat shi'ite, you lying troll.
You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.
^^^^^same site you keep quoting states that "Palesrine" and the "Palestinian people" are a NEW PHENOMENON.
OOOOPS!
Troll.
From 1922. Stop trolling.
"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. "
See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
See this and then eat some shi'ite, you lying troll:
Appraisal of the Arab case
A 364 of 3 September 1947
163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.
166. Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.
175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".
You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?
Nope. Assessment of the Arab case at the UN. "No such thing as the Palestinians, it's a new phenomenon." Your own historical document. Ha ha ha.
anti semetic pig monte: "European Jew position".
So eat shi'ite, you lying troll.
Learn to spell antisemitic. But if true how do the claims change the fact that the Jews went to Palestine to colonize the area. I don't get what you are trying to say. If you can prove that the European Jews did not go to Palestine to settle and then steal the land from the people living there, then you would have something.
You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.
How important is the Old Testament for Catholics Catholic Answers
How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?
Full Question
How important is the Old Testament to modern Catholics? I know that Christ fulfilled the old Law and all, but should we still feel that the Old Testament is important and viable to our faith?
Answer
The Old Testament is very important for Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)
Does anybody know where the Monte python of the USMB forum ran off to?
XII. (75) Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book33.html
The Works of Philo
EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE*
He was referring to the Essenes.
XII. (75) Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book33.html
The Works of Philo
EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE*
He was referring to the Essenes.
OUTSTANDING POST! But of course the land called Palestine had Jews in it. The Jews were indigenous Palestinians. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among them. And who said Penelope is an imbecile?
The land of Palestine had Jews in it. Got ya. Never was an Israel.
The land of Palestine had Jews in it. Got ya. Never was an Israel.
Under what moral system do you think that the names that an area was referred to 2000 years ago magically confer anything on the moral legitimacy one way or another of a modern nation state? Also, what would you call the country that existed prior to the Roman conquest if not Israel? Also Palestine? If so, why?
the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.
The Phenicians and the Syrians who dwell in Palestine confess themselves that they have learnt it from the Egyptians, and the Syrians about the river Thermodon and the river Parthenios, and the Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they have learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only races of men who practise circumcision, and these evidently practise it in the same manner as the Egyptians.
Herodotus Book 2: Euterpe [100] go to 104
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2100.htm
Herodotus is from what 400is BC
the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.
So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.
Gee I don't know. Apparently it was called Palestine in the 5th century BC, it was never called Israel, so for the Israelites to say there never was a Palestine nor Palestinians that is incorrect. I have even read they referred to Palestine as a land without people for a People without a land.
The fact is there were people there and they disregarded them and have been taking and stealing land from them for decades. They are most likely the same people except the Palestinians have been Islamized, whereas apart from some of the Orthodox Jews , about half the Israelites there are secular and not even from there. The Palestinians have never left there, but yet they are treated like scum.
Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.
Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.
And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.
So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.
Gee I don't know. Apparently it was called Palestine in the 5th century BC, it was never called Israel, so for the Israelites to say there never was a Palestine nor Palestinians that is incorrect. I have even read they referred to Palestine as a land without people for a People without a land.
The fact is there were people there and they disregarded them and have been taking and stealing land from them for decades. They are most likely the same people except the Palestinians have been Islamized, whereas apart from some of the Orthodox Jews , about half the Israelites there are secular and not even from there. The Palestinians have never left there, but yet they are treated like scum.
So the first claim is demonstrably false. The Bible repeatedly refers to the land as Israel (well the Hebrew is Eretz Yisrael which is translated literally as "The Land of Israel"). Second, you are again focusing on the *name* not what that name *stands for*. Saying it was called Palestine historically is the same problem I pointed out already: when people say there wasn't a Palestine, they don't mean there was nothing by that name, and that would in fact be a trivially false claim.
Most of your second paragraph is general conclusions and attitudes about broader narrative. It is extremely difficult in such complicated situations to change broader narrative claims, and so it is more helpful to focus on specific factual claims.
The Old Testament is not believed to be anything but a nice fairy tale by most people in the world. Even Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe it was superseded by the new Covenant. Why do you think anyone would believe a text which is self-serving?
