The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't know that it can be made any planer than that. The use of the military of any nation is to accomplish a political and diplomatic objective. The use of the military is a tool in the box of tradecraft.

Article 5 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.​

Article 12 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.

Article 17 Mandate for Palestine

The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads; railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.​

The Hashemite Royal Family had demonstrated the ability to productively form a government and establish a civil administration. This was something that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were unable to accomplish.

Under the boot of Britain's military. You are ducking the question as usual.

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?

(COMMENT)

I cannot begin to teach you about the role of the military in the diplomacy of a century ago. Different countries administer their holding and external obligations in many different ways.

The application of the military in the maintenance of peace and order in jurisdictions just recently released from the status of "Enemy Occupied Territory," except as described in Posting #2579 is based on the conventional wisdom and political perception of the day. While Jordan was Allied Friendly at the time, the general population Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were not. The Mandate Period was not a typical post-War phase four territorial condition.

PS: I was trying to keep my post in the spirit of the OP. I was not ducking your question. But if the question you ask were as simple as you portray them to be, the solution would have been found already.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't know that it can be made any planer than that. The use of the military of any nation is to accomplish a political and diplomatic objective. The use of the military is a tool in the box of tradecraft.

Article 5 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.​

Article 12 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.

Article 17 Mandate for Palestine

The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads; railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.​

The Hashemite Royal Family had demonstrated the ability to productively form a government and establish a civil administration. This was something that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were unable to accomplish.

Under the boot of Britain's military. You are ducking the question as usual.

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?

(COMMENT)

I cannot begin to teach you about the role of the military in the diplomacy of a century ago. Different countries administer their holding and external obligations in many different ways.

The application of the military in the maintenance of peace and order in jurisdictions just recently released from the status of "Enemy Occupied Territory," except as described in Posting #2579 is based on the conventional wisdom and political perception of the day. While Jordan was Allied Friendly at the time, the general population Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were not. The Mandate Period was not a typical post-War phase four territorial condition.

PS: I was trying to keep my post in the spirit of the OP. I was not ducking your question. But if the question you ask were as simple as you portray them to be, the solution would have been found already.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question was:

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?​

How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

 

[José]

Originally posted by RoccoR
I don't think you understand the difference between a "Military Presence" and a "Military Occupation."

Of course we understand the "difference"... "military presence" is a delicate way to refer to a military occupation.

From 1917 to the end of the Mandate Britain kept in Palestine the necessary number of troops to prevent the native population from overthrowing the foreign government (that was openly creating a separate jewish society in Palestine) and taking control of the their homeland.

Obviously the number of troops necessary to protect the foreign, illegitimate government during periods of peace were smaller than during the arab protests, riots, revolts and episodes of civil disobedience.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Battle of Nur Shams on 21 June marked an escalation with the largest engagement of British troops against Arab militants so far in this Revolt. By the end of September 20,000 British troops in Palestine were deployed to "round up Arab bands".

Despite the intervention of up to 50,000 British troops and 15,000 Haganah men, the uprising continued for over three years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To finally crush the 1936 Arab Revolt, Britain was forced to deploy more troops in Palestine than in the entire Indian subcontinent.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't know that it can be made any planer than that. The use of the military of any nation is to accomplish a political and diplomatic objective. The use of the military is a tool in the box of tradecraft.

Article 5 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.​

Article 12 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.

Article 17 Mandate for Palestine

The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads; railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.​

The Hashemite Royal Family had demonstrated the ability to productively form a government and establish a civil administration. This was something that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were unable to accomplish.

Under the boot of Britain's military. You are ducking the question as usual.

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?

(COMMENT)

I cannot begin to teach you about the role of the military in the diplomacy of a century ago. Different countries administer their holding and external obligations in many different ways.

The application of the military in the maintenance of peace and order in jurisdictions just recently released from the status of "Enemy Occupied Territory," except as described in Posting #2579 is based on the conventional wisdom and political perception of the day. While Jordan was Allied Friendly at the time, the general population Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were not. The Mandate Period was not a typical post-War phase four territorial condition.

PS: I was trying to keep my post in the spirit of the OP. I was not ducking your question. But if the question you ask were as simple as you portray them to be, the solution would have been found already.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question was:

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?​

How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

Why keep changing the discussion on this thread when there is a whole NEW ONE where you can discuss that issue, which......

Has been discussed to death, it is just that you cannot accept historical facts?

 

[P F Tinmore]

9+

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't know that it can be made any planer than that. The use of the military of any nation is to accomplish a political and diplomatic objective. The use of the military is a tool in the box of tradecraft.

Article 5 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.​

Article 12 Mandate for Palestine

The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.

Article 17 Mandate for Palestine

The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads; railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.​

The Hashemite Royal Family had demonstrated the ability to productively form a government and establish a civil administration. This was something that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were unable to accomplish.

Under the boot of Britain's military. You are ducking the question as usual.

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?

(COMMENT)

I cannot begin to teach you about the role of the military in the diplomacy of a century ago. Different countries administer their holding and external obligations in many different ways.

The application of the military in the maintenance of peace and order in jurisdictions just recently released from the status of "Enemy Occupied Territory," except as described in Posting #2579 is based on the conventional wisdom and political perception of the day. While Jordan was Allied Friendly at the time, the general population Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were not. The Mandate Period was not a typical post-War phase four territorial condition.

PS: I was trying to keep my post in the spirit of the OP. I was not ducking your question. But if the question you ask were as simple as you portray them to be, the solution would have been found already.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question was:

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?​

How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

Why keep changing the discussion on this thread when there is a whole NEW ONE where you can discuss that issue, which......

Has been discussed to death, it is just that you cannot accept historical facts?

Good point. Post transferred.

The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[Coyote]

This thread is being set up to prevent our second most common thread derailment (after the Mandate) - please discuss the ancient history of the peoples in the Palestine area here.

Both the Jews and Philistines (i.e. Palestinians) have lived in Israel for thousands years according to the Bible.

Also, according to the Bible, the Jewish People were deeded the Holy Land as "God's Chosen People." The Torah predates Muhammad and Islam by several thousand years. If Muslims want their religion and their beliefs respected then they must respect the Jewish and Christian faiths. You cannot have it both ways.


Israel is Jewish land according to the Torah. The question for Muslims: Will you respect Jewish faith and beliefs?

Please, the Philistines were invaders from Greece who created an Empire in the area of Gaza.

The Palestinians are Arabs, from Arabia.

Pro or Con, let us please get the identity of the players correct.

Because the Arabs would love for everyone to believe that they have been in Ancient Canaan for "thousands of years" when it wasn't even their ancestors but the Kurdish Muslims who were the first to invade the Land of Israel/region of Palestine in the 7th Century.

Islam does not allow for Muslims to "respect" the Jews. Especially as free people. The Jews must never be sovereign over any Muslims.

Which is why so many Muslims will lie, and lie, and destroy and destroy any and all Jewish history and archeology they can find, and call themselves the natives of the land.

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

 

[Sixties Fan]

• Palestinian leaders claim that the Palestinians are descended from the Canaanite people who lived in the Land of Canaan before the Israelite tribes settled in it.
• 
  
• What is the source of the name “Palestine?” It is not Arab; it is derived from the name “Palestina,” by which the Roman Emperor Hadrian chose to call the land after the defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE. His aim was to erase “Judea.”
• 
  
• According to Palestinian historian Muhammad Y. Muslih, during the entire 400 year period of Ottoman rule (1517-1918), before the British set up the 30-year-long Palestine Mandate, “There was no political unit known as Palestine.” In Arabic, the area was known as al-Ard al-Muqadassa (the holy land), or Surya al-Janubiyya (southern Syria), but not Palestine.
• 
  
• Not a single Palestinian tribe identifies its roots in Canaan; instead, they all see themselves as proud Arabs descended from the most notable Arab tribes of the Hejaz, today’s Iraq, or Yemen. Even the Kanaan family of Nablus locates its origins in Syria. Some Palestinian clans are Kurdish or Egyptian in origin, and in Mount Hebron, there are traditions of Jewish origins.
• 
  
• This study does not deny the right of the Palestinian clans as a whole to define themselves as a Palestinian people. It would be better, however, if the Palestinian leadership were to choose a positive and constructive narrative and not a baseless one that is intended to negate that of the Jews of Israel.

(full article online)

Who Are the Palestinians?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Origins of Arab Settlers in the Land of Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

MYTH

The Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites.

FACT

Palestinian claims to be related to the Canaanites are a recent phenom- enon and contrary to historical evidence. The Canaanites disappeared three millennia ago, and no one knows if any of their descendants survived or, if they did, who they would be.

Over the last two thousand years, there have been massive inva- sions (e.g., the Crusades), migrations, the plague, and other manmade or natural disasters that killed off most of the local people. The entire local population has been replaced many times over. During the Brit- ish Mandate alone, more than one hundred thousand Arabs emigrated from neighboring countries and are today considered Palestinians.

Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia, said the Palestinians’ ancestors had only been in the area for one thou- sand years.11 Even the Palestinians themselves have acknowledged their association with the region came long after the Jews. In testi- mony before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, for example, they claimed a connection to Palestine of more than one thousand years, dating back no further than the conquest of Muhammad’s fol- lowers in the seventh century.12

By contrast, no serious historian questions the more than three- thousand-year-old Jewish connection to the land of Israel, or the mod- ern Jewish people’s relation to the ancient Hebrews.


https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

And I'll add to this and explain why it matters to the Jewish people. It matters to the Jewish people because Arab Palestinians are using their pretend, made-up, stolen "history" in Israel and Judea and Samaria to DENY or REPLACE Jewish history. And people believe them.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

And I'll add to this and explain why it matters to the Jewish people. It matters to the Jewish people because Arab Palestinians are using their pretend, made-up, stolen "history" in Israel and Judea and Samaria to DENY or REPLACE Jewish history. And people believe them.

Islam is a replacement ideology of Judaism based on Christianity's replacement ideology of Judaism.

Since the Mandate, they are both (Islam and Christianity) seeking to literally REPLACE the Jewish Indigenous population with an Arab one and forever call it their own. Especially with an Arab Muslim identity. Where the Christian Arabs would end up, if successful?
We have already seen what happened in Bethlehem and other places.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

And I'll add to this and explain why it matters to the Jewish people. It matters to the Jewish people because Arab Palestinians are using their pretend, made-up, stolen "history" in Israel and Judea and Samaria to DENY or REPLACE Jewish history. And people believe them.

Islam is a replacement ideology of Judaism based on Christianity's replacement ideology of Judaism.

Since the Mandate, they are both (Islam and Christianity) seeking to literally REPLACE the Jewish Indigenous population with an Arab one and forever call it their own. Especially with an Arab Muslim identity.

Thats why we need to keep reminding everyone of the insidious and harmful effects of these lies.

 

[The Original Tree]

The Roman Empire
Coined the Word Palestine to do that very thing and it is used the same way today.

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

And I'll add to this and explain why it matters to the Jewish people. It matters to the Jewish people because Arab Palestinians are using their pretend, made-up, stolen "history" in Israel and Judea and Samaria to DENY or REPLACE Jewish history. And people believe them.

 

[The Original Tree]

No true Christian I know wants to see anything But Hebrews in Israel existing as a Sovereign and independent Nation.

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

And I'll add to this and explain why it matters to the Jewish people. It matters to the Jewish people because Arab Palestinians are using their pretend, made-up, stolen "history" in Israel and Judea and Samaria to DENY or REPLACE Jewish history. And people believe them.

Islam is a replacement ideology of Judaism based on Christianity's replacement ideology of Judaism.

Since the Mandate, they are both (Islam and Christianity) seeking to literally REPLACE the Jewish Indigenous population with an Arab one and forever call it their own. Especially with an Arab Muslim identity. Where the Christian Arabs would end up, if successful?
We have already seen what happened in Bethlehem and other places.

 

[Coyote]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

Like calling Jews who immigrated to Israel Europeans is a useful shorthand? Come on Shusha. You know darn well that is NOT what iths shorthand for...it is nothing more than a means of separating them out as non native invaders. The "other". And it absolutely affects their rights in the same manner as referring to Jews as Europeans.

 

[Coyote]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

And I'll add to this and explain why it matters to the Jewish people. It matters to the Jewish people because Arab Palestinians are using their pretend, made-up, stolen "history" in Israel and Judea and Samaria to DENY or REPLACE Jewish history. And people believe them.

And that is different from the Jewish people claiming that tbe Palestinians history is pretend...made up...etc? Again...the constant refrain from those who also ptomote the idea thst their righrs are less than.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

Like calling Jews who immigrated to Israel Europeans is a useful shorthand? Come on Shusha. You know darn well that is NOT what iths shorthand for...it is nothing more than a means of separating them out as non native invaders. The "other". And it absolutely affects their rights in the same manner as referring to Jews as Europeans.

Invaders, as the Arabs are, or indigenous, the fact continues to be that when the Jews were ready to reconstitute their Nation on their ancestral land they were more than ready to accept leaving side by side with the Muslims who have been there for 1300 years.

Not so with the Arabs, who saw it as a Muslim land only, and still see it as Muslim land only, taking away as much land as they could from 1920 to 1948 from the Jews .

Were Jews given the right to their holy sites during 1948-1967?
Are they allowed to live in TrasJordan? In Gaza? As they did for thousands of years?

Jews give the Muslims and Christians and all others freedom of worship and visiting their holy sites.

The same has never been true of Muslims, not only now, but for much of the 1300 years before the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

 

[Coyote]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

Like calling Jews who immigrated to Israel Europeans is a useful shorthand? Come on Shusha. You know darn well that is NOT what iths shorthand for...it is nothing more than a means of separating them out as non native invaders. The "other". And it absolutely affects their rights in the same manner as referring to Jews as Europeans.

Invaders, as the Arabs are, or indigenous, the fact continues to be that when the Jews were ready to reconstitute their Nation on their ancestral land they were more than ready to accept leaving side by side with the Muslims who have been there for 1300 years.

Not so with the Arabs, who saw it as a Muslim land only, and still see it as Muslim land only, taking away as much land as they could from 1920 to 1948 from the Jews .

Were Jews given the right to their holy sites during 1948-1967?
Are they allowed to live in TrasJordan? In Gaza? As they did for thousands of years?

Jews give the Muslims and Christians and all others freedom of worship and visiting their holy sites.

The same has never been true of Muslims, not only now, but for much of the 1300 years before the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

And I'll add to this and explain why it matters to the Jewish people. It matters to the Jewish people because Arab Palestinians are using their pretend, made-up, stolen "history" in Israel and Judea and Samaria to DENY or REPLACE Jewish history. And people believe them.

And that is different from the Jewish people claiming that tbe Palestinians history is pretend...made up...etc? Again...the constant refrain from those who also ptomote the idea thst their righrs are less than.

Palestinian history is made up. They never called themselves Palestinians and most of them only moved into the area after Zionism began to build infrastructure and offer jobs in the region known as Palestine.

They have been stuck as Palestinians because their leaders want them to be stuck as such.

Most come from tribes in Arabia, or Egypt, and they say so themselves.

It is enough to say that their leaders refuse any Jewish history in the area, but ONLY since 1948, and actually ONLY since they last lost the war in 1973.

Why would they decide to reject Jewish history since 1973, when for 1400 years they never did so?