‘Historic Palestine’ – A Misleading Anachronism

[elektra]

2nd map in the Maajid Nawaz's tweet above?

The map in the tweet looks far from official and does not show Palestine as being Trans-Jordan. I am not sure that I used the map from the era. I could take a little time and check some sources to see if I used the correct map. But either way, I think it is more fair, to use a map that shows that Jordan is Palestine.

 

[elektra]

I do NOT know the history of that land, so I cannot comment intelligently.

I have heard the following. I cannot attest to its accuracy.

1. The Arabs say that they were already living in that area when Jewish people started arriving in ever increasing numbers after World War I.

Certainly some Arabs were living there. Not many, 50,000? 30,000? I am guessing but in the early 20th century, late 19th century there were not many Arabs at all. The Christian and Jewish population at one point in the 19th century was greater than the Arab population.

In the 19th Century, Christians began pouring money into Palestine as it was called during the rule of the Ottomans. The Ottomans were broke, hence they allowed anyone with money into Palestine where they took their cut in taxes or fees or bribes or services, however they could. Palestine was the only place in the Middle East thriving, hence it attracted thousands, until they equaled over a million Arabs. Palestine was the only place an Arab could literally make a living. Living off all that Christian money pouring in to rebuild Israel, as their bibles dictated. Israel would rise again it stated in the bible.

Israel was the only place an Arab could take a child to see a doctor, for Trachoma which led to blindness.

 

[rylah]

2nd map in the Maajid Nawaz's tweet above?

The map in the tweet looks far from official and does not show Palestine as being Trans-Jordan. I am not sure that I used the map from the era. I could take a little time and check some sources to see if I used the correct map. But either way, I think it is more fair, to use a map that shows that Jordan is Palestine.

I agree, and as Rudy Rochman said 'nothing should be off the table"
referring specifically to that side of the river.

I have my favorite version of that map...

"Two banks to my Jordan,
"This one is ours, and this one as well"

 

[surada]

Did Israel “occupy” Palestine?

As with most issues related to this thorny topic this is, at best, a half truth. Please read this entirely to the end.

Below you are three maps.

Map 1 depicts Ottoman Turkish rule over the area today known as Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip in the South.
Map 2 depicts the ‘British Mandate of Palestine’, instituted after Ottoman Turkey was defeated, and collapsed after WWI.
Map 3 depicts only the issue of when the Arabs (today known as Palestinians) gained political control over this land.

By posting these maps I hope to address this abiding but inaccurate idea that Israel has “occupied Palestine” since 1948.

As the first two maps show, in modern history this area was colonised by the Ottoman Turks, and then by the British Mandate. There was no “state of Palestine” in this area, and in fact there never has been - go as far back as you like. In the Ottoman Empire (Map 1), the entire area north of Jerusalem was known as the Province of Beirut (Sidon) and Jerusalem to the South was known as the Mutasarriflik (authority) of Jerusalem. Then, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, the British Mandate (Map 2) clearly shows a division on either side of the River Jordan.

As the key in Map 2 indicates, everything to the left of the River Jordan (known today as the West Bank of the River Jordan) was an area “remaining for Jewish National Home”, and everything to the right of the river (marked Transjordan) was “separated and closed to Jewish settlement”, as is written on the map. There was no “state of Palestine” for Jews to “occupy” at this stage. This was land captured after WWI from a colonial empire (Turks), by a colonial empire (the Brits). It was then administered by the British according tho the 1918 Anglo-French Modus Vivendi, and demarcated by the British as a homeland for the Jewish people, in line with the Balfour Declaration 1917.

It took until 1948 for Israel to be created on the West Bank of the River Jordan, as a homeland for Jews after the Holocaust. What occurred was a typical British colonial partition plan, just like the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan (which was created in exactly the same fashion, as a homeland for Muslims). A consequence of this partition was population expulsions from both sides of the River Jordan (Jews and Arabs) and mass migration according to the new political reality. I am not denying injustices occurred at this stage, just as happened with the partition of India and Pakistan.

Another consequence was that one area remained in dispute (the West bank of the River Jordan), just as Kashmir remains till this day in dispute between India and Pakistan. It is important to remember that at this time in history there still was no, and never had been, a “state of Palestine” just as today there is no internationally recognised “state of Kashmir”, and never has been in that sense.
Other new states *were* created in the region by British colonialism however, including Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. All these states were populated primarily by Levantine Arabs. Interestingly, 60% of Jordan today is of the Palestinian-Arab group and only 40% of Jordan is Bedouin Arab (the difference between those two groups is not even as pronounced as the difference between the English and Scots).

Why this is relevant is explained by Map 3. Look to the 1967 image in Map 3 (forgive the bad colouring) it depicts Jordan as having control over the West Bank of the River Jordan (Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip in the South). There still was no “state of Palestine”. In 1967 Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked Israel and lost, terribly, in six days. It was only after this war that Israel gained control of the West Bank of the River Jordan, and the Gaza Strip. She has secured the West Bank ever since, and Gaza was given to Palestinian-Arabs unilaterally by Israeli PM Ariel Sharon in 2005, before it succumbed to the terrorist group Hamas.

This is where Map 3 becomes very relevant. Because as Map 3 depicts, the first time in history a group of Arabs known through their entirely modern colonial identity (inseparable from the British Mandate) calling themselves Palestinians, gained any form of political control over this land (even though, as stated, 60% of Jordan is Palestinian too, including the Queen of Jordan). And it was Israel that ceded this political control to the Arabs of the West Bank of the River Jordan (today known as Palestinians) in 1994, due to the Oslo Accords.

Before Oslo, Arabs from the West Bank of the River Jordan (today known as Palestinians) had never had political control of this land. The modern identity of Palestinian became a national identity in the 1960s, primarily through Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), and especially after the Arab Kingdom of Jordan lost control of the West Bank to Israel. Before this, the ‘people’ or nation in this area were Levantine Arabs. These Levantine Arabs were granted three other states by the British (Syria, Jordan and Lebanon), as well as many other Arab states in the region. Whereas Jews only have one state (Israel).

All four of these states were arbitrarily created by the British and French after WWI, not just Israel. And mass-migration occurred in both directions, not just Arabs out of Israel, but Jews out of Arab lands too. All four involved expulsions (primarily of Jews going one way and Arabs going the other). But only one of these states gave Palestinian-Arabs citizenship (20% of Israel today is Arab). The three Arab states created by Britain (and in fact all other modern Arab states) are yet to provide naturalisation schemes and citizenship by birth right to the masses of Palestinian-Arabs stranded in their territories till this day. One can observe this in the refugee camps (effectively now townships) in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. These Palestinian-Arabs are pointedly and consistently refused citizenship by their host Arab states. Meanwhile, 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs, they sit in the Knesset and they partake in almost all Israeli affairs.


Summary:
I am *not* opposing the creation of a state of Palestine (though I do remain open also to other solutions for the Palestinian-Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, that re-involve Jordan and Egypt respectively, if this breaks the deadlock). My point, simply put, is this: when the evolution of the area is properly considered, and not used to score cheap political points or indeed for Europe to grind her ancient antisemitic axe, the truth is that this is a land dispute born of colonialism, no different to Kashmir. It is not a typical “occupation” by one state over another, and it is misleading to frame the conversation in terms of a typical “occupation”, and then to use this emotive basis as a launch pad for “debate”.

The “state of Palestine” has never existed. What has happened is that a land dispute over a colonial partition has dragged on. It is also very clear that too much media focus is placed on Israel’s behaviour, and hardly any on the surrounding Arab dictatorships or absolute monarchies who have failed Palestinian-Arabs over and again. Nor is much of a media focus placed on the Palestinian Authority, which has consistently rejected every formal peace offer made, to a point where they no longer have anything to play for, nothing to negotiate and have become such an embarrassment that even Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt have urged them to consider President Trump’s latest proposal (which by historic standards is far less than what the 1947 UN partition plan offered, which Arabs rejected).

Only those who reject the right of Israel to exist, and view her as an “occupying” power, would so consistently overplay their hand in this way. This is what I believe Arabs and Muslims have been doing. And this is why I believe it is so important to reframe this entire debate. Finally, before the usual voices respond with rage, I too used to completely boycott Israel. Until, that is, that I chose to look into this complicated issue with an open mind and open heart, and allowed the facts and not emotion to guide me. The result to date, is my above view.

***Please hit the "Support Now" button to help me grow this page. (For laptops, it's located immediately under this post. For mobile's, it's at the top of the page, under my profile banner.) Thank you***

Palestine was a province of Syria since about 500 BC.. The inhabitants weren't European refugees.

 

[surada]

I do NOT know the history of that land, so I cannot comment intelligently.

I have heard the following. I cannot attest to its accuracy.

1. The Arabs say that they were already living in that area when Jewish people started arriving in ever increasing numbers after World War I.

Certainly some Arabs were living there. Not many, 50,000? 30,000? I am guessing but in the early 20th century, late 19th century there were not many Arabs at all. The Christian and Jewish population at one point in the 19th century was greater than the Arab population.

In the 19th Century, Christians began pouring money into Palestine as it was called during the rule of the Ottomans. The Ottomans were broke, hence they allowed anyone with money into Palestine where they took their cut in taxes or fees or bribes or services, however they could. Palestine was the only place in the Middle East thriving, hence it attracted thousands, until they equaled over a million Arabs. Palestine was the only place an Arab could literally make a living. Living off all that Christian money pouring in to rebuild Israel, as their bibles dictated. Israel would rise again it stated in the bible.

Israel was the only place an Arab could take a child to see a doctor, for Trachoma which led to blindness.

Arab Muslims and Christians were the Majority in Palestine .. See 1870s Census.. or you can read the journals of Ibn Battuta or Rabbi Benjamin Tuleda.. There were very few Jews.

Your version of history is a lie.

 

[MJB12741]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

 

[surada]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

 

[Sixties Fan]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

 

[Sixties Fan]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

No land is about how many indigenous people still lived on the land at any time in history. It is about who is the indigenous people, period.

The Copts are the Indigenous people of Egypt. It is their land, no matter now many more non Copts have taken over the land for over 2000 years.

The same with the Assyrians, Berbers, Kurds and all other indigenous people anywhere in the world.

 

[surada]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

 

[surada]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

No land is about how many indigenous people still lived on the land at any time in history. It is about who is the indigenous people, period.

The Copts are the Indigenous people of Egypt. It is their land, no matter now many more non Copts have taken over the land for over 2000 years.

The same with the Assyrians, Berbers, Kurds and all other indigenous people anywhere in the world.

Exactly, 90% of Palestinians are descended from Jewish farmers who didn't leave.

 

[Sixties Fan]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

And still, the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people of the land, as they themselves acknowledge.

Seriously, why would ONE historian in 500 years before the Romans, after the land had been called Canaan and Israel, would make a difference as to who the indigenous people were at the time (as still are) , and their rights to their ancestral land?

Correct, the Arabs immigrated not only from Arabia before and after the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, but by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century they were immigrating from Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, North Africa and many other places where they had moved to centuries before.

The difference between the European and Arab immigrants to Palestine during that time, is that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland this time to recreate their ancient Nation, as so many did return to their homeland, Israel, during all the centuries before.....
and the Arabs, continued and continue to be indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula and it is the only territory they can actually call their ancestral home and have any rights over.

Another big difference between Jews and Arabs is that the Jews have wanted to live in peace with the Arabs in a Jewish State, the Arabs want to ethnically clean the Jews from everywhere in the Middle East, just as the Hashemites did in 1925 and 1948.


ONLY King Abdullah was an Hashemite?
What a lonely man. Him alone as an Hashemite against the Saudis from Yemen who invaded his land and took over around WWI.

No wonder he ran for his life!!!!!


And how amazing that the British gave ALL of TransJordan to be populated by only ONE person in 1925 amongst all the Jews who had been there since time immemorial.

ONE Hashemite, King Abdullah.

How did King Abdullah get rid of all the Jews in TransJordan in 1925 ALL by HIMSELF?

ONE Arab against so many Jews. Now, that is true power.

 

[Sixties Fan]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

No land is about how many indigenous people still lived on the land at any time in history. It is about who is the indigenous people, period.

The Copts are the Indigenous people of Egypt. It is their land, no matter now many more non Copts have taken over the land for over 2000 years.

The same with the Assyrians, Berbers, Kurds and all other indigenous people anywhere in the world.

Exactly, 90% of Palestinians are descended from Jewish farmers who did

But the fact that you do know that this is utter garbage ...still makes it utter garbage and will never change being utter toxic garbage created by Jew hating people in order to continue to mistreat and bash the Jews, as Muslims have done for the past 1400 years.


Wishing to believe something does not make it come true

 

[surada]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

And still, the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people of the land, as they themselves acknowledge.

Seriously, why would ONE historian in 500 years before the Romans, after the land had been called Canaan and Israel, would make a difference as to who the indigenous people were at the time (as still are) , and their rights to their ancestral land?

Correct, the Arabs immigrated not only from Arabia after the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, but by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century they were immigrating from Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, North Africa and many other places where they had moved to centuries before.

The difference between the European and Arab immigrants to Palestine during that time, is that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland this time to recreate their ancient Nation, as so many did return to their homeland, Israel, during all the centuries before.....
and the Arabs, continued and continue to be indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula and it is the only territory they can actually call their ancestral home and have any rights over.

Another big difference between Jews and Arabs is that the Jews have wanted to live in peace with the Arabs in a Jewish State, the Arabs want to ethnically clean the Jews from everywhere in the Middle East, just as the Hashemites did in 1925 and 1948.


ONLY King Abdullah was an Hashemite?
What a lonely man. Him alone as an Hashemite against the Saudis from Yemen who invaded his land and took over around WWI.

No wonder he ran for his life!!!!!


And how amazing that the British gave ALL of TransJordan to be populated by only ONE person in 1925 amongst all the Jews who had been there since time immemorial.

ONE Hashemite, King Abdullah.

How did King Abdullah get rid of all the Jews in TransJordan in 1925 ALL by HIMSELF?

ONE Arab against so many Jews. Now, that is true power.

Arabs began migrating to Mesopotama and the Levant 10,000 years ago because receding glaciers caused the Arabian Peninsula to become more arid.

That's why there were Arabs in Palestine at the time of Abraham.. That's why both Moses and Abraham had Arab wives and why Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria about 700 BC.

You just don't know your history.

 

[surada]

I do NOT know the history of that land, so I cannot comment intelligently.

I have heard the following. I cannot attest to its accuracy.

1. The Arabs say that they were already living in that area when Jewish people started arriving in ever increasing numbers after World War I.

Certainly some Arabs were living there. Not many, 50,000? 30,000? I am guessing but in the early 20th century, late 19th century there were not many Arabs at all. The Christian and Jewish population at one point in the 19th century was greater than the Arab population.

In the 19th Century, Christians began pouring money into Palestine as it was called during the rule of the Ottomans. The Ottomans were broke, hence they allowed anyone with money into Palestine where they took their cut in taxes or fees or bribes or services, however they could. Palestine was the only place in the Middle East thriving, hence it attracted thousands, until they equaled over a million Arabs. Palestine was the only place an Arab could literally make a living. Living off all that Christian money pouring in to rebuild Israel, as their bibles dictated. Israel would rise again it stated in the bible.

Israel was the only place an Arab could take a child to see a doctor, for Trachoma which led to blindness.

In the 1870 census there were 400,000 Arabs, 165,000 Christians and 60,000 Jews.

 

[Sixties Fan]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

And still, the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people of the land, as they themselves acknowledge.

Seriously, why would ONE historian in 500 years before the Romans, after the land had been called Canaan and Israel, would make a difference as to who the indigenous people were at the time (as still are) , and their rights to their ancestral land?

Correct, the Arabs immigrated not only from Arabia after the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, but by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century they were immigrating from Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, North Africa and many other places where they had moved to centuries before.

The difference between the European and Arab immigrants to Palestine during that time, is that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland this time to recreate their ancient Nation, as so many did return to their homeland, Israel, during all the centuries before.....
and the Arabs, continued and continue to be indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula and it is the only territory they can actually call their ancestral home and have any rights over.

Another big difference between Jews and Arabs is that the Jews have wanted to live in peace with the Arabs in a Jewish State, the Arabs want to ethnically clean the Jews from everywhere in the Middle East, just as the Hashemites did in 1925 and 1948.


ONLY King Abdullah was an Hashemite?
What a lonely man. Him alone as an Hashemite against the Saudis from Yemen who invaded his land and took over around WWI.

No wonder he ran for his life!!!!!


And how amazing that the British gave ALL of TransJordan to be populated by only ONE person in 1925 amongst all the Jews who had been there since time immemorial.

ONE Hashemite, King Abdullah.

How did King Abdullah get rid of all the Jews in TransJordan in 1925 ALL by HIMSELF?

ONE Arab against so many Jews. Now, that is true power.

Arabs began migrating to Mesopotama and the Levant 10,000 years ago because receding glaciers caused the Arabian Peninsula to become more arid.

That's why there were Arabs in Palestine at the time of Abraham.. That's why both Moses and Abraham had Arab wives and why Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria about 700 BC.

You just don't know your history.

You know what?
This is a thread about "Historic Palestine"

Show me where the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Byzantine, etc have written anything about an ancient land called Palestine, and a people called Palestinians.

Even the Kurdish and Arab Muslims did not land on that 'Ancient land" much less dealt with the "ancient Palestinians"

You can repeat that lie about Arab wives instead of Egyptian, all you like. It will never make it true.

Abraham and Ishmael NEVER stepped in Arabia, never took Arab wives, never had Arab children.

 

[surada]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

And still, the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people of the land, as they themselves acknowledge.

Seriously, why would ONE historian in 500 years before the Romans, after the land had been called Canaan and Israel, would make a difference as to who the indigenous people were at the time (as still are) , and their rights to their ancestral land?

Correct, the Arabs immigrated not only from Arabia after the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, but by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century they were immigrating from Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, North Africa and many other places where they had moved to centuries before.

The difference between the European and Arab immigrants to Palestine during that time, is that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland this time to recreate their ancient Nation, as so many did return to their homeland, Israel, during all the centuries before.....
and the Arabs, continued and continue to be indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula and it is the only territory they can actually call their ancestral home and have any rights over.

Another big difference between Jews and Arabs is that the Jews have wanted to live in peace with the Arabs in a Jewish State, the Arabs want to ethnically clean the Jews from everywhere in the Middle East, just as the Hashemites did in 1925 and 1948.


ONLY King Abdullah was an Hashemite?
What a lonely man. Him alone as an Hashemite against the Saudis from Yemen who invaded his land and took over around WWI.

No wonder he ran for his life!!!!!


And how amazing that the British gave ALL of TransJordan to be populated by only ONE person in 1925 amongst all the Jews who had been there since time immemorial.

ONE Hashemite, King Abdullah.

How did King Abdullah get rid of all the Jews in TransJordan in 1925 ALL by HIMSELF?

ONE Arab against so many Jews. Now, that is true power.

Arabs began migrating to Mesopotama and the Levant 10,000 years ago because receding glaciers caused the Arabian Peninsula to become more arid.

That's why there were Arabs in Palestine at the time of Abraham.. That's why both Moses and Abraham had Arab wives and why Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria about 700 BC.

You just don't know your history.

You know what?
This is a thread about "Historic Palestine"

Show me where the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Byzantine, etc have written anything about an ancient land called Palestine, and a people called Palestinians.

Even the Kurdish and Arab Muslims did not land on that 'Ancient land" much less dealt with the "ancient Palestinians"

You can repeat that lie about Arab wives instead of Egyptian, all you like. It will never make it true.


Abraham and Ishmael NEVER stepped in Arabia, never took Arab wives, never had Arab children.

Keturah and Zipporah were Arabs. Abraham had six sons by his Arab wife Keturah.. Have you NEVER read the Bible?

The Greeks called it Syria-Palestine in 500 BC.

Chaucer and Shakespeare refer to Palestine.

You sure are ignorant.

 

[Sixties Fan]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

And still, the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people of the land, as they themselves acknowledge.

Seriously, why would ONE historian in 500 years before the Romans, after the land had been called Canaan and Israel, would make a difference as to who the indigenous people were at the time (as still are) , and their rights to their ancestral land?

Correct, the Arabs immigrated not only from Arabia after the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, but by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century they were immigrating from Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, North Africa and many other places where they had moved to centuries before.

The difference between the European and Arab immigrants to Palestine during that time, is that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland this time to recreate their ancient Nation, as so many did return to their homeland, Israel, during all the centuries before.....
and the Arabs, continued and continue to be indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula and it is the only territory they can actually call their ancestral home and have any rights over.

Another big difference between Jews and Arabs is that the Jews have wanted to live in peace with the Arabs in a Jewish State, the Arabs want to ethnically clean the Jews from everywhere in the Middle East, just as the Hashemites did in 1925 and 1948.


ONLY King Abdullah was an Hashemite?
What a lonely man. Him alone as an Hashemite against the Saudis from Yemen who invaded his land and took over around WWI.

No wonder he ran for his life!!!!!


And how amazing that the British gave ALL of TransJordan to be populated by only ONE person in 1925 amongst all the Jews who had been there since time immemorial.

ONE Hashemite, King Abdullah.

How did King Abdullah get rid of all the Jews in TransJordan in 1925 ALL by HIMSELF?

ONE Arab against so many Jews. Now, that is true power.

Arabs began migrating to Mesopotama and the Levant 10,000 years ago because receding glaciers caused the Arabian Peninsula to become more arid.

That's why there were Arabs in Palestine at the time of Abraham.. That's why both Moses and Abraham had Arab wives and why Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria about 700 BC.

You just don't know your history.

You know what?
This is a thread about "Historic Palestine"

Show me where the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Byzantine, etc have written anything about an ancient land called Palestine, and a people called Palestinians.

Even the Kurdish and Arab Muslims did not land on that 'Ancient land" much less dealt with the "ancient Palestinians"

You can repeat that lie about Arab wives instead of Egyptian, all you like. It will never make it true.


Abraham and Ishmael NEVER stepped in Arabia, never took Arab wives, never had Arab children.

Keturah and Zipporah were Arabs. Abraham had six sons by his Arab wife Keturah.. Have you NEVER read the Bible?

The Greeks called it Syria-Palestine in 500 BC.

Chaucer and Shakespeare refer to Palestine.

You sure are ignorant.

You surely are a "Useful idiot" like all the other Jew haters who want to shove any story down the Jews ' throat instead of what Genesis and history actually say in order to destroy Israel and make the "Palestinians" the ancient people of the land. What a joke, endless with absolute no end in sight.

Once an idiot......

 

[surada]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

And still, the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people of the land, as they themselves acknowledge.

Seriously, why would ONE historian in 500 years before the Romans, after the land had been called Canaan and Israel, would make a difference as to who the indigenous people were at the time (as still are) , and their rights to their ancestral land?

Correct, the Arabs immigrated not only from Arabia after the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, but by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century they were immigrating from Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, North Africa and many other places where they had moved to centuries before.

The difference between the European and Arab immigrants to Palestine during that time, is that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland this time to recreate their ancient Nation, as so many did return to their homeland, Israel, during all the centuries before.....
and the Arabs, continued and continue to be indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula and it is the only territory they can actually call their ancestral home and have any rights over.

Another big difference between Jews and Arabs is that the Jews have wanted to live in peace with the Arabs in a Jewish State, the Arabs want to ethnically clean the Jews from everywhere in the Middle East, just as the Hashemites did in 1925 and 1948.


ONLY King Abdullah was an Hashemite?
What a lonely man. Him alone as an Hashemite against the Saudis from Yemen who invaded his land and took over around WWI.

No wonder he ran for his life!!!!!


And how amazing that the British gave ALL of TransJordan to be populated by only ONE person in 1925 amongst all the Jews who had been there since time immemorial.

ONE Hashemite, King Abdullah.

How did King Abdullah get rid of all the Jews in TransJordan in 1925 ALL by HIMSELF?

ONE Arab against so many Jews. Now, that is true power.

Arabs began migrating to Mesopotama and the Levant 10,000 years ago because receding glaciers caused the Arabian Peninsula to become more arid.

That's why there were Arabs in Palestine at the time of Abraham.. That's why both Moses and Abraham had Arab wives and why Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria about 700 BC.

You just don't know your history.

You know what?
This is a thread about "Historic Palestine"

Show me where the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Byzantine, etc have written anything about an ancient land called Palestine, and a people called Palestinians.

Even the Kurdish and Arab Muslims did not land on that 'Ancient land" much less dealt with the "ancient Palestinians"

You can repeat that lie about Arab wives instead of Egyptian, all you like. It will never make it true.


Abraham and Ishmael NEVER stepped in Arabia, never took Arab wives, never had Arab children.

Keturah and Zipporah were Arabs. Abraham had six sons by his Arab wife Keturah.. Have you NEVER read the Bible?

The Greeks called it Syria-Palestine in 500 BC.

Chaucer and Shakespeare refer to Palestine.

You sure are ignorant.

You surely are a "Useful idiot" like all the other Jew haters who want to shove any story down the Jews ' throat instead of what Genesis and history actually say in order to destroy Israel and make the "Palestinians" the ancient people of the land. What a joke, endless with absolute no end in sight.

Once an idiot......

Genesis and Exodus were written after the Babylonian exile. They are just origin myths.. Every culture has them.. Last time I looked there were over 250 well known orign myths. Did you think Genesis was History???

 

[Sixties Fan]

“Historic Palestine” is a commonly-used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The phrase suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “historic” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. By referring to the land thus without mentioning Jewish history, it also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region.

This article discusses the origin and evolution of the usage of “Palestine” as a place name and how current notions of “Historic Palestine” are all based on a false understanding of the geographic and political history of the region.

Historic Palestine in today’s usage typically refers to the territory that now comprises Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Here are several recent prominent examples of usage of the term:

• Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, stated in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in May 2019 that the Palestinians recognized Israel on the “1967 border, equivalent to 78 percent of historic Palestine.”'Historic Palestine' – A Misleading Anachronism Which “historic Palestine” was Erekat referring to and does Israel really comprise 78% of this “historic” territory?

• The Columbia Journalism Review published an article in January 2019 titled “Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories” in which the author claimed that “Historic Palestine under Ottoman and British control had a thriving Arabic press.”[ii] Was Palestine ever a territory under Ottoman control?

• A June 2019 article in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace states that the deal could leave the “New Palestine” in charge of “about 12 percent of historic Palestine.”[iii] What land area was used to arrive at this figure?

• President Abbas noted the following in his address to the United Nations in November 2012: “The two-state solution, i.e. the State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel, represents the spirit and essence of the historic compromise embodied in the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed 19 years ago between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel under the auspices of the United States of America on the White House Lawn, a compromise by which the Palestinian people accepted to establish their state on only 22% of the territory of historic Palestine for the sake of making peace.”[iv] Is this 22% number accurate?

'Historic Palestine' - A Misleading Anachronism | HonestReporting

“Historic Palestine” is an erroneously used term when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly referring to a nation that existed in the past.

honestreporting.com

(Comment)

It's an extensively informative article.

But there's a very simple basic question - why do all lectures on this "Historic Palestine" narrative,
the pictures, stories and all discourse - always start at some late point , 30-40 years into Zionist enterprise, after the land and its economy has been already progressively rejuvenating,
drying the vast swamps, building new cities?

And of course, thus dodging the preceding Arab pogroms,
that destroy the alleged "disturbed peaceful co-existence" propaganda...

Any reference to a "historic Palestine" can only be a reference to a Jewish Palestine.

Very few Jews lived in Palestine from 70 AD until 1920. Read some history.

Each and every invader, from the Greeks, to the Assyrians ......all the way to the Muslim, Crusaders, Ottomans and British.....always acknowledged that the land later included in the Mandate for Palestine belonged to the Jews, no matter how many were there at any time in history.

It took the Muslims losing that Islamic conquered land to the indigenous Jews, for those Jews all of a sudden become "European refugees" who had no right to the land which was always theirs by right, just as Australia belongs to the Aboriginal people and the Americas belong to the First Nations who inhabited them before the European invaders arrived.


Do you actually read any history? Or the Islamic writings which have confirmed that the land of Israel/Judea actually belonged to the Jews who were indigenous of the place? The Jews the Kurdish and Arab Muslims met when they invaded the land?

The land was renamed Syria Palestine by the Romans, and who's word Palestine was used in the Mandate for Palestine as a continuation of the insult, humiliation meant by the Romans towards the Jews? Same insult, humiliation was meant by the British who gave 78% of the Mandate (only Mandate where this happened) to the Hashemite Muslims, and not the indigenous Jews.
And then the British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, because it was meant for Jews.

Do not worry, no one in history can tell that no Christian or Muslim was ever a Jew hater by their words and deeds.

Herodotus predates the Romans by 500 years.. It was called Syri-Palestine,

The ONLY Hashemite was king Abdullah.

The Arabs do acknowldge the Jews of Palestine.. but Arabs have been there since long before Islam and they didn't immigrate from Europe and Russia.

And still, the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people of the land, as they themselves acknowledge.

Seriously, why would ONE historian in 500 years before the Romans, after the land had been called Canaan and Israel, would make a difference as to who the indigenous people were at the time (as still are) , and their rights to their ancestral land?

Correct, the Arabs immigrated not only from Arabia after the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, but by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century they were immigrating from Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, North Africa and many other places where they had moved to centuries before.

The difference between the European and Arab immigrants to Palestine during that time, is that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland this time to recreate their ancient Nation, as so many did return to their homeland, Israel, during all the centuries before.....
and the Arabs, continued and continue to be indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula and it is the only territory they can actually call their ancestral home and have any rights over.

Another big difference between Jews and Arabs is that the Jews have wanted to live in peace with the Arabs in a Jewish State, the Arabs want to ethnically clean the Jews from everywhere in the Middle East, just as the Hashemites did in 1925 and 1948.


ONLY King Abdullah was an Hashemite?
What a lonely man. Him alone as an Hashemite against the Saudis from Yemen who invaded his land and took over around WWI.

No wonder he ran for his life!!!!!


And how amazing that the British gave ALL of TransJordan to be populated by only ONE person in 1925 amongst all the Jews who had been there since time immemorial.

ONE Hashemite, King Abdullah.

How did King Abdullah get rid of all the Jews in TransJordan in 1925 ALL by HIMSELF?

ONE Arab against so many Jews. Now, that is true power.

Arabs began migrating to Mesopotama and the Levant 10,000 years ago because receding glaciers caused the Arabian Peninsula to become more arid.

That's why there were Arabs in Palestine at the time of Abraham.. That's why both Moses and Abraham had Arab wives and why Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria about 700 BC.

You just don't know your history.

You know what?
This is a thread about "Historic Palestine"

Show me where the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Byzantine, etc have written anything about an ancient land called Palestine, and a people called Palestinians.

Even the Kurdish and Arab Muslims did not land on that 'Ancient land" much less dealt with the "ancient Palestinians"

You can repeat that lie about Arab wives instead of Egyptian, all you like. It will never make it true.


Abraham and Ishmael NEVER stepped in Arabia, never took Arab wives, never had Arab children.

Keturah and Zipporah were Arabs. Abraham had six sons by his Arab wife Keturah.. Have you NEVER read the Bible?

The Greeks called it Syria-Palestine in 500 BC.

Chaucer and Shakespeare refer to Palestine.

You sure are ignorant.

You surely are a "Useful idiot" like all the other Jew haters who want to shove any story down the Jews ' throat instead of what Genesis and history actually say in order to destroy Israel and make the "Palestinians" the ancient people of the land. What a joke, endless with absolute no end in sight.

Once an idiot......

Genesis and Exodus were written after the Babylonian exile. They are just origin myths.. Every culture has them.. Last time I looked there were over 250 well known orign myths. Did you think Genesis was History???

As I said above:

"A Useful Idiot" intent in rewriting ONE people's history only......and ONLY ONE.

The History of the Jewish People.