Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...

Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.

As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.

And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.

 

[montelatici]

2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law

have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "

The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population. You are truly a Phoney.

"On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]......The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."

The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal

From your past links we get these

50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
records and commercial balance sheets.
51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


Now the missing tables that tell the true story



View attachment 34341

You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...

Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

 

[montelatici]

...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...

Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.

As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.

And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.

I have no idea what other table you are talking about, there are tables depicting foreign investment, financial assets held, population and other many things.

There is only one table that depicts land ownership. It is the one below:

 

[montelatici]

How can a fact from a survey be propaganda. Just because you can't take the truth it doesn't mean that it is propaganda.

 

[MJB12741]

...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...

Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.

As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.

YAHOO! Keep the laughs coming.

 

[montelatici]

You mean. The facts keep coming. Something you seem to have a problem with. And yes, you provide us with good comedy.

 

[Humanity]

2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law

have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "

The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population. You are truly a Phoney.

"On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]......The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."

The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal

From your past links we get these

50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
records and commercial balance sheets.
51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


Now the missing tables that tell the true story



View attachment 34341

You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...

Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

Oh Phoney....

Are you really so dumb?

It is quite possible that 10 acres would attract more tax than 100 acres, isn't it!

10 acres in New York, I believe, will be higher valued and attract higher tax than 100 acres in Wyoming...

 

[aris2chat]

They were elected by the Palestinian people even though they knew they were Islamic fundementalists and dictatorial. The palestinian people knew what hamas were like and still elected them and their charter.

Agreed.

There is no escaping the conclusion that a sufficient number of Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them, in order to install them in power, in at least a portion of Rump Palestine.

Gaza, in this case.

By choosing them, they chose their Charter and Philosophy.

This is not merely Guilt by Association.

This is Conscious, Informed Choice.

All protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, and set aside as inoperative.

77% of Israeli arabs prefer Israeli rule. If Abbas dissolves the PA and returns the land to Israel, how many palestinians would prefer Israeli rule?

 

[Kondor3]

...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...

Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.

As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.

And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.

I have no idea what other table you are talking about, there are tables depicting foreign investment, financial assets held, population and other many things.

There is only one table that depicts land ownership. It is the one below:

View attachment 34378

So, this survey shows that, in 1943, the majority of the land was in Arab hands.

So what?

A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.

And not likely to BE in Arab hands, at any point, in the foreseeable future.

Next slide, please.

 

[Humanity]

A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.

No shit Sherlock!

 

[Kondor3]

A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.

No shit Sherlock!

Yep.

No shit.

Now what?

 

[Coyote]

2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law

have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "

The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population. You are truly a Phoney.

"On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]......The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."

The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal

From your past links we get these

50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
records and commercial balance sheets.
51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


Now the missing tables that tell the true story



View attachment 34341

You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...

Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

Doesn't work that way.

For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly. My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont. Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.

 

[MJB12741]

Who Are The Palestinians? Well lets see now. Are these Palesrinians?

Photos Palestinians Celebrate Hand Out Candy After Synagogue Terror Attack TheBlaze.com

 

[Hossfly]

Who Are The Palestinians? Well lets see now. Are these Palesrinians?

Photos Palestinians Celebrate Hand Out Candy After Synagogue Terror Attack TheBlaze.com

They surely be Palestinians, by George!

 

[aris2chat]

have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
From your past links we get these

50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
records and commercial balance sheets.
51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


Now the missing tables that tell the true story



View attachment 34341

You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...

Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

Doesn't work that way.

For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly. My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont. Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.

the mandate was not 50 separate states with tens of counties each setting their own taxes because they each ran their own governments. Mandate was under one government controlled by the British and at best the urban taxes might have been a bit higher but not disproportionate enough by those figures to account for that much difference in tax.

 

[montelatici]

The fact is, that Arabs owned more than 85% of the land and Jews less than 7%. Why can't you idiots just accept the facts? Just read the amount of acreage each owned ffs. Taxes have nothing to do with it. Sorry to burst your propaganda bubble that told you Jews bought all the land. It is propaganda, the facts are depicted below.

 

[Coyote]

You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...

Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

Doesn't work that way.

For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly. My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont. Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.

the mandate was not 50 separate states with tens of counties each setting their own taxes because they each ran their own governments. Mandate was under one government controlled by the British and at best the urban taxes might have been a bit higher but not disproportionate enough by those figures to account for that much difference in tax.

I would think that taxes would vary according to the desirability of the area - that's the way it is in many areas not just mine.

 

[aris2chat]

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

Doesn't work that way.

For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly. My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont. Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.

the mandate was not 50 separate states with tens of counties each setting their own taxes because they each ran their own governments. Mandate was under one government controlled by the British and at best the urban taxes might have been a bit higher but not disproportionate enough by those figures to account for that much difference in tax.

I would think that taxes would vary according to the desirability of the area - that's the way it is in many areas not just mine.

Taxes might vary on type of land and what it produces but not to such a variation when the amount of land per each category is compared. The mandate was not so big that it could manage a complex tax code when so many had only a minimal education.
There is nothing in the figures of page 566 that makes such a difference plausible.
Even cultivating what is listed as uncultivatable land would not explain the disparity

 

[aris2chat]

Palestine before the Palestinians!
Posted by Olivier Melnick on November 26, 2014

Way before Yasser Arafat, the PLO, Hamas, Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas and the likes, there was a Palestine. There was a Palestine that was recognized by the entire world and that was just fine. I am actually in favor of what Palestine used to be prior to the 1960s. Unfortunately, the word “Palestine” has since suffered from some kind of etymological virus for which there seems to be no cure. But why would the world look for a cure when nobody feels that there is even a virus? Yet it is pandemic!

• The original meaning of the word “Palestine”: While the exact origin of the word “Palestine” is still debated, there are aspects of the word’s meaning that we can know for sure. It is indeed very possible that it is a word that once described a people group known as the Philistines. But that people group was in no way connected to the modern Palestinians. Not ethnically, not linguistically and not culturally. In 132 CE, a Jewish revolt took place against the Romans. It was known as the Bar Kochba revolt (Bar Kochba was a false messiah in Israel at the time). In a nutshell, things didn’t end well for the Jewish people and in addition to a blood bath of gigantic proportions, Israel was renamed Palaestina by the Romans in an effort to undermine Jewish history and humiliate the Jewish people further. Additionally at the time, Jerusalem was also renamed Aelia Capitolina by emperor Hadrian. The name stuck and continued to be used after that time.

As a matter of fact, when the British were in control from 1922 to 1948, the area was governed under what was known as the “British Palestine Mandate”. In the original text of the Mandate itself dated from 1922, we can read: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. Sounds very Jewish to me!

If we take a look at article 4 of the Mandate, we also find two words in the same passage that any modern day Palestinian would be hard pressed to associate in a positive light: Palestine and Zionist. Yet, in the context of the original Mandate, it was to the current leaders of the Zionist movement that the administration and government of Palestine were entrusted to, as we can read: An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

As a matter of fact, until the early 60s, Palestine was always synonymous with Israel and/or Holy Land. Arabs in neighboring countries never called themselves Palestinians but rather Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanian, Egyptians, etc. Most Arabs in the early 1900s would have argued that Palestinian Arabs were simply Syrians.

Recently, an interesting new piece of evidence in favor of Jewish Palestine was found in the most unlikely of places. Some will argue that it is just anecdotal and that it certainly doesn’t prove anything, but I would beg to differ.

The evidence comes from the pages of a French dictionary known as the “Larousse Dictionary”. Larousse Publishing House was started in France in 1852. They published their first dictionary in 1856. In France, Larousse has become synonymous with “dictionary”.

It is within a 1939 edition of the Larousse Dictionary that the flag of Palestine was found amidst the flags of the world. On the right page, third from the top and third from the left, we can see a flag made of two equal squares, a light blue on the left and a white on the right. Superimposed in the center of the 2 squares is a yellow magen David (Star of David), which as we all know is the Jewish symbol par excellence. Dated from 1939, which was the start of World War Two, the dictionary wouldn’t include Israel (not re-born as a modern nation until 1948). Note also that on the first line of flags on the left page, you can see the German flag harboring the now infamous swastika of the Nazi regime. There is thus no question as to the time frame of the publishing of this volume. So what happened that changed it all?

• Alternate meaning of the word “Palestine”: It is not uncommon for the etymology of certain words to evolve with the times, culture and history. It is neither good nor bad but simply a result a change in the meaning of a word over time. So why is it that in the case of the word “Palestine” we should look at its new meaning carefully and I would go as far as saying that we should even reject it?

For those of us who are concerned with historical accuracy, the meaning of “Palestine” is pretty straight forward, it simply describes the ancient name given to Eretz Yisrael and thus to a piece of land biblically known as the “Land of Canaan” (Genesis 17:7-8) given to the children of Israel by the God of Israel, period!

But today, Palestine doesn’t have any more Jewish connotation whatsoever. Palestine is allegedly the historical homeland of the Palestinian people, who because of their unalienable right to self-determination have the god-given right to fight for their return. But do they? I strongly disagree with that assumption!

This re-definition is the result of a geo-political move by Yasser Arafat after the six-day war of 1967. The Palestinian people were created and forced to remain in refugee camps created at the time as well. After almost half a century of propaganda and indoctrination, history has been reversed and rewritten and the Palestinian flag certainly doesn’t bear the Star of David any more. On their site on Palestinian Facts, the explanation of the new flag includes a statement about its adoption by the “Palestinian people” (who didn’t exist then or now) as early as 1917, yet in 1939 it was the flag with the Jewish Star.

I agree that it takes more than a flag to validate a people’s right to exist and right to the land, but historians and Bible scholars alike have documented Jewish existence in the current land of Israel for over 3,500 years, uninterrupted since the days of Joshua.

So next time you hear about Israel the “occupier” of Palestine from Muslim leaders, Pro-Palestinian liberals, Christian anti-Semites and even self-defeating Jews such as those from the organization known as JStreet, consider the facts. You might not be able to change the minds of brainwashed anti-Jewish people, but you certainly deserve the truth about Israel and the Jewish people.

Palestine existed long before the “Palestinians” were implanted there. It was, is and always will remain the Jewish homeland; historically, geographically and last but not least, biblically. Don’t let the name fool you!

 

[Coyote]

The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews.. Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish". Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic. Nor is it being "brain washed".

They have a right to self determination. They have a right to a state. NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.

The Palestinians were not "implanted" there. Any more than the Jews were. Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".