Who really owns Palestine?

[Phoenall]

For decades, we have heard assertions that Israel is occupying “Palestinian” land.

This is, of course, propaganda of the first order, since there is no such thing as Palestinian land, and to use that phrase is to promote a blatantly political anti-Israel agenda.

The excellent article below, by Lawrence Auster, lays bare the historical facts of the matter: Israel has never taken land from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have no legal claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) or Gaza.

We urge you, whenever you see unquestioning reports of ”Palestinian land“, to write your editor with clarification. This article will supply you with all the facts you need.


How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine? By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, August 30, 2004
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
◾As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
◾If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
◾If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.



So as you can see the Palestinians have not held title to Palestine since the 7c

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material. FrontPage Magazine - How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?

 

[georgephillip]

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Have you noticed any prejudice by European Jews against indigenous non-Jewish communities IN PALESTINE over the last hundred years?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Have you noticed any prejudice by European Jews against indigenous non-Jewish communities IN PALESTINE over the last hundred years?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you seen any mention in your post about land ownership, because I cant. The definitive article along with my other post shows that the arab muslims have not held title to the land of palestine since 661 A.D. This is irrefutable and a proven fact, so will you join with me in starting a movement to evict all the arab muslims from Palestine who don't have the legal right to be there.

 

[Lipush]

There is no such thing as "Palestine"

 

[DanBlue]

Does the same scrutiny apply to those who claim the region is the "Jewish Homeland"?

Other than conquest and "gifting", do they have any more historic claim to the land?

 

[Jos]

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Have you noticed any prejudice by European Jews against indigenous non-Jewish communities IN PALESTINE over the last hundred years?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you seen any mention in your post about land ownership, because I cant. The definitive article along with my other post shows that the arab muslims have not held title to the land of palestine since 661 A.D. This is irrefutable and a proven fact, so will you join with me in starting a movement to evict all the arab muslims from Palestine who don't have the legal right to be there.

The Native Americans did not hold "title to the land" either, the concept that a person could "own" legal title to land was alien to them

 

[Sunni Man]

Medal given to British soldiers who served in "Palestine" with the Worcestershire Regiment in the 1920's and 30's

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, georgephillip, et al,

Too far to the left is just as wrong as being too far to the right. And we must remember that land ownership, territorial sovereignty, and citizenry easement/right of passage/access - general freedom of movement are three entirely different things.

What are "civil and religious rights"???

• Civil Rights are based on equality of status within a particular country or community and being protected equally under the law and being granted access to the same privileges of personal power and rights that are granted to all citizens by law; AND not to be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin.

Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power and rights given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights," also sometimes called "our God-given rights." Civil Rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born. For example, the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued that the natural rights of life, liberty and property should be converted into civil rights and protected by the sovereign state as an aspect of the social contract. Others have argued that people acquire rights as an inalienable gift from the deity or at a time of nature before governments were formed.
SOURCE: Civil Rights Entry under (Civil law (legal system))

• Religious Rights are the unimpeded pursuit of worship in those ways and by those means that do not threaten the public safety and do not interfere with the rights and pursuits of other citizens. It included the protection against discrimination based on the type and kind of religious worship.

Freedom of religion is the individual's right or freedom to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wishes, or none at all. This freedom extends mere freedom of thought by adding the freedom of worship and the freedom of religious congregation, and became regarded in the 20th century as one of the basic human rights. Most importantly, the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirms the freedom to change religions.
SOURCE: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Religious_freedom

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Have you noticed any prejudice by European Jews against indigenous non-Jewish communities IN PALESTINE over the last hundred years?

Have you seen any mention in your post about land ownership, because I cant. The definitive article along with my other post shows that the arab muslims have not held title to the land of palestine since 661 A.D. This is irrefutable and a proven fact, so will you join with me in starting a movement to evict all the arab muslims from Palestine who don't have the legal right to be there.

(COMMENT)

For as long as I've been discussing these types of issue, I am always surprised at the number of people that confuse the meanings of "civil and religious" rights, as used in the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, and Mandate Language, with the phase and meaning of "the right of self-determination."

The right to self-determination was an integral element of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today as it concluded its general discussion on that subject, and on the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

“It is only through the realization of this very basic right of people to determine, with no compulsion or coercion, their own future, political status and independence that we can begin to address others such as dignity, justice, progress and equity,” said the representative of Maldives. Yet millions of people were stripped of the right to determine their own fate, due either to military intervention, aggression, occupation or to exploitation by foreign Powers.

SOURCE: GA/SHC/4085 5 Novemeber 2013

The Right of Self-Determination deals with the basic right of people to determine, with no compulsion or coercion, their own future, political status and independence that we can begin to address others such as dignity, justice, progress and equity."

In all conflicts, the inhumanity of the struggle buckles against some rights. It is the nature of war. As our friend "PF Tinmore" is so fond of pointing out, the Palestinians are still at war with the Israeli; continuously since their solemn declaration of 1948 to pursue the policy of genocide against the Jewish People. And that leads to two big considerations:

• Article 51
  

  Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.​

  
  
  Use of force is justified when the State of Israel reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense its people and sovereignty against the immediate use of unlawful force by Hostile Arab Palestinians the have demonstrated a history of past criminal behaviors.​

• Article 6
  

  In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.​

  
  
  The Palestinians have used, over and over again, the excuse that the Israelis have no defined borders, and that all the 1948 remainder of the former Mandate to Palestine belonged to the Arab Palestinians. That the Armistice is in place. Even as recently as this year, Palestinian leaders have reenforced the idea that the Jihadist and Fedayeen have the right to engage in war by any and all means, to include terrorism. Thus, the close of military operations has never been realized and a final Peace Accord never achieved.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Article 51 does not come into play in Occupations, it comes into play when an outside nation attacks another and refers to a nations right to use self defense in that situation.

The International Court of Justice rejected the arguments in the Advisory Opinion on The Wall that you are making.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Note by the Secretary-General

A/ES-10/273 of 13 July 2004

'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter - Ruys - Google Books

 

[Billo_Really]

For decades, we have heard assertions that Israel is occupying “Palestinian” land.

This is, of course, propaganda of the first order, since there is no such thing as Palestinian land, and to use that phrase is to promote a blatantly political anti-Israel agenda.

The excellent article below, by Lawrence Auster, lays bare the historical facts of the matter: Israel has never taken land from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have no legal claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) or Gaza.

We urge you, whenever you see unquestioning reports of ”Palestinian land“, to write your editor with clarification. This article will supply you with all the facts you need.


How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine? By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, August 30, 2004
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
◾As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
◾If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
◾If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.



So as you can see the Palestinians have not held title to Palestine since the 7c

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material. FrontPage Magazine - How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?

I'm sorry, but the occupation is not a debatable issue.

 

[MJB12741]

Right on. "The occupation is not a debatable issue." Time for Israel to find a way to send the Palestinian squatters back to their indigenous homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

For decades, we have heard assertions that Israel is occupying “Palestinian” land.

This is, of course, propaganda of the first order, since there is no such thing as Palestinian land, and to use that phrase is to promote a blatantly political anti-Israel agenda.

The excellent article below, by Lawrence Auster, lays bare the historical facts of the matter: Israel has never taken land from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have no legal claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) or Gaza.

We urge you, whenever you see unquestioning reports of ”Palestinian land“, to write your editor with clarification. This article will supply you with all the facts you need.


How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine? By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, August 30, 2004
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
◾As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
◾If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
◾If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.



So as you can see the Palestinians have not held title to Palestine since the 7c

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material. FrontPage Magazine - How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?

I'm sorry, but the occupation is not a debatable issue.

 

[Phoenall]

Does the same scrutiny apply to those who claim the region is the "Jewish Homeland"?

Other than conquest and "gifting", do they have any more historic claim to the land?

Yes an uninterrupted 3,000 years of occupation of the land, unlike the Palestinian muslims who in most cases cant even go back more that 4 generations

 

[Phoenall]

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Have you noticed any prejudice by European Jews against indigenous non-Jewish communities IN PALESTINE over the last hundred years?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you seen any mention in your post about land ownership, because I cant. The definitive article along with my other post shows that the arab muslims have not held title to the land of palestine since 661 A.D. This is irrefutable and a proven fact, so will you join with me in starting a movement to evict all the arab muslims from Palestine who don't have the legal right to be there.

The Native Americans did not hold "title to the land" either, the concept that a person could "own" legal title to land was alien to them

Now it is recognised that they held title to the land, and it should be given back to them. The illegal immigrants should then be given the right to live as desirable aliens on the land or be evicted from the country.

 

[Phoenall]

Medal given to British soldiers who served in "Palestine" with the Worcestershire Regiment in the 1920's and 30's

AND ? All this shows is the George medal and the name of the theatre of war, which is Palestine. At that time no self respecting muslim would dare call themselves a palestinian

 

[Phoenall]

For decades, we have heard assertions that Israel is occupying “Palestinian” land.

This is, of course, propaganda of the first order, since there is no such thing as Palestinian land, and to use that phrase is to promote a blatantly political anti-Israel agenda.

The excellent article below, by Lawrence Auster, lays bare the historical facts of the matter: Israel has never taken land from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have no legal claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) or Gaza.

We urge you, whenever you see unquestioning reports of ”Palestinian land“, to write your editor with clarification. This article will supply you with all the facts you need.


How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine? By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, August 30, 2004
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
◾As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
◾If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
◾If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.



So as you can see the Palestinians have not held title to Palestine since the 7c

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material. FrontPage Magazine - How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?

I'm sorry, but the occupation is not a debatable issue.

Yes it is and it is entrenched in International law and the UN charter, until the muslims cease all acts of belligerence and stay peaceful for one full year then Israel is legally allowed to occupy the land for defensive purposes

 

[Jos]

Medal given to British soldiers who served in "Palestine" with the Worcestershire Regiment in the 1920's and 30's

AND ? All this shows is the George medal and the name of the theatre of war, which is Palestine. At that time no self respecting muslim would dare call themselves a palestinian

Or use Money with the name Palestine written in english and Arabic But the Hebrew writing does not say Palestine?

 

[aris2chat]

Mandate ended.
Palestinian Authority still uses the Jordan Dinar, though Jordan renounced claim and gave WB to Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Reading the "words" is only half the equation. Then, you must understand what is read.

Medal given to British soldiers who served in "Palestine" with the Worcestershire Regiment in the 1920's and 30's

AND ? All this shows is the George medal and the name of the theatre of war, which is Palestine. At that time no self respecting muslim would dare call themselves a palestinian

Or use Money with the name Palestine written in english and Arabic But the Hebrew writing does not say Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Generally speaking, military service medals are named after territories and campaigns. For instance, there are a Service Medals for "Southwest Asia" and "Antarctica;" but neither is a country. There was once a "Army of Puerto Rican Occupation Medal." I believe our friend "Phoenall" is correct. The Medal Shown is a General Service Medal.

Money, is altogether different. Palestinian money was based on UK currency, and minted under the authority of the Mandatory (the UK). The coin shown was minted in the year 1931. And the report is as follows.

23. The Palestine currency, based on sterling, has been subject on foreign exchanges to the fluctuations of the pound; but there has been no untoward sign of inflation of prices locally.

SOURCE: 31 December 1931 Annual Report to League of Nations

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

For decades, we have heard assertions that Israel is occupying “Palestinian” land.

This is, of course, propaganda of the first order, since there is no such thing as Palestinian land, and to use that phrase is to promote a blatantly political anti-Israel agenda.

The excellent article below, by Lawrence Auster, lays bare the historical facts of the matter: Israel has never taken land from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have no legal claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) or Gaza.

We urge you, whenever you see unquestioning reports of ”Palestinian land“, to write your editor with clarification. This article will supply you with all the facts you need.


How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine? By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, August 30, 2004
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
◾As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
◾If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
◾If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.



So as you can see the Palestinians have not held title to Palestine since the 7c

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material. FrontPage Magazine - How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?

I'm sorry, but the occupation is not a debatable issue.

Yes it is and it is entrenched in International law and the UN charter, until the muslims cease all acts of belligerence and stay peaceful for one full year then Israel is legally allowed to occupy the land for defensive purposes

Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza.

There is no ruling holding this Occupation is lawful.