The dispossession and expulsion

BernardZ · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

In article , almared_alarabi@yahoo.com
says...

(a)
> Commission in July 1937 and then
> endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.
>
> That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with

1867 when Mark Twain visited Palestine he stated that "desolate
country.....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace
with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being.... There
were hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere".

> its own national aspirations.
>

Wrong. "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term
the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country
was for centuries part of Syria."
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937

See (a) above

Archived from group: aus>education

infidel · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

Fuck Ali or any muzzie
FA.

Abu-Alwafa · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

The dispossession and expulsion

The land and people of Palestine were transformed during the thirty years of
British rule. The systematic colonization undertaken by the
Zionist movement enabled the Jewish community to establish separate and
virtually autonomous political, economic, social, cultural, and military
institutions. A state within a state was in place by the time the movement
launched its drive for independence. The legal underpinnings for the
autonomous Jewish community were provided by the British Mandate. The
establishment of a Jewish state was first proposed by the British Royal
Commission in July 1937 and then
endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.

That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with
its own national aspirations. The right to create a Jewish state-and the
overwhelming need for such a state-were perceived as overriding Palestinian
counterclaims. Few members of the yishuv supported the idea of
binationalism. Rather, territorial partition was
seen by most Zionist leaders as the way to gain statehood while according
certain national rights to the Palestinians. TRANSFER of Palestinians to
neighboring Arab states was also envisaged as a means to ensure the
formation of a homogeneous Jewish territory. The implementation of those
approaches led to the formation of independent
Israel, at the cost of dismembering the Palestinian community and fostering
long-term hostility with the Arab world.

Ann M. Lesch
http://www.palestineremembered.com/

Peter Lawrence · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

BernardZ wrote:
>
> In article , almared_alarabi@yahoo.com
> says...
>
> (a)
> > Commission in July 1937 and then
> > endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.
> >
> > That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with
>
> 1867 when Mark Twain visited Palestine he stated that "desolate
> country.....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace
> with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being.... There
> were hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere".

It's amazing how often this misleading stuff gets trotted out. I keep having
to remind people that the area had nearly become a "shatterbelt", what with
the endemic warfare and the regular passage of armies in preceding decades.
Throughout much of the 19th century the Egyptians had been attacking the
Turks. The Jews weren't responsible for this, but they can take no credit for
improvements that came with settled conditions either. And the people
certainly were around, hiding, or they couldn't possibly have formed the
majority by the times of 20th century censuses that showed the major
immigration was Zionist.

And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the situation had an Arab
majority by the 1940s.

>
> > its own national aspirations.
> >
>
> Wrong. "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term
> the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country
> was for centuries part of Syria."
> - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937
>
> See (a) above

Odd, then, that I found it mentioned in one of the arguments in Macaulay
about giving the vote to the Jews, back in the early 19th century. He
pooh-poohs as ridiculous that countries might end up with a Zionist lobby
working in favour of emigration to a place he specifically calls Palestine.
Since that essay is available on the internet ("On the Civil Liberties of the
Jews", as I recall), readers can check it for themselves if they do a search.
As to whether the local Arabs themselves had a sense of separate identity,
all we can really do is point out the genuine regional variations under the
Ottomans, up to and including local revolts during the 19th century in what
is now called Palestine; we cannot really say whether that name was in use
there and then by the locals, and it doesn't matter anyway.

And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the people had a distinct
sense of identity by the 1940s.

But I have pointed this sort of thing out before too, so it is merely more of
the same setting the record straight. And oh, calling me an antisemite would
be neither true in itself nor relevant to questions of the truth or otherwise
of Palestinian questions. PML.

--
GST+NPT=JOBS

I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.

See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.

BernardZ · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

In article , peterl@netlink.com.au says...
> BernardZ wrote:
> >
> > In article , almared_alarabi@yahoo.com
> > says...
> >
> > (a)
> > > Commission in July 1937 and then
> > > endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.
> > >
> > > That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with
> >
> > 1867 when Mark Twain visited Palestine he stated that "desolate
> > country.....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace
> > with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being.... There
> > were hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere".
>
> It's amazing how often this misleading stuff gets trotted out. I keep having
> to remind people that the area had nearly become a "shatterbelt", what with
> the endemic warfare and the regular passage of armies in preceding decades.
> Throughout much of the 19th century the Egyptians had been attacking the
> Turks.

Nonsense the Egyptian army and the Turks conflict was never more then a
minor conflict far way from the region.

There was little war in that region throughout the 19th century. Please
list these wars.

> The Jews weren't responsible for this, but they can take no credit for
> improvements that came with settled conditions either. And the people
> certainly were around, hiding, or they couldn't possibly have formed the
> majority by the times of 20th century censuses that showed the major
> immigration was Zionist.
>
> And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the situation had an Arab
> majority by the 1940s.

Disagree. Evidence shows major migration by Arabs in that region during
that period.

>
> >
> > > its own national aspirations.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong. "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term
> > the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country
> > was for centuries part of Syria."
> > - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937
> >
> > See (a) above
>
> Odd, then, that I found it mentioned in one of the arguments in Macaulay
> about giving the vote to the Jews, back in the early 19th century. He
> pooh-poohs as ridiculous that countries might end up with a Zionist lobby
> working in favour of emigration to a place he specifically calls Palestine.
> Since that essay is available on the internet ("On the Civil Liberties of the
> Jews", as I recall), readers can check it for themselves if they do a search.
> As to whether the local Arabs themselves had a sense of separate identity,
> all we can really do is point out the genuine regional variations under the
> Ottomans, up to and including local revolts during the 19th century in what
> is now called Palestine; we cannot really say whether that name was in use
> there and then by the locals, and it doesn't matter anyway.

(a)
Well since this guy is saying that the region is Syria he is obviously
not a regional identity.

>
> And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the people had a distinct
> sense of identity by the 1940s.

see (a) above

>
> But I have pointed this sort of thing out before too, so it is merely more of
> the same setting the record straight. And oh, calling me an antisemite would
> be neither true in itself nor relevant to questions of the truth or otherwise
> of Palestinian questions. PML.

I never did call you an antisemite but you are obviously a liar.

Peter Lawrence · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

BernardZ wrote:
>
> In article , peterl@netlink.com.au says...
> > BernardZ wrote:
> > >
> > > In article , almared_alarabi@yahoo.com
> > > says...
> > >
> > > (a)
> > > > Commission in July 1937 and then
> > > > endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.
> > > >
> > > > That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with
> > >
> > > 1867 when Mark Twain visited Palestine he stated that "desolate
> > > country.....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace
> > > with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being.... There
> > > were hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere".
> >
> > It's amazing how often this misleading stuff gets trotted out. I keep having
> > to remind people that the area had nearly become a "shatterbelt", what with
> > the endemic warfare and the regular passage of armies in preceding decades.
> > Throughout much of the 19th century the Egyptians had been attacking the
> > Turks.
>
> Nonsense the Egyptian army and the Turks conflict was never more then a
> minor conflict far way from the region.
>
> There was little war in that region throughout the 19th century.

Wrong. I will not call him a liar; he may simply not know what he is talking
about. War raged back and forth between Egypt and Cilicia at various times.

Please
> list these wars.

Readers, I am not posting here to instruct this fellow - from past experience
I know he won't listen. I am posting here to warn the unwary to go and check.
So NO, I will NOT post a whole load of stuff he will merely deny. Rather,
readers should check and confirm separately what I have posted on
aus.politics before, or look in history books. Try page 109 of "The Decline
and Fall of the Ottoman Empire", by Alan Palmer (John Murray paperback).

>
> > The Jews weren't responsible for this, but they can take no credit for
> > improvements that came with settled conditions either. And the people
> > certainly were around, hiding, or they couldn't possibly have formed the
> > majority by the times of 20th century censuses that showed the major
> > immigration was Zionist.
> >
> > And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the situation had an Arab
> > majority by the 1940s.
>
> Disagree. Evidence shows major migration by Arabs in that region during
> that period.

Sigh. As I have told people before, evidence under the mandate shows that
MOST immigration was Zionist - thus showing that there had to be
proportionally even more Arabs in place before that, to end up with an Arab
majority. For earlier periods, Ottoman tax records are suggestive, though
obviously they tend to understate numbers (since people don't like paying
tax).

>
> >
> > >
> > > > its own national aspirations.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong. "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term
> > > the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country
> > > was for centuries part of Syria."
> > > - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937
> > >
> > > See (a) above
> >
> > Odd, then, that I found it mentioned in one of the arguments in Macaulay
> > about giving the vote to the Jews, back in the early 19th century. He
> > pooh-poohs as ridiculous that countries might end up with a Zionist lobby
> > working in favour of emigration to a place he specifically calls Palestine.
> > Since that essay is available on the internet ("On the Civil Liberties of the
> > Jews", as I recall),

Now I come to think of it, I think it may actually have been "On the Civil
Disabilities of the Jews". Why not check this out and tell me?

readers can check it for themselves if they do a search.
> > As to whether the local Arabs themselves had a sense of separate identity,
> > all we can really do is point out the genuine regional variations under the
> > Ottomans, up to and including local revolts during the 19th century in what
> > is now called Palestine; we cannot really say whether that name was in use
> > there and then by the locals, and it doesn't matter anyway.
>
> (a)
> Well since this guy is saying that the region is Syria he is obviously
> not a regional identity.

I have a feeling this fellow would probably feel comfortable talking about
"England" rather than "the UK". But it misses the point that I have repeated
what I told people on earlier occasions, that there is at least some evidence
that the term "Palestine" goes back further than he thinks.

>
> >
> > And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the people had a distinct
> > sense of identity by the 1940s.
>
> see (a) above

Er... No, this is a selected person commenting that identity WAS felt in the
1940s. That's not evidence the other way.

>
> >
> > But I have pointed this sort of thing out before too, so it is merely more of
> > the same setting the record straight. And oh, calling me an antisemite would
> > be neither true in itself nor relevant to questions of the truth or otherwise
> > of Palestinian questions. PML.
>
> I never did call you an antisemite but you are obviously a liar.

Hmmm. Maybe readers would like to check the archives and refresh my memory?
Though there is nothing that says that I am "obviously a liar". For that, it
would have to be obvious that I was wrong and also that I was doing it on
purpose. To me it seems obvious that I am right or else so subtly wrong that
it could easily be an honest mistake. And readers, notice that this person is
not responding with correction that can be checked but a combination of
reiterated assertion and personal abuse. That doesn't suggest he has anything
more solid to offer. PML.

--
GST+NPT=JOBS

I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.

See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.

BernardZ · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

In article , peterl@netlink.com.au says...
> BernardZ wrote:
> >
> > In article , peterl@netlink.com.au says...
> > > BernardZ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article , almared_alarabi@yahoo.com
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > > (a)
> > > > > Commission in July 1937 and then
> > > > > endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.
> > > > >
> > > > > That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with
> > > >
> > > > 1867 when Mark Twain visited Palestine he stated that "desolate
> > > > country.....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace
> > > > with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being.... There
> > > > were hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere".
> > >
> > > It's amazing how often this misleading stuff gets trotted out. I keep having
> > > to remind people that the area had nearly become a "shatterbelt", what with
> > > the endemic warfare and the regular passage of armies in preceding decades.
> > > Throughout much of the 19th century the Egyptians had been attacking the
> > > Turks.
> >
> > Nonsense the Egyptian army and the Turks conflict was never more then a
> > minor conflict far way from the region.
> >
> > There was little war in that region throughout the 19th century.
>
> Wrong. I will not call him a liar;

Because you cannot!

> he may simply not know what he is talking
> about. War raged back and forth between Egypt and Cilicia at various times.

There was but in time period that you quoted they were very minor
conflicts and far away from the region.

Please list these great conflict in what is Israel in the 19th century.
This is your claim.

>
> Please
> > list these wars.
>
> Readers, I am not posting here to instruct this fellow - from past experience
> I know he won't listen. I am posting here to warn the unwary to go and check.
> So NO, I will NOT post a whole load of stuff he will merely deny. Rather,
> readers should check and confirm separately what I have posted on
> aus.politics before, or look in history books. Try page 109 of "The Decline
> and Fall of the Ottoman Empire", by Alan Palmer (John Murray paperback).

Well I have several history books on my shelf for this region and they
do not include anything of a major conflict in this area.

It is your claim, by the rules of the Usenet, I am well within my rights
for asked for a listing of these so-called conflicts that you claim
occurred in this region in the 19th century. It is up to you to supply
now.

>
> >
> > > The Jews weren't responsible for this, but they can take no credit for
> > > improvements that came with settled conditions either. And the people
> > > certainly were around, hiding, or they couldn't possibly have formed the
> > > majority by the times of 20th century censuses that showed the major
> > > immigration was Zionist.
> > >
> > > And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the situation had an Arab
> > > majority by the 1940s.
> >
> > Disagree. Evidence shows major migration by Arabs in that region during
> > that period.
>
> Sigh. As I have told people before, evidence under the mandate shows that
> MOST immigration was Zionist -

The governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey el Hurani,
admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over
30,000 Syrians from Hauran had moved to the Land of Israel. Even British
Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a
veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Land of Israel,
noted in 1939 that "far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded
into the country and multiplied."

> thus showing that there had to be
> proportionally even more Arabs in place before that, to end up with an Arab
> majority. For earlier periods, Ottoman tax records are suggestive, though
> obviously they tend to understate numbers (since people don't like paying
> tax).

Which would obviously effect more in the region the poorer Jews then the
richer Arabs!

In fact, according to official Ottoman Turk census figures of 1882, in
the entire "Land of Israel" ["Palestine" on BOTH sides of the Jordan
River, there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab. What is
particularly interesting is that most of the region was taken from by
the Palestinians by their so-called brother Arabs. Arabs today have more
of Palestinian region then Israel today.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > its own national aspirations.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term
> > > > the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country
> > > > was for centuries part of Syria."
> > > > - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937
> > > >
> > > > See (a) above
> > >
> > > Odd, then, that I found it mentioned in one of the arguments in Macaulay
> > > about giving the vote to the Jews, back in the early 19th century. He
> > > pooh-poohs as ridiculous that countries might end up with a Zionist lobby
> > > working in favour of emigration to a place he specifically calls Palestine.
> > > Since that essay is available on the internet ("On the Civil Liberties of the
> > > Jews", as I recall),
>
> Now I come to think of it, I think it may actually have been "On the Civil
> Disabilities of the Jews". Why not check this out and tell me?

Check the arrows it your claim not mine. I don't see the relevance of
Macaulay to this issue at all. Although he have been thinking somewhat
of the British Consul in Palestine who reported, in 1857, "The country
is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its
greatest need is that of a body of population."

Mind you they are hardly the only observers to say it. Alphonse de
Lamartine visited the land in 1835. In his book, Recollections of the
East, he writes "Outside the gates of Jerusalem we saw no living object,
heard no living sound.."

>
> readers can check it for themselves if they do a search.
> > > As to whether the local Arabs themselves had a sense of separate identity,
> > > all we can really do is point out the genuine regional variations under the
> > > Ottomans, up to and including local revolts during the 19th century in what
> > > is now called Palestine; we cannot really say whether that name was in use
> > > there and then by the locals, and it doesn't matter anyway.
> >
> > (a)
> > Well since this guy is saying that the region is Syria he is obviously
> > not a regional identity.
>
> I have a feeling this fellow would probably feel comfortable talking about
> "England" rather than "the UK". But it misses the point that I have repeated
> what I told people on earlier occasions, that there is at least some evidence
> that the term "Palestine" goes back further than he thinks.

Oh it goes way back to biblical times. But where you are wrong is in
what it means. Until modern times the terms Palestinian meant a Jew, the
Palestinian troops in WW2 that fought for the Allies were Jews as was
the name of the major Jewish paper in Palestine which was the Palestine
Post. The Arabs tended to call themselves if anything Syrian.

>
> >
> > >
> > > And, of course, it has nothing to do with whether the people had a distinct
> > > sense of identity by the 1940s.
> >
> > see (a) above
>
> Er... No, this is a selected person commenting that identity WAS felt in the
> 1940s. That's not evidence the other way.

It was a well known leader at the time speaking on behalf of the people
in the region. But it is only in very recent times that the Syrian
government

>
> >
> > >
> > > But I have pointed this sort of thing out before too, so it is merely more of
> > > the same setting the record straight. And oh, calling me an antisemite would
> > > be neither true in itself nor relevant to questions of the truth or otherwise
> > > of Palestinian questions. PML.
> >
> > I never did call you an antisemite but you are obviously a liar.
>
> Hmmm. Maybe readers would like to check the archives and refresh my memory?
> Though there is nothing that says that I am "obviously a liar". For that, it
> would have to be obvious that I was wrong and also that I was doing it on
> purpose. To me it seems obvious that I am right or else so subtly wrong that
> it could easily be an honest mistake. And readers, notice that this person is
> not responding with correction that can be checked but a combination of
> reiterated assertion and personal abuse. That doesn't suggest he has anything
> more solid to offer. PML.

To call a minor conflict between Egypt and Turkey which in any case were
far away from the region a reason for depopulation is a lie. No
question.