 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
2003.10.17 – In addition to our glossary entry that includes some etymology on the term 'Palestinian', and another paper in our Web Café Archives, ("Palestine: Name & Location (2003.05.24)") the following quotation from a scholarly essay in the MERIA Journal clarifies the supposed 'ancient' claim of local Arabs to be 'Palestinians':
“In fact, the only binding international document that has ever assigned sovereignty over this land is the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – which assigned the entirety of what is now the West Bank to the future Jewish state!!! Not a single binding document has ever assigned the land to the Palestinians.
“The 1947 Partition Resolution, though it did call for a Palestinian state in this area, was non-binding on two counts: because it was a General Assembly rather than a Security Council resolution, and because the Palestinians themselves unequivocally rejected the partition plan, thereby making it null and void…
“As for Security Council Resolution 242, passed after Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967, this resolution did call for Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," but, notably, not "the territories" – a wording that, far from being accidental, was deliberately chosen by the sponsors (the US and Britain) to allow for the possibility of Israel keeping some of this land under a future peace agreement.
”Furthermore, the resolution made no mention of who should receive sovereignty over any portion of the West Bank from which Israel did withdraw. In fact, those lands had no recognized sovereign at the time, since prior to the Israeli conquest, they had been occupied by Jordan – and only two countries in the world (Britain and Pakistan) ever recognized Jordan’s occupation as legal.
”Thus the claim that this land has been recognized as Palestinian territory has no basis whatsoever under international law..”
“Arab rejection of partition in 1947 reflected a crisis of leadership in a community whose identity as 'Palestinians' was not yet fully crystallized. Indeed, at the start of the British mandate, the Arabs of 'Palestine' were profoundly ambivalent about the appropriate focus of their political loyalties – should they identify with the overall Arab nation, consider themselves Southern Syrians, or call themselves 'Palestinians' in conformity to boundaries artificially drawn by imperial powers?”
There is no justification for accepting British occupation of land historically belonging to an earlier people. That is well accepted. The identical argument applies to the occupation by the Ottomans before them, and the occupation by the Mamluks before them, and the occupation by the Crusaders before them… [and the Roman Occupiers before them; ybd]. So why does the world suddenly turn into logical hypocrites and view the Arab occupation of land previously occupied by the Romans any differently? By the identical argument, the Romans occupied it from the earliest owners existing today – the Jews! There is no rational or logical basis for capriciously accepting one of the occupations in the middle of the chain. The earliest owners of the land in recorded history ( that record of the land being scientifically dated earliest extant mss. of úÌåÉøÈä, we see, is conveniently – but selectively – accepted here) were the Kᵊna•an•imꞋ, all surviving remnants of whom, history books document, were absorbed into the Jewish people, ceasing to be distinct from Jews. The 'Canaanites' are today's Jews, and vice-versa! Therefore, the earliest title on this land is a book going back well more than a millennia before the first Arab Muslim – the úÌåÉøÈä (be consistent!). Ah, there’s the rub. úÌåÉøÈä exposes miso-Judaics like flipping on a light in a slum kitchen in the middle of the night exposes the roaches fleeing in all directions back into the cracks!
“Behold I will make Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim a staggering-drunk's cup to all of the surrounding kindreds, and so it will be for Yᵊhud•âhꞋ in the siege against Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. And it shall become in that day that I will set Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim to be a grievous stone of burden on [the necks of] all of the kindreds; all who have this burden shall be absolutely slashed up, even all of the goy•imꞋ [who] shall be gathered against her… And Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim shall be resettled again where she belongs – in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. Then é‑‑ä will first save the tents of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ… In that day, é‑‑ä shall shield the settlers of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. In that day, even [the settler of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim who] stumbles shall be like Dâ•widꞋ; and the House of Dâ•widꞋ shall be like ël•oh•imꞋ, like a ma•lâkhꞋ of é‑‑ä confronting [the kindreds]. In that day it shall become that I will request them to destroy all of the goy•imꞋ who have come against Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. But I will pour upon the House of Dâ•widꞋ and upon the settlers of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim a Spirit of Graciousness and Supplication, and they shall gaze at Me whom they pierced, and they shall mourn bitterly over him as one mourns bitterly for an only son, for a firstborn… In that day there shall be a fountain opened for the House of Dâ•widꞋ and for the settlers of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, for a misstep [offering] and for the ash-waters of the clay-red cow.”
 |
|
 |