Foolish international efforts to appease Arabs

Foolish international efforts to appease Arabs
  • 966
  • 131
  • 12

The British were awarded temporary administrative custody of a "Mandate of Palestine" by the League of Nations after the Ottoman Turkish Empire was defeated and dissolved by WW1. The 1920 treaty of San Remo divided that Mandatory territory along the Jordan river, awarding the eastern lands to Arabs (where Abdullah formed the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) and the western lands to Jews (where the state of Israel was declared).


It was the Jordanians that seized and occupied a portion of the Jewish land in 1948, though between 1920 and 1948 several international attempts were made to partition the Jewish portion further to limit the territory where the Jewish state could be established, trying unsuccessfully and foolishly to appease continuing Arab violence that just would not accept a sovereign Jewish presence.


The same foolish international efforts continue to this day, with all-too-similar results, when they should instead enforce the internationally-ratified San Remo treaty and devote humanitarian efforts to resettling Arabs outside of the Jewish territories and assisting the improvement of their well-being via education and economic aid both outside and inside Israel. To me, that sounds like a "peace-plan", though past history demonstrates that the enforcement actions likely will require unremitting suppression of Arab violence.


Dino Manalis Added Apr 23, 2018 - 2:55pm
It's time for Arab countries to recognize Israel to hasten Palestinian independence and peace in the Middle East.
Dave Volek Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:29pm
I try to stay out of Mideast discussions because it's just too complicated. However, I will say that Arab political leaders need Israel to focus their citizenry's attentions away from their deficiencies in government.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:33pm
Yawn. Again that ever same stuff. Sorry...
Logical Man Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:00pm
A Jew, A Muslim, A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar.
They have a few drinks together (not all necessarily alcoholic) and discuss their different belief systems.
They then go home with a better understanding of each other.
Shit, I just woke up.
Morgoth Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:08pm
Very good.  Too bad it never happens in real life.
Morgoth Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:10pm
Better off for everyone involved if the Arabs hadn’t attacked Israel on the date of its inception.  We might have an independent Palestine.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:17pm
Better off for everyone if Zion never came to fruition, Jeffrey, and it's only a matter of time.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:17pm
...a matter of time before Zion meets its final demise.
Logical Man Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:27pm
Better off if Israel had never come into being.
If Judaism is a religion how does it also claim a country? None of the other invisible sky-guy groups get to do so.
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
Who gave the Brits the right to give away another people's land?
The Rothschild banksters needed a sovereign nation to enable their
colossal crimes using religion for cover.
Israel is not about Jewishness, it's about Zionism.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:35pm
Indeed, Logical Man.  It is about Zionism.
Phil Greenough Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:55pm
It’s laughable that you would cite an international treaty as a reason Israel should exist when the international community considers Israel to be in violation of International Law. You can’t have it both ways. 
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:14am
Logical Man,
Let's begin with "Logical Man", who asked about "the Brits giving away another people's land".  The Brits did nothing of the sort.  The international consortium known as the League of nations distributed lands formerly occupied by the defeated and dissolved Islamic Ottoman Empire.  It was part of the outcome of World War One and the settlement of debts incurred by that Empire by waging it.  Note that they had no intrinsic ownership of those territories except by the same processes of conquest and occupation as several previous empires.  As I stated above, the Brits were given temporary administrative custody of a portion of those lands, which expired in 1947.  Other portions were administered by France.  The legal parties to the San Remo treaty of 1920, which settled the debts to which I referred, had every legal right to apportion the lands as they did, under international agreement.  The Balfour declaration merely expressed a recognition of a long-standing truth that was also recognized and embodied in that treaty.  The answer to Phil Greenbough's laughable comment is that international involvement since that agreement is invalid and illegal if and when it attempts to abrogate that agreement, as has occurred several times at the instigation of parties who did not have legal standing to address that agreement or benefit from it at the time it was concluded.
A second question raised by "Logical Man" is based in ignorance of several kinds, as well as an irrational disdain of "religion".  It begins with a misunderstanding of religion that fails to recognize it as an expression of a larger concept of culture and peoplehood.  Neither Judaism nor Islam is limited to merely a set of beliefs, as is traditional gentile Christianity.  Both Judaism and Islam embody cultural features of law and art and worldview and communal responsibility and cultural identity and civilization.  Jews have a long history spanning four millennia of cultural expression and development.  Muslim have no more than 1400 years, during which they did develop a rather well-developed high civilization until about 5 centuries ago when they retreated from it into the dark age in which they now exist.  Nonetheless, they also claim not just one country, but about 22 of them, of which more than a handful are populated specifically by ethnic Arabs.  Jews claim only one country as their homeland of origin, to which they have at least as much justification as the French have to France, or the Swedes to Sweden, or any other ethnicity has to their cultural point of origin.
Zionism is nothing more than the assertion of Jewish rights as a people to live and rule themselves according to their own Jewish culture and civilization in their own ancient original homeland, Israel.  It has nothing to do with the medieval Christian slur against Jewish bankers that "Logical Man" invokes by citing the name Rothschild.  Mr.Purcell, on the other hand, simply dismisses millennia of Jewish history along with that of the past century.  Persecution against and disdain of Jews and Judaism has been, and still is, very real -- but it is not the sole justification for Israel's existence.  It has been merely a driving force to impel an obdurate insistence that it must be defended by all available means.
EXPAT Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:21am
PG. You poor fool. Israel was CREATED by the International community!
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

EXPAT Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:27am
But all this discussion is moot, as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Egypt are cooperating in secret, and forming a new ME Super Power, both economically and militarily. When Qatar tried to expose this thru Al Jazeera, they were ostracized, for aligning with Turkey, Iran, Syria and Russia.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:31am
Dear EXPAT -- You are quite mistaken.  Israel was recognized internationally, but not "created" by the world's nations, nor the UN debate club in which they participate.  International Law predates the UN, and you must not ignore the history I outlined of prior League of Nations treaty obligations.  [BTW, you didn't mention from which country you are an "expat", nor where you live now.]
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:36am
Note to readers:  AutumnCote modified slightly the introduction of my longer reply above, while trying to assist my initial unsuccessful posting of it.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:51am
Dear EXPAT -- Do not rely on Al Jazeera for accurate reportage, as it has its own biases and axes to grind.  Further, a great deal of what is said in the Arab world is rumor exaggerated for some desired effect.  This is considered an art form, as is the art of learning to read between and around the lines.  Westerners often fail to appreciate this, and fail thus to discern reality from fiction.
EXPAT Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:03am
PL. I see your delusional interpretation of garbled propaganda/ distorted history, makes reason impossible. I am finished with you!
EXPAT Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:04am
Tom. Zionism ended in 1947, when Jews finally had a homeland after their attempts since the Napoleon era.  Their scheme to found an enclave in  Venezuela, was ended by Political violence. The Nazi attempt to put them all on Madigascar also failed by allied success.
The resultant wars by Muslim nations, and Palestinian Arab refusal of a homeland added to their territory. Return of land for peace, only inspired  more aggression.
Trump sealed the territory of Israel, by declaring Jerusalem. called by leftists as occupied territory, Israel's capital. The current weak protests only prove that the Palestinian movement is OVER.
Dave Volek Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:06am
There are a whole bunch of places that may not have the legal or moral right to exist. The USA, for example, was taken away from the aboriginals and should be returned, right? 
Kalliningrad should be returned to the Germans.
Slovakia should be returned to the Hungarians.
Northern Ireland should be returned to Ireland.
Ireland should be returned to the UK.
Sakilin Island should be returned to the Japanese.
Trieste shoud be returned to the Slovenes. 
etc. etc. etc.
Somehow history puts up borders justly or unjustly. We just have learn to live with it. 
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:28am
OBTW, I should emphasize for Jeffrey Kelly that an independent Arab Palestine already exists.  It is called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, situated on 78% of the former Ottoman region of "Palestine",  Israel was established in the Jewish section of that region, and is thus an independent state in Jewish Palestine.  However, the name "Palestine" was invented by the Roman Empire to disconnect the Jews from their heritage and national identity, and was passed along to the other empires that took over that territory, such as the Byzantines, the Crusaders, the Saracens, the Mameluks, and the Ottomans.  It has been thus mislabeled for far too long, and it is high time for at least all the Jewish land, west of the Jordan river, to revert to its proper regional name Israel, including its sub-regions of Judea (Yehuda), Samaria (Shomron), and Gaza ('Azza). 
It is also long overdue that the world's nations stop trying uselessly to appease greedy and violent Arab aspirations to deprive the Jews of various pieces of their rightful territory and their sovereignty.  Arabs have expelled Jews from every territory they control, for Islamic religious reasons; and they would do the same in "Palestine" after destroying the sovereign democratic Jewish nation Israel.  Jews, on the other hand, have always tried to live peaceably alongside Arabs in their midst.  It is only continuing Arab violence and insurrection that has required Jews to defend their lives and personal security by employing fences and checkpoints and inspections for weaponry and withdrawing from Arab enclaves and villages within Jewish territory.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:37am
Israel was CREATED by the International community!
Created? Imposed is more accurate.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 7:03am
Dear EXPAT -- Zionism did not end in 1947, nor has it ended at all.  All President Trump did was to cease delaying the implementation of a law passed by Congress with a large majority of bipartisan agreement 22 years beforehand, which already recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and directed placing the US embassy to Israel there.  He is to be credited with recognizing that such delays had never produced any benefit toward convincing Arabs to cease their violent demands against the existence of the sovereign Jewish state in its proper homeland.  In the Arab nationalist psyche, the Islamic notion of "Inshallah" (as Allah wills) is an undeniable influence.  They can only become convinced to change when faced with insurmountable conditions and "facts on the ground".  Until now, Western efforts to reach some peaceful settlement by compromise have merely encouraged them to continue their efforts to lay claim to the Ottoman territory that was legally redistributed a century ago.  Only a firmly unyielding stance against such efforts, and against their accompanying violence, offers any hope of establishing peaceful relations between Arabs and Israelis.  However, even this is no guarantee of peace, as demonstrated by the Arab willingness to commit murder by suicide bombing.  They are often all-too-willing to destroy themselves in order to destroy their avowed enemies as they perceive (or misperceive) them.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 7:30am
Let's consider the question of how peace in the Mideast may be deemed possible.  It's easy to ask the question about wanting peace, or to ask one or another party if they "really want peace".  But it's impossible to answer until the nature of peace is defined.  If peace is defined as Islamic Arabs wish, then the demise of the Islamic Ottoman Empire a century ago will be undone, and Jews will either leave the mideast or become dhimmi under Islamic rule.  This includes, of course, the elimination of a sovereign Jewish state of Israel.  That is, of course, entirely unacceptable to Jews and Judaism and it is not at all representative of peace.  If peace is defined to include a sovereign Jewish state, and territorial compromise, then Arab demands and violent behavior must be denied and suppressed, because they cannot have what they demand and because what they demand is destructive and misanthropic.
The international compromise on "Palestinian" territories, that was agreed after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, was to divide its "Palestine" region between Arabs and Jews, along the Jordan river, giving 78% of it to Arabs.  These, then, are the appropriate territorial borders for a peaceful settlement, representing the sovereign nations of Jordan and Israel, both of which are "Palestinian" states, one Arab (currently the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) and one Jewish (Israel).
Beyond territorial issues, peace is a state of mind and behavior; and it is a decision rather than a negotiable commodity, rendering it rather a "take it or leave it" sort of deal.  Peace, of course, only results if everyone "takes it".  It consists of conformity with laws supporting civil society in each nation, and enforcement of those laws against any malefactor who transgresses them and thus disturbs the peace.  It consists of cooperative agreements between nations.  Peace is supported also by education that trains individuals for economic pursuits and for orderly, peaceful, civil interactions.  It is supported also by programs of financial and psychological assistance for members of each society whose capabilities fall short of their needs, with a goal to bootstrap them into conditions of self-reliance.
Such definitions of peace require changes from the status quo, particularly in Arab attitudes and education, to eliminate false aspirations held for the past century as well as religious misinterpretations of both Islam and Christianity.  Better alternative interpretations already exist -- such as Islam's documented recognition that the "Holy Land", including Jerusalem, belongs to the Jews -- but these interpetations must be embraced and adopted.  Considerations of who will need to change more are of no significance except regarding how much effort and financial support may be needed in one area or another to encourage its accomplishment.
Leroy Added Apr 24, 2018 - 9:58am
Excellent article and following commentary, Proclaim. 
The Arabs are the problem.  All they have to do it recognize Israel's right to exist.  Europe and most of the world view Israel as an impediment to peace and wish that "That shitty little nation" would disappear.  They could appease their own Arab population and have better trading opportunities with the Arab world if it were not for Israel, or so they believe.
Thomas Napers Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:16am
Phil Greenough - excellent point
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:24am
"Mr.Purcell, on the other hand, simply dismisses millennia of Jewish history along with that of the past century.  Persecution against and disdain of Jews and Judaism has been, and still is, very real -- but it is not the sole justification for Israel's existence.  It has been merely a driving force to impel an obdurate insistence that it must be defended by all available means."
What the Rabbi means to say is, 'it must be eradicated of Khazars/Ashkenazim, by all available means.'  Yes, disdain is very real, that's for sure.  It's not in the last name _____stein, or the deceitful gains of Zionist bankers, but it is in the Talmud.  It is in 'The Balfour Declaration'.  It is in the phony genocide via trickery by shower called "the holocaust".  It is in your pretzel of logic and the absolute lie that Khazars have thousands of years of rightful claim to the Holy Land. 
But according to the likes of this Rabbi, the majority of the world is just anti-Semitic.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:03am
To you I may appear as a rabbi, Tom, but you are mistaken -- though I will admit to having studied Jewish history, literature, culture and religion somewhat intensively.  Certainly I am an orthodox Jew.  Your invocation of the Khazar myth shows, however, that you have swallowed a number of hateful myths against Jews and Judaism.  I do not think that "the majority of the world" actually concerns itself much with us Jews, having their own problems to deal with.  Those who read international news may be rather perplexed at how much fuss is made over little-old-us'n -- and certainly many of them may be swayed by the false opinions that anti-Jewish loudmouths love to spout -- but I would hardly tar them with a broad brush as you have done here.  Is your disdainful ignorance of Jewish history, literature, culture and civilization merely incidental or actively deliberate?  What have Jews ever done to you that you should express yourself so inimically?
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:23am
Let's see, what have Jews done to me?  Well allow me to bullet-point a quick list to answer on behalf of European. and European-Americans.
- WWI - Stab in the Back capitulation.
- Before and after WWI - economic despair at the hands of "Jews".
- WWII - phony gas chambers and the epic myth of a "holocaust".
- Establishment of Zion at the behest of the world, especially Palestinians and the Arab States.
- Over $80 Billion and counting paid exclusively to "Jews" by Germany alone, in "holocaust" reparations. 
- Dead U.S. and European Soldiers for unwanted wars where Israel is at the root of matters
- U.S. Economy based on debt and U.S. Government subservient to Israel.
I gotta run but that's a quick list from the top of my non-Jewish head.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:08pm
So you falsely blame Jews for European economic conditions before and after WW1, which is a myth deriving from the medieval period.  And I have no idea what you mean by "capitulation", unless you are referring to the granting of political and other rights to minority groups under conditions of the Enlightenment.  The Holocaust is not mythical, and many of the gas chambers still exist physically.  I'd recommend that you view the film "Denial", to address your irrational denial of this historical event for which massive amounts of evidence and first-hand eyewitness testimony exist. 
However, none of these, nor the others you listed, represent any harm done to you personally.  You do not represent Europeans nor European-Americans in any authoritative or official capacity or even in some generic fashion, and your personal impact as an individual of such a group identity is debatable.  Were you taxed as a citizen of any European nation to repay Jews whose families were destroyed and all their possessions and property forfeited because of European participation in the Nazi-instigated atrocities?  Have you lost any family members due to US participation in or conduct of wars to fight Arab terrorists who hate the existence of Israel or any Jewish sovereignty in former Ottoman-controlled territory?  The fault there is with Arabs, not with Jews or Israel.  Jews did not instigate these hostilities; and we Israelis defend our own territory with our own citizens.  We do not rely on soldiers supplied by the US or any other nation.  The USA has never been "subservient" to Israel.  Even its supply of military equipment to Israel represents profit and employment to US industries and citizens, which is where all its "foreign-aid" funds to Israel are spent.  The USA does, however, have an interest in preserving a staunch ally and the only democracy in the middle east.  That is a benefit to you as a US citizen, not a harm.  I will not begin here to list the many technological and medical benefits that Israel has invented and made available to the US and others around the world.
Thus you have not explained your inimical stance, which appears to be based on myths and falsehoods and generalities that have never touched you personally.  Care to try again?
Dave Volek Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:16pm
I live a part of the world where there are very few Jews. I have a friend who is quite insular, not really traveling outside of SE Alberta that much. He has had little contact with Jews in his life. But all in all, he is a fairly nice guy.
We used to have a Jewish mayor in a city about one hour away. From all accounts, this fellow was not an observant Jew. He just was part of the culture. My friend hated this mayor. I never understood it. 
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 3:20pm
@Fernando -- You have the matter exactly reversed.  It is Arab Jordan that received 78% of Ottoman Palestine, and when Israel was declared as an independent state in 1948 it held only about 15% of what had been Ottoman Palestine, because of UN efforts to partition the 22% of it west of the Jordan river that the San Remo treaty had assigned as Jewish territory for their future state. It is Arabs that received preferential treatment in both cases, not Jews.  In 1948, Jordan seized even more than that 7% differential which the UN refused to allow Jews to include in their state, and expelled the Jews who lived therein.  In 1967 Israel reclaimed it.

The Oslo formula of "land for peace" has been amply demonstrated as a farce, and Arab publications have made it unmistakably clear that they will not cease their violence until the entire territory from the Jordan to the Mediterranean is under Arab control and Jews are expelled or subjugated.  At this stage, the only sensible borders are those of the San Remo treaty, which must be enforced militarily for Israel's security.

Considering the number of Jews expelled by Arabs after 1948, who were resettled in Israel, it would be only fitting for the international community to assist in resettling Arabs, out of the hell that they have made of the Gaza Strip and into Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia.  An option should be provided also for Arabs in Judea and Samaria who wish to resettle elsewhere.  Israel will not expel them as Jews were expelled from Arab lands, but if they remain in Israel they must agree to live peacefully and lawfully instead of terroristically.

In any case, Israel will not permit anyone to divide or partition its lands ever again, nor continue military or other forms of attack against it to weaken it or eliminate it.  We have learned the hard way that we must defend ourselves and that no one else will do so reliably, not even our good friend and ally the USA that recently has been so kind after a period when prior administrations were not so.  There has never been a conflict between Israel and "Palestine", because a nation of Palestine has never existed.  There has been war previously between Israel and the Arab Palestinian Kingdom of Jordan, and at present there are several peaceful treaties and accords between these two legitimate nations.  Palestine was merely the name of a region within the Ottoman Empire, and in the 19th century it was very sparsely populated until Jews began to purchase property there and establish farms, businesses, and even cities in place of swampland that no one else wanted.  Arabs came from neighboring territory seeking work and economic opportunities in the newly-developed areas.  I'm not sure when they began to resent the Jewish presence, but I suspect that the end of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 had much to do with it, particularly when settlement of Ottoman debts from that war resulted in reapportioning some of that land to Jews and a sovereign Jewish state was not far off.  Certainly by 1929, the Arabs had begun violent actions such as the massacre of the Jews in the city of Hebron.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 24, 2018 - 4:16pm
And what is your official authority to represent Israel and the "Jews"?  I have at least as much authority for my kin as you do for yours.  You posture as some kind of preaching know it all, as if we cavemen are pounding two stones together, hoping a teacher like yourself shows up to make us understand the world we live in.  Not all goyim are so gullible.
You label inconvenient facts that I present as myths, and reach for the holocaust card and the wild claims that go with it.  You, like many, presume that because you can pay someone to show you around a "deathcamp", that homicidal gas chambers existed, and that somehow those clever, murderous Nazis found a way to vaporize 6 Million Khazars without leaving a trace. 
So tell me, Rabbieinstein, why would the proficient German mass murderers engineer more efficient means of disposal?  Instead, the modest number of cremation ovens that did exist were fit for one body at a time.  You'd think that someone sinister would have thought up industrial sized crematoriums, which never existed.  It's a comedic failure if they were really trying to burn up all the Jews before the Red Army and allies closed in on all sides.
Jews were expelled, encamped, even murdered in WWII.  But the Spielberg version of "the holocaust" is as realistic as Star Wars, Hitler being Darth Vader.
If you really want to be a teacher on this site, learn something first, especially about who you aim your subjects to be.  Read some of my articles if you're up to cold, hard reality from an educated goy.
Morgoth Added Apr 24, 2018 - 4:38pm
Oh, PL, just in case you haven’t noticed, Tom is a Holocaust denier.  There are a couple more that post here.
None of them are very good at it but they are good for a laugh.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 24, 2018 - 4:42pm
BTW I don't assume every ____stein and Cohen is guilty of something.  A lot of "Jews" are uninformed, like a lot of Christians are, and don't wish for anything more than a peaceful life.  Well for a growing mass of us, peace alone isn't good enough.  Truth and prosperity are just as important as peace, and therein lies our problem with "Jews.". 
Like I often repeat, it's not Judaism that concerns me.  It's Jewry.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 24, 2018 - 4:47pm
I don't really have to "be good at it" Jeffrey.  I just have to write/speak clearly and plainly.  It gets complicated when trying to make "the holocaust" seem practical and plausible, but it's very simple when questioning the absurdity of it.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 24, 2018 - 4:53pm
Thanks, Jeffrey -- I kind'a noticed that.
Morgoth Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:06pm
@Tom Purcell:
”I don't really have to "be good at it" Jeffrey.  I just have to write/speak clearly and plainly.  It gets complicated when trying to make "the holocaust" seem practical and plausible, but it's very simple when questioning the absurdity of it.”
It’s easy for me Tom.  I actually read real books on it and know the denier stuff.  The sad thing is I think I know the denier stuff better than you.
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:55pm
Proclaim Liberty,
Your name almost sounds like you are a Palestinian.
Their current apartheid  surely reminds one of the Warsaw ghetto.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the ensuing thievery put into law does not make anything just.
Ho Chi Minh thought he might get some justice at Versaille, but justice was not part of their plan.
One can make the argument that many of the injustices incurred at Versaille  led to the holocaust. 
The  numbers of colonial powers injustices in during this time is very large, including for example, the Sykes Picot agreement,  so to try to obtain legitimacy from yet another of their crimes does not serve your purpose, if you have a purpose related to justice.
You overload your sentences with "Jewish Land" as if
there is no difference between a Jew and a Zionist.   
 Irredenta are a curse, 2000 year old irredenta supported by the US/UK military muscle is an abomination.    
I wish all my Jewish brothers well, but the continued agression into Palestinian land will not end well. You cant get peace that way.
Morgoth Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:53pm
@Doug Plumb:
”Maybe, but there is a difference between knowledge and understanding Jeff.”
With knowledge comes understanding, Doug.
“You seem to be able to warp your mind into a subjective reality you wish existed.”
Sounds like you are projecting, Doug.  
“You are a silopsist at heart.”
LOL, da fuq is that????
Morgoth Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:57pm
@Tom Purcell:
”Doug, yes Jeffrey seems to enjoy saying, over and over again, that he knows more than everyone else.  He just yaks and yaks but rarely says anything.”
Tom, you still can’t tell me where I’m wrong or explain why I am wrong.....
Generally you pout and run off.
Here’s a suggestion, instead of cluttering up this article, why don’t you meet me at Skeptics Forum?  We can trade knowledge.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:58pm
A solopsist believes that reality is that which is created in their own mind, that reality is entirely subjective.
Morgoth Added Apr 24, 2018 - 6:59pm
Doug, here’s the part where I ask you for proof.  Are you prepared to provide it?
Morgoth Added Apr 24, 2018 - 7:00pm
@Doug Plumb:
”A solopsist believes that reality is that which is created in their own mind, that reality is entirely subjective.”
Is that what your doctor diagnosed you with?
Mohammad S. Moussalli Added Apr 25, 2018 - 6:11am
David Montaigne Added Apr 25, 2018 - 6:50am
"I try to stay out of Mideast discussions because it's just too complicated. However, I will say that Arab political leaders need Israel to focus their citizenry's attentions away from their deficiencies in government."
Very true.
"an independent Arab Palestine already exists.  It is called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, situated on 78% of the former Ottoman region of "Palestine",  Israel was established in the Jewish section of that region, and is thus an independent state in Jewish Palestine.  However, the name "Palestine" was invented by the Roman Empire to disconnect the Jews from their heritage and national identity." 
Also true. 
Even Yasser Arafat of the PLO tried to take Jordan over in 1970, as the people and land there ARE Arab Palestine.
Truth doesn't matter at all though. 
Tom will defend German innocence that he believes in, many Israelis will defend historical claims they believe in (even if Moses was really Akenaten or if he never existed at all) and many Muslims will claim Abraham onward as Muslim and any land they ever conquered as forever rightfully part of Dar al Islam...
Just as I would defend Pennsylvania from foreign occupation or partition or reassignment even though it became American (before that, British) by the same means - conquest - as most other land.
Thinking of Judea as "the Occupied West Bank Territory" is as unrealistic as viewing Texas as "the Occupied North Bank Territory."  Neither is likely to see a status change without a fight. 
Doug Plumb Added Apr 25, 2018 - 7:14am
re "Somehow the term anti-semitism has become a club that is used to beat into silence any criticism of the state of Israel or its government based on the so-called 'Holocaust' which rapidly becomes questionable if you do any honest, open-minded research."
Welcome to WB Logical man.
An experiment in propaganda:
(1) Tell your friend that you think the Bolshevik Revolution was a hoax and that millions of Christians were not killed and that its a big lie.
(2) Tell your friend that you think their mother was a dirty slut when she was younger. He or she will be shocked and ask you why you think that. Your friend may be offended but will not stop speaking to you, in fact will be interested in learning why you think that.
(3) Tell your friend that you think the holocaust was a hoax. Find a new friend because you lose any friend or casual acquaintance over that.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 25, 2018 - 7:22am
@Mohammad -- As I read your "Myths and Facts..." article, it struck me that you have omitted critical facts (presented as verses in the biblical text) that delimit Avraham's decendants who would inherit the covenant promises of which HaShem assured him (in Gen.15:18-21), to only the descendants of Isaac.  The others were sent away (Gen.25:5-6) precisely because they were not to inherit the land or the promises, including the area of Hebron where Avraham was given title according to his purchase of the land.  Ishmael had been sent away previously, for similar reasons of ineligibility to inherit (Gen.21:10).  Consequently, your premise and mistaken emphasis that "all" of Avraham's descendants have claim to the land is absolutely baseless. Esav also was disqualified, despite being Jacob's fraternal-twin brother.  Your timeline is also flawed, in that the Exodus from Egypt and the initiation of the Torah covenant was only a but over four hundred years after Avraham's time, leaving only a bit more than two-and-a-half centuries after the death of Jacob, not five centuries as stated in your article.  It is with the Torah that Judaism begins.  However, you are correct that the term "Jews" did not come into common usage for the entire covenant people until the Babylonian captivity.  Before that, they were Israelites and Hebrews, while the name Yehuda was reserved for the tribe of Judah and later for the tribal region of Judea.  Since that time, Jews have maintained a cultural continuity for some 2500 years.  Judaism is more than merely a religion.  It is an entire civilization of law and custom and language and heritage. Because of that comprehensive breadth, it has been possible to absorb into the covenant people non-blood-related outsiders in limited numbers, while still maintaining its cultural peoplehood boundaries.  It is to these people alone that the land covenant applies.  It does not apply to people who were cut-off from it, though it is possible to re-absorb these in a controlled manner similar to other converts.  It does not apply to gentile Christians, regardless of their affinity, though they have a metaphorical religious connection to it.
However, that basis is merely background for the matter of which I wrote in my article above, about modern legal treaty justification for specifically-Jewish territory.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 25, 2018 - 8:27am
I have an important announcement to all who have posted replies here:
I'm new here, having only agreed to AutumnCote's request to repost something two days ago that I posted originally elsewhere. Yesterday was my first opportunity to see the repost and to begin to reply to comments about it. I spent most of the day replying to them.
Some of you may notice that some few of your posts have been deleted. I value tolerance in discussion, because it is necessary in order to enable rational discussion to proceed, particularly where uncertainties exist. But not all opinions are created equal, and deliberate demonstrable falsehoods deserve no mercy or tolerance whatsoever, particularly after repeated attempts are made to show their falsity. Some are merely an excuse for aggression or a plea to be noticed. Well, I am aggressive about fact and rationality, and I will not tolerate any comment which asserts something as definitively false as 2+2=5, or 3, or some imaginary number. False accusations against Israel and its people fit that category.
I have removed comments that deny the Holocaust or otherwise distort documented fact and history (or I am still in the process of doing so). I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate them or dignify them with any reply, and they detract from real discussion with their clutter. I’ve written quite enough factual replies here to clarify what I wrote for legitimate responders. As Deborah Lipstadt expressed it: “I don’t debate with those who think Elvis is still alive, and I don’t debate those who say the Holocaust didn’t happen.” Facts that are well-documented are not subject to debate, especially when they include hard evidence such as photographs and physical artifacts, and there is a limit to how much I will accommodate someone to provide them with additional information -- especially when they indicate that they do not wish to accept that I have sufficient justification for the information which I have already provided. For those who wish to verify some of the numbers I have cited here regarding percentages of territory allotted to Arab and Jewish aspirations in what was formerly the Ottoman Turkish Islamic Empire's region of Palestine, I am willing to provide more background information. I recommend to all interested parties that they read the text of the 1920 San Remo treaty that is available online, and that they likewise read the English translation of the text of Israel's declaration of independence.
The problem of falsehood propagation against Israel, Zionism, Jews, Judaism, Talmud, and related Jewish literature and ideals is all-too-prevalent, and it will not be permitted here in the name of a false "tolerance". The line will be drawn here, however fuzzy may seem its boundaries. Additional issues outside those boundaries are those which are off-topic -- like accusations of apartheid and blood libels against Israel, including one falsely claiming slavery exists or is condoned in Israel. Neither exists in Israel. The apartheid claim is absurd to anyone who observes Arabs in the Israeli Knesset, staffing its hospitals and schools, the Arabs in Israeli universities, and many more examples of Arabs working and learning alongside Jews. In fact, I work alongside some during my part-time efforts with the Israeli Border Police (I’m in retirement, otherwise). There are many Arab Israeli citizens. Those flinging the word “apartheid” against Israel clearly do not know its meaning. And those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust are inviting the curse of George Santayana that they will be condemned to repeat it. I stand with civilized people everywhere to cry out: “Never Again!”.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 25, 2018 - 8:42am

I have removed comments

You're new so you don't know that authors who delete comments for any reason are held in very low esteem. 
WB is one of the only remaining places on the internet where freedom is still embraced. Attitudes like yours are diametrically opposed to that end.
Morgoth Added Apr 25, 2018 - 8:49am
PL, no offense and you are certainly welcome to moderate however you choose.
However, I agree with Jeffry.  Deleting comments is a bad move, it shows a lack of tolerance for those who disagree with you.
I pretty much allow anything.  I did delete comments once from a troll.  I regretted doing it, I did delete comments from this same person again once he started personally attacking me.
I’d let things stand, maybe request those that drift away from the topic to take their discussion elsewhere.  Set boundaries, my hard rule is personal attacks on my family will result in a delete.  I do this because to me family is off-limits.
You can do as you want but you will limit the replies you get.  Be aware that if you publish a controversial article you will invite replies that you may not like.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 25, 2018 - 9:32am
Hi, Jeffrey -- I don't mind controvery and I don't mind disagreement, at least when there is some discernable connection with the topic, and I certainly don't care a whit about what degree of esteem is granted me.  I didn't post here to collect readers or followers, and I believe that enforcing a bit of discipline is conducive to intelligent discussion.  If you'll review the above, you'll see what remains is still filled with give-and-take; but I have explained what are my redlines and what it is that I will not tolerate. I'm quite explicit about it.  The "freedom" to which Jeffry thinks my attitude diametrically opposed must not be confused with unbridled license.  And, as you'll see if you give it a bit of thought, it *is* my family that I've deemed off-limits.  Those who are truly interested in what I've posted and why I view matters as I do are welcome to discuss what I have written.  If they have factual information that could induce me to adjust my view, I will consider it and analyze it and discuss it and evaluate it.  But I won't get into arguments with someone who cannot or will not at least consider the possibility that I know whereof I write.
Morgoth Added Apr 25, 2018 - 9:49am
Very well.
If you don’t mind a bit of technical advice, space out your comment with some breaks.  These comment blocks are narrow and they jumble things together.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:06am
@Tom -- Putting words into my mouth to say what I would never even think is also a no-no.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:09am
@Tom -- What part of "no distortion" didn't you understand?
Mohammad S. Moussalli Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:13am
To who Proclaim Liberty
It is beyond the bounds of logic to condone that the ancient existence of one lineage or another in a specific geographical area is a timeless license of land-ownership to reoccupy that land after more than 1600 years from leaving it. Irrespective of one’s belief, it is unreasonable to accept that the readings of one holy book or another, which was written thousands of years back, are valid proofs of land rights at this modern era.
Imagine what would happen if some millions of Semitic Christians, who were Jewish and then converted to Christianity over the past 2000 years, now claim the land of Jerusalem because of their ancient presence in the birthplace of Christ and for being the successors of Jacob> Isaac> Judah.
Imagine what would happen if some millions of Semitic Muslims, who were Jews and then Christians before their conversion to Islam during the last 1400 years, now lay claims to land rights of Jerusalem because they inhabited the land for more than thousand years and/or for being the successors of Abraham> Jacob> Esau>, for instance.
Would it be acceptable if they recaptured their forefathers’ land again?
Would it be their rights then? If not? By the same token, all should revoke the Zionist and Israeli illegitimate claims to land rights over the holy land.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:43am
@Mohammad -- I believe I answered all of that in my previous post.  I discussed the biblical history and I pointed again to recent legally-binding treaty obligations.  BTW, we Jews didn't just pack up and "leave" our homeland.  We were driven out by force majeure, though some few of us managed to remain behind in out-of-the-way places.  Wherever we were driven, we maintained a consciousness and hope of returning, praying for it multiple times in each prayer service, thrice daily.
I believe I mentioned in other prior posts the illegitimacy of the conquests by the Romans, the Byzantines, the Crusaders, the Saracens, the Mamelukes, and the Ottomans; and the desolate and sparsely-populated condition of the land, in the 18th century when Jews finally were able to begin to return in greater numbers, testified to the lack of "ownership" pertaining to all these empires. Even Islamic scriptures attest to the Jewish ownership of this land.
It is under Jewish care that the land has blossomed and prospered, because we know it to be our ancient heritage.  It is no one else's heritage; it did not belong to anyone else's forefathers; so your question about additional conquests by other groups is moot.  Note that we are talking now about the land in the aggregate and not individual purchases of property which Israel honors even from the Ottoman period.  It may be necessary someday to examine whether any outstanding absentee claims may need to be reimbursed, but this individualized issue is separate from the aggregate Jewish ownership of the land of Israel.
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 25, 2018 - 7:02pm
Proclaim Liberty,
"  Wherever we were driven, we maintained a consciousness and hope of returning, praying for it multiple times in each prayer service, thrice daily."
I know many Jews, most I believe do nothing of the sort.  And many were not driven to where they are now. Many just moved there because, like the rest of us, they needed work.
You obviously are very intelligent and well studied in certain areas, but this does not seem to help you avoid overloading many of your assertions.  I could make a long list of them but I dont really see the point.
But I do have a question.  
What is your purpose here?
Do you come to learn or to teach, or engage in a dialectic?  I for one love to learn, but given your style of overloading and faulty generalization I think I might find it difficult to learn from you.   
Logical Man Added Apr 25, 2018 - 7:13pm
I'm an atheist.
As soon as invisible sky-guys are used to justify any action I have to require clear, unambiguous proof of the existence of the aforementioned ISG before even considering what is being put forward.
Go ahead, convince me, PC.
You call yourself 'Proclaim Liberty' while all the time denying liberty to any that disagree with you.
Maybe a change of name is required?
James Travil Added Apr 25, 2018 - 7:15pm
When I started reading this article and the comments from the author I at first thought that it was a rational discussion  But then it devolved into nonsense about make believe myths "Avraham" (Abraham? No matter  neither fictional character existed) and a bunch of fiction about ancient Jews (not Hebrews mind you  Jews who never had a presence in the ancient world). So this is nothing but an exercise in fiction  mythology, and fantasy. Which would be fine if it were presented as such and not as material to effect real people in the real world.
Here is some indisputable reality, the Jews of Israel aren't going away. But neither are the indigenous Palestinian people. If the two don't learn to leave the religious mythical garbage in the Temple (or wherever) and live together in equality there will never be peace. The rest of us who don't have a dog in the game are getting pretty sick and tired of the hysterics and not impressed with the poor fiction used in lew of actual historical references. Get it together, not everyone is a Jew, Muslim or Christian or cares a damn about their mythical nonsense. This is the real world, try living in it. I'm out. Oh and good luck, you who are blinded by religious myths are going to need it. That or some serious deprograming.
James Travil Added Apr 25, 2018 - 7:18pm
Logical Man, I'm with you. Until I see some proof of the ISK it's all (bad) fiction and myths which mean less than nothing to me.
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 25, 2018 - 8:08pm
Proclaim Liberty, OK, Ive looked into the San Remo Treaty of 1920 and Im having the same problems with your  writing that I just mentioned. To start,
 there is no San Remo Treaty.
And since it is not a treaty, I dont understand this:
“enforce the internationally-ratified San Remo treaty”
 Are you trying to assert that Britain, France, Italy and Japan represent 
“the international?” 
I suggest better precision of the use of language is helpful here. Inprecise language causes confusion and (rightfully) has interpetations of lack of good faith.  
Now, maybe you are referring one of the resolutions of the San Remo conference of 1920, but there I dont see anything like this:
"The 1920 treaty of San Remo divided that Mandatory territory along the Jordan river, awarding the eastern lands to Arabs (where Abdullah formed the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) and the western lands to Jews (where the state of Israel was declared).
I did notice these two clauses  though:
1)hat this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine””
Leroy Added Apr 25, 2018 - 9:01pm
A quick Wiki shows that the details were worked out at the San Remo conferance, but the treaty was signed at Sevres, hence, it is called the  Treaty of Sevres.  Interestingly, the signatories of the treaty were stripped of their citizenship by the Grand National Assembly lead by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 25, 2018 - 9:27pm
Leroy, I thought as much, but I still think some accuracy in advertisement is useful here. I was hoping Proclaim Liberty would respond and begin to articulate himself a little more accurately.
The Treaty of Sevres was signed during the Greek invasion of Turkey, and was violated by almost all the signatories soon after. The Turks had to fight a war of independence to kick the invaders out.
If the Treaty of Sevres, in addition to some 2000 irredentism, is the "legitimacy" of these claims, it is pretty clear why they are not well recognized.
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 25, 2018 - 9:28pm
Leroy, re:
" quick Wiki shows that the details were worked out at the San Remo conferance"
the details mentioned by PL do not seem to be part of the resolutions of the conference.
Leroy Added Apr 25, 2018 - 9:53pm
Below is a cut and Paste from Wikipedia about the British Mandate for Palestine signed at the Treaty of Sevres.  The Treaty of Sevres was followed by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 after all the armies signing the treaty were defeated.
British Mandate for Palestine
Main article: British Mandate of Palestine
The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Leroy Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:26pm
From what I read, after the Treaty of Sevres was invalidated, the authority comes from the British Mandate for Palestine validated by the League of Nations that went into effect after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.  According to Wikipedia:
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920, which embodied decisions made after World War I at the San Remo conference, where the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers was reconvened.
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 26, 2018 - 1:52am
Leroy, Thanks for the material, but I still dont see
support for this assertion:
“The 1920 treaty of San Remo divided that Mandatory territory along the Jordan river, awarding the eastern lands to Arabs (where Abdullah formed the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) and the western lands to Jews (where the state of Israel was declared).”
Anyway, the “legitimacy” of the Treaty of Sevres and the legitmacy
of the League of Nations can be easily challenged as not being of 
“international” nature. IMO, this agency  and its implementation of both Balfour and Sykes Picot are largely responsible for the 
Peace to End All Peace 
that resulted from them.
Just look at how well they were adhered to anyway:”it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine””
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 26, 2018 - 2:17am
Just a quick note, Mustafa, before I review other comments here:  I can't evaluate conditions in Jordan, but in Israel the non-Jewish communities are fully invested with civil and religious rights.  The arguments that occur seem to be over something that might be described as "national rights", which is a separate matter from the civil and religious rights that are guaranteed, protected, and exercised by both Jews and non-Jews in Israel.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 26, 2018 - 3:58am
Permit me to acknowledge that, for the brevity of my original article and comments to it, I have been oversimplifying a collection of treaties and agreements that developed from the general agreements concluded at the San Remo Conference of April 1920, particular to which was the agreement that Britain would be granted a mandate for the administration of Palestine until certain goals could be achieved.  Article 25 of that agreement distinguished the territories east of the Jordan river.  In doing so, it acknowledged them as a part of "Palestine" to which other portions of the agreement such as unfettered Jewish immigration could be limited or withheld.  Wikipedia offers this summary of the mandate territories:
The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Mandate for Palestine or the Palestine Mandate, was a League of Nations mandate for the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern part of the Vilayet of Syria, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum and then came into effect on 29 September 1923, following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne, with the United Kingdom as the administering mandatory.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920, which embodied decisions made after World War I at the San Remo conference, where the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers was reconvened. The objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone". The approximate northern border with the French Mandate was agreed upon in the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement of 23 December 1920.
Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres in August of 1920 did not define the boundaries of the British Palestine Mandate, except to distinguish it from the British Mandate for Iraq, the French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, and several other mandatory allocations.
I must agree with other posters here that the terms of these agreements have often been ignored or diminished, particularly during the effective period of the mandate -- one of which was regarding unfettered Jewish immigration to "Palestine" in all areas not distinguished in Article 25.  Israelis are still working to achieve that goal with settlements in Judea and Samaria and all the territory *west* of the Jordan river that are not excluded by Article 25.  The British used Article 25 to justify the partition of Palestine in order to grant 78% of the 120,466 mandatory territory, which was the portion east of the Jordan river ("trans-Jordan") to enable the formation of the Arab Kingdom of Jordan.  Maps of the mandate may be viewed at: [].
I hope that this clarifies my assertions sufficiently.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 4:59am
Too bad it never happens in real life.
It does. It happened to me hundreds of times. But one has to be open for it.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 5:03am
Zionism is nothing more than the assertion of Jewish rights as a people to live and rule themselves according to their own Jewish culture and civilization in their own ancient original homeland, Israel.
VERY disputable and founded on what ? By scriptures which were rewritten n times since the year 70 ?
So we Swiss, or better, Helvetians (a side arm of the Alemans which are a side arm of the Germans....)  might also reclaim the land of Baden-Württemberg and Vorarlberg from the Germans ? Hmmm.....
There was and is and will never be a people who can claim a land eternally. Humanity is on the move ever since.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 5:06am
BTW: The Kurds, the Bamiléké, the Berbers, the Fulani etc. would also like to have their own land. How's that ? And the Flames, the Basques, the Catalans. 
It's not about having a homeland, really. It's about how you can arrange with your next who might be different.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:14am
I'm outa here. If an author cannot stand opposing views, his own views cannot stand on logic alone.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:35am
Goodbye, Doug -- As I stated above, I don't mind relevant opposing views or controversy, but not gratuitous disrespectful opposition.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:35am
@Stone-Eater -- The archaeological evidence for the ancient existence of Jews in the land of Israel is indisputable.  The Dead Sea scrolls demonstrate the existence of the Jewish bible virtually unchanged since more than a century prior to your false assertion about them being rewritten numerous times since 70 CE.  They have been re-copied many times, certainly, but it was done very accurately and precisely.  It is difficult to trace their copying to the period prior to the exile in Babylon when a different script was used to record them, but textual evidence supports their antiquity. 
There is only one land that Jews have ever claimed as their own; and if they are to have a refuge anywhere, from the multinational persecutions and attempts to exterminate them that are well-documented across millennia, it is in that land.  Jews have a distinct cultural civilization that has been developed and preserved across a period between 35 and 40 centuries, depending on which of our ancestors is deemed truly at the root of that civilization as such.  The homeland is a part of the definition of that civilization, though we've been forced to compensate for having been expelled from it for at least 16 of the past 18 centuries.  But part of our defining literature includes numerous prophecies regarding our return and future in the land, which are now at least partially fulfilled and are otherwise processing toward that fulfillment.  Can you identify any similar documentation of cultural self-definition and aspiration existing on the part of the Swiss or any of the other groups you cited? 
We Jews have always been accounted as distinct from all other nations, often at their own insistence as well as ours.  Since all other nations where we have sought refuge eventually made it unmistakably clear that they did not wish to host us (with the notable exception of the USA), we decided that we must return to our ancient home and insist on remaining there.  The experiment with refuge in the USA has been of too short a duration to be certain that we will not ultimately suffer there the ostracism we have suffered elsewhere.  Indeed, we have a different problem in the USA, that may destroy our people's participation in our ancient civilization there by assimilating it into a larger "melting pot" and eliminating the distinctive characteristics which define it.  So even American Jews are in need of the Israeli refuge if they are to survive as such. 
There exist almost two dozen states characterized by Islam.  There are at least a dozen Arab states in the Middle East, and a few more in North Africa.  The only explanation for why anyone in the world would begrudge a small amount of territory, wedged between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea, for one little Jewish state, is the uproar fomented by Islamic Arabs who are still distressed over the demise of the Islamic Ottoman Empire.  It is the Arab desire for hegemony over all those lands once conquered by Islam that underlies all this fuss.  Once upon a time they conquered, and then they were themselves conquered by the Turks, who then lost to the allies of WW1.  Those allies were magnanimous enough to recognize that Jews had been wrongfully deprived of their rightful heritage for far too long, and that they had assisted the allies to victory, so they supported the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in its proper ancient location.  They had at least as much right to do so as any of the prior conquerors, and Israel has even more right to insist on ownership of its territory by justification of self-defense after massive attacks upon it failed to dislodge them from it.  The Jordanians seized a portion of it in 1948, but Israel reclaimed it in 1967.  In the present article I have asserted that the agreements concluded by the allies of WW1 should have significant weight in recognizing the legitimate claims of Israel for its allotted portion of land from the Jordan to the Med, while Arabs identifying with the "Palestine" region should content themselves with the Jordanian portion of it (or return to where their actual ancestors originated in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, or elsewhere).  Of course, Israel does not intend to expel any Arab landowners currently within its territory, though they certainly should have the right to relocate elsewhere if they so desire -- Israel will likely purchase their property at a fair price.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:46am
Don't post on any of my threads. I will summarily delete your comment without reading it.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 26, 2018 - 7:03am
Now *that's* disrespectful, Doug.  Without even reading it?  I advocate liberty, but not license.  Nonetheless I appreciate your warning.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 7:52am
You certainly know more than I in that respect. I have only two things which I see and experience on "Jews" (note the brackets. The youth in Tel Aviv is not the Ultra youth from Jerusalem - as the general Muslim is not the Wahhabia Imam):
1. Jews don't integrate into local communities, they don't even try to make CONTACT. I have lived in a Zurich area which has a lot of Jews and never ever any of them neither greeted me at a bus stop or in a shop.
2. Jews control international finance since Amshel. I mean, hats off, they got the brains and have gotten there BECAUSE they are such a close(d) community. But no people ever has the right to call itself "gods chosen people" unless they can PROVE that a) god exists and b) hesheit has certified that.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 7:57am
I am dead sure that the image of Jews would change it they would try to mingle with the people they live with and make these understand WHY they dress like that, eat like that, and think like that. And say: Hey, not all of us are like Horowitz, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Zuckerberg etc.  or are cousins of the big Cohn family who want to rule the world !
But they don't. How can you understand somebody who doesn't talk ? THAT is the reason for mistrust and suspicion. Life is not as complicated as it sometimes seems.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 8:05am
We Jews have always been accounted as distinct from all other nations,
See ? That's what I mean. By calling yourself being special, you get a problem with "ordinary people from ordinary tribes" LOL
Jews are no better or different as the rest. Some have other cultures (for example oral and not written ones), some have invented and revolutionized some areas (as have the Orientals in architecture, math and medicine).
Jews are Semites, as are Arabs as well. They are a small people amongst n other small peoples on that planet, and when they realize that and act accordingly, they won't be persecuted (or feel as such) anymore.
Why ?
Because the image that you project gets the response that you (should) expect. Easy as that.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 8:06am
BTW: Are you talking of Jews as a "nation" or a tribe ?
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 8:12am
BTW2: As I said, no tribe has an eternal right for a place, no matter what any kind of history says. Humans move, and the stronger gets the place. We're animals. The thought that anybody has an eternal "right" for a place is delusional. Why ? Because what introduced that right ? "god" ?
We're back at 0. Prove me that god exists, and I will ask him LOL
Doug Plumb Added Apr 26, 2018 - 9:23am
re "Now *that's* disrespectful, Doug.  Without even reading it?  I advocate liberty, but not license.  Nonetheless I appreciate your warning."
Why would I read someone who feels the need for censorship to protect his viewpoints?
Censorship violates the common law.
Mohammad S. Moussalli Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:34am
Since there are so many falsifications and date inconsistencies, especially by the writer of this piece, and before unsubscribing from this thread, here is one correction:
It was the Romans who destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, 70 AD, not the Muslims. The Jews were expelled from the holy land 637 years before Muslims captured Plasteine 
Mohammad S. Moussalli Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:37am
it is 567 years before, not 637. 
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 26, 2018 - 12:41pm
109 National "Jewish" pogroms, and counting.  I'd be proud if the U.S. was #110.
Morgoth Added Apr 26, 2018 - 12:44pm
Of course you would, Tom.  You want to finish what your heroes started.
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 26, 2018 - 3:51pm
Proclaim Liberty, re"
" in Israel the non-Jewish communities are fully invested with civil and religious rights. "
as a response to my observation regarding one of the resolutions containing
"“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine””
This response is a strawman, IMO. Maybe you are correct about your assertion but it not really relevant.
How does this sit with the colonization of Palestinian land, the confiscation thereof and the brutal treatment of Arabs in these areas? How does this sit with the blockade and destruction of Gaza? 
Moreover, the historical record shows that the removal of Arabs  by force during the creation of the state of Isreal was horrific, with estimates of half a million to 3/4 million refugees. This does not seem consistent with the resolution. 
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 26, 2018 - 3:58pm
@Mohammad-- Did I miss something? Where did anyone suggest that Muslim destroyed the Jewish temple in 70CE? Of course the Romans did that, and Muslim didn't even exist for another six centuries.  There are no falsifications in my article or any of my posts. 
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 26, 2018 - 4:28pm
@Mustafa -- Arabs were not removed by Israelis in 1948 or later. Those who left fled from the impending war, after being warned by public radio announcement to do so by the Mufti of Jerusalem. Recordings of this exist. War is always horrific,  but the hostilities weren't started by Israel.
Further, Jews in "Palestine" did not colonize land belonging to Arabs; they purchased land in the area permitted to them by the legal international agreements I have cited here. Jews at that time were the ones called Palestinians.  They settled in their own land. They did not "confiscate" it.
The only harsh treatment of Arabs has always been a response to Arab violence, usually against vulnerable non-combatant Jews. Likewise with Gaza at present, it is murderous invaders who are targetted. This is not a "peaceful demonstration".
The blockade of Gaza is to prevent armaments imports that are publically avowed to be used against Israelis.  Even so, ordinary building materials are not used to construct schools, residences or hospitals, but tunnels to invade Israel to commit murder.  This was never their "right", and this is the only action that Israel intends to deny them. 
Mustafa Kemal Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:34pm
Proclaim Liberty,
re:"- Arabs were not removed by Israelis in 1948 or later."
this contradicts many accounts that I have read.
James Travil Added Apr 26, 2018 - 7:26pm
I agree with Stone, even if you could claim an ancient Jewish culture existed in the area of Palestian it does not mean that modern Jews have some eternal land rights to it. Who says otherwise, the imaginary sky god? Prove he exists then we can talk. 
And I for one do not buy the idea of identifying the ancient Hebrew people with the Jews. Any unbiased anthropologist investigation clearly shows that they are not the same people.
To wit the Jews of today have no direct connection to the Hebrew race or religion of old. The Hebrews had Priests and a High Priest and a Temple with a Holy of Holies inner chamber where the Ark of the Covenant supposedly resided. They also preformed various types of sacrifices. Jews have Rabbis and synagogues, no sacrifices, no Hebrew ceremonies of any kind. Jews of today adopted the Hebrew language and some traditions and the Hebrew religious scriptures (but not the Hebrew religious practices). The Jews are as much inheritors of the Hebrew legacy as are the Americans of today the inheritors of the Native American legacy.
In summary if you expect the nations of the world to treat you fairly start treating the indigenous Palestinian people in Israel fairly. You can begin this by ending Israeli appartide and granting all people  Jew and non-Jew alike equal rights. Why is this even a question? 
Leroy Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:13pm
What's wrong with giving the Jews this sliver of land?  No one can argue that the Jews haven't been persecuted for centuries, culminating in an attempt to exterminate them from Europe.  This sliver of land in the desert had little value.  Beyond the religious significance, it had little importance to the world.  The only issue is that the Arab nations couldn't accept the Jews in this area--or any place for that matter.  Yeah, sure, we could have given them New Jersey, but the Jews have no historical connection.  Whether you agree or not, Jerusalem has significance to the Jews.  To say it doesn't is stupidity.  There is no reasonable argument why the Jews cannot occupy this land.  The only arguments I have seen are based on anti-semitism.
Tamara Wilhite Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:41pm
Just ending welfare to fourth generation "Palestinians" and demanding UN members accept people who've lived in their host nations for 70 years would solve this problem.
Logical Man Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:06pm
Tamara, your choice of 70 years betrays your bias.
Leroy, you spout nonsense. What's wrong with giving this sliver of land to the Jews is that they have no right to it. Claiming that their particular Invisible Sky-Guy gave it to them does not give them the right to anything until they can produce incontrovertible evidence for the aforementioned ISG.
Leroy Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:09pm
You're absolutely, 100% right, Tamara.  There's plenty of land available to settle the Palestinians.  They won't do it because they would lose their pawns.
James Travil Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:58pm
Leroy the native indigenous Palestinian people aren't going away anymore than the Jews are. The only "argument" that you have presented is a bunch of antisemitic religious horseshit which is utterly worthless. Again either the two groups will have to learn to live together in equality or there will never be peace which is apparently what invisible sky guy people like you actually want. 
Leroy Added Apr 27, 2018 - 2:02am
James, I have never invoked the guy in the sky.  It is not a valid argument for you.  I don't recognize the Jews right to exist on religious grounds.  I do it because is the humane thing to do.
Now if this land had been given to the Palestinians rather than the Jews, we would not be having this discussion, would we?  All the surrounding nations wouldn't be denying its right to exist.  The Jews would still be scattered around the world.  Rather than a heaven, the area would still be a shithole.  Europe wouldn't have an objection.  The only issue to remain is the ethnicity of the people involved.  You can call it antisemitism or you can call it something else.  Maybe you can call it favoring the underdog.  All I can say is that I admire the Israelis for their restraint.  They could push them into the sea and end this nightmare overnight and there is nothing anyone could or would do about it.
James Travil Added Apr 27, 2018 - 2:59am
Leroy all I'm saying is that the two groups need to learn to coexist in equality. Why is that objectionable? And saying that the Jews could genocide the Palestinians but don't is "restraint" is beyond offensive and counterproductive.
In any case good job in driving away Doug Plumb to the author. Good riddance to bad rubbage.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 27, 2018 - 6:01am
@Mustafa -- I'm aware of a great deal of anti-Israeli propaganda that makes claims such as you presented, but it is false, as attested by the many Arab citizens in Israel today, ranging from ordinary clerks, to small businessmen, to professionals and members of political parties in the Knesset.  Indeed, there are records of Israeli Jews in 1948 pleading with their Arab neighbors to stay and build the nation together rather than to give in to the Mufti's threats and false promises.  Since then, of course, hostilities by some militant Arabs have inhibited the progress and prosperity of all Arabs in the area; and Israeli withdrawals from Arab enclaves, which then were administered by PA civil administration, have not improved the situation.
In the 1980s, I noticed areas around a couple of cities that seemed to be neither cultivated agriculturally nor developed commercially or residentially, unlike other plots of neighboring ground.  I thought that strange, and started asking why nothing was being done to use these areas.  It was explained to me that they were owned by absentee Arab landholders, and that they were being held in trust until these Arab owners would do something with them.  Those who presented that explanation were unable to tell me who these owners might be or where they might be, but I presume that records had to exist somewhere to justify the unrealized opportunities for development of these properties.  Consequently I know that Israel has been scrupulous to protect Arab civil and property rights; and I have read of a number of court cases where Jewish developments had to be demolished because they were determined to have encroached on Arab-owned land.
@James Travil -- Apparently you are unaware of the continuous connection maintained by Jews across the many centuries in an unbroken chain of cultural development -- unbroken, that is, insofar as possible despite little inconveniences like massive exile under multiply-repeated warfare conditions.  After the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, Judaism had to reformulate itself until such time as it might become possible to rebuild the temple and resume there prior religious activities of their original character.  That temple has yet to be rebuilt, which is why Jewish religious practice emphasizes rabbis, synagogues, and only the symbolic remembrance of sacrifices represented in our prayers, rather than the cohanim and sacrifices and other procedures that can be performed only with an actively-functioning central sanctuary.  However, Hebrew language and ceremonies we have aplenty.  You are quite in error about disconnectedness from our ancient legacy and tradition.
Your phrase referencing "indigenous Palestinian people" is also quite in error.  It invokes an entirely false scenario borrowed from colonial conflicts and master-servant conflicts elsewhere.  Mark Twain's observations as an outsider traveler through this land in the mid-1800s were quite clear about its desolateness and sparseness of population.  There were very few "indigenous" folks of any kind here, and some of them were Jews.  There were good reasons for this.  The land had been host to numerous conquests across the centuries, and it had not been cared-for or developed.  It had deteriorated into mostly desert, and some interspersed swamps in the few areas where water could be found.  Even the Ottoman landowners were mostly absentees who wouldn't think of living in such an uncivilized backwater area.  Thus a few of them were willing to make some money from naïve Jews by selling them parcels of such desert or swamp.  It was the arrival of optimistic Jews who wanted to develop farms and Jewish self-subsistence that began to see the draining of swamps and irrigation of deserts, rather than ensconcing themselves in isolated religious communities dependent on handouts from charitable European Jews.  This led to increasing prosperity in the region, which, understandably, attracted Arabs from neighboring areas just as it attracted additional Jews,  However, it must be noted that these Jews were no less "Palestinian" than their Arab workers and neighbors.  In those days, and even to 1948, it was Jews who were called "Palestinians".  Even more came as development progressed so far as actual Jewish cities like Tel Aviv and Petach Tikvah, where commercial businesses grew and prospered.  After 1948, however, Jewish Palestinians identified themselves as Israelis, just as Arab Palestinians identified themselves as Jordanians (unless they originated from elsewhere, like Egypt or Syria or Iraq).
Your phrase citing "appartide" (aparthied) is likewise an error borrowed from another conflict, and it is entirely inapplicable, as Arabs are citizens of Israel and well-integrated into many areas of lif
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 27, 2018 - 6:08am
OK, it was truncated yet again, so I will repose just the final paragraph:
Your phrase citing "appartide" (aparthied) is likewise an error borrowed from another conflict, and it is entirely inapplicable, as Arabs are citizens of Israel and well-integrated into many areas of life and profession as I cited above.  They do, in fact, have equal rights, enshrined in Israeli law.  The propagandists who invoke this term do so falsely for its irrational emotional impact, and perhaps they really don't understand the characteristics of apartheid at all.  Perhaps I should reflect your own question back to you: "Why is this even a question?"  Questions of fairness also must be cognizant of the warfare that is still being conducted surruptitiously and actively by some Arabs against Israel, reducing the quality of life for everyone, Jew and Arab alike, in order to maintain some security for each.  And questions of separated communities must recognize the exigencies of differing religious praxis by each community, which favor each congregating in homogeneous conclaves.  Thus there are Arab cities and villages that are dominated by Islamic praxis, and there are Jewish cities and smaller settlements that are dominated by some form of secular or religious Jewish praxis (or a mixture thereof).  These are grassroots choices made by the inhabitants, not imposed by some overriding political force from above.  One of the greatest difficulties arises from the disputed status of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza -- all of which would be experiencing much higher quality of life under Israeli administration as part of Israel under Israeli law.  The fact that they have been ceded to Arab administrations like the PA and Hamas due to internationally-imposed demands has only degraded Arab life there and prevented Israel from doing anything positive or helpful.  President Trump has taken at least one major step that may break down the status quo which has seen nothing but deterioration in Arab quality of life under Arab administration.  Note that I emphasize that it has not been Israeli law or administration that has done this, but mistaken attempts to appease Arab demands by compromising what could have been a better solution in accordance with the apportionment which began a century ago to deal with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 27, 2018 - 9:59am
Alright, it's my turn to delete one of my own posts, which was truncated before it could present the second half of its content.  So now there are two posts preceding this one: one truncated shortly after the beginning of its last paragraph, and one presenting the entirety of that last paragraph.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 27, 2018 - 6:07pm
"Alright, it's my turn to delete one of my own posts, which was truncated before it could present the second half of its content.  So now there are two posts preceding this one: one truncated shortly....(nasally blah blah)"
LOL. Oh shut up and Make me a hinge, Rabbi. Such a small pile of hinges.  Get to work.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 28, 2018 - 6:58am
Make your life easier by just saying: We live in peace with Arabs since we're both Semites. And we keep religion out of the game because it's only economy anyway.
People just can't be honest and open. What is Israel gonna do when one day the US stops shoveling money ?
Then you will find out that you're not "gods own people" but "money's own people".
No insult but.....period.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 28, 2018 - 6:59am
BTW: Read Jeffry's article :)
Pardero Added Apr 28, 2018 - 10:02am
 Proclaim Liberty said "Jews have a long history spanning four millennia of cultural expression and development. "
Sorry, that is incorrect. Archaeologists, anthropologists, and linguists have proven 500 BC is as far back as they go. 
Before that, they are indistinguishable from the Arabs that they are derived from.
2 1/2 millennia at a maximum, unless you are including Arab history.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 28, 2018 - 11:49am
they are indistinguishable from the Arabs that they are derived from.
That's why they are all Semites. 
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 28, 2018 - 2:47pm
@Tom -- I appreciate your attempt at humor in your reference to Schindler's List; but the truth is that the treatment of Jews under Nazism is no laughing matter, neither for the Jews nor for the Germans who dehumanized themselves in the process.
@Stone-Eater -- Semitic ethnicities aside, it is a matter of Jewish values to live in peace with all the "sons of Adam" insofar as they will allow it.  However, you are mistaken to view religion as merely a matter of "economy" (whatever you mean by that).  You yourself may be irreligious, but for Jews who care about their heritage it is a way of life that provides values, meaning, motivation, aspiration, culture, friendship, camaraderie, security, encouragement, knowledge, wisdom, and a host of other aspects of an entire civilization.  Many muslim feel similarly about Islam; though in an honest rational comparison of the two cultures there is much more to criticize about Islam.
Israel is not dependent on the US "shoveling money", nor on its willingness to supply military hardware.  We are quite capable of producing our own, and the money the US has spent trying to maintain a balance of power in the region has all been spent in the US, in US industries, on US hardware, providing US jobs.  The US economy would likely suffer if they ceased doing so, and US military equipment uses a surprising amount of Israeli-designed devices and technology.  The relationship has been beneficial in both directions, as it should be between allies.  The entire civilized world is, of course, dependent on international trade for materials and parts.  As for the uncivilized world of Iranian empire building via terrorist proxies, and Syrian civil war which has drawn Russia into the fray much as they were drawn into Afghanistan in the 1980s, Israel offers opportunities to preserve a degree of stability in a very unstable region.
@Pardero -- Arabs as such don't extend back as far as 500 BCE.  There have been numerous tribal groupings and even national groupings for which archeology in the region finds evidence, and the Hebrews appear in early accounts as far back as the exodus from Egypt between 1300 and 1500 BCE.  The ancient Canaanites were not Arabs, nor were the Moabites or Ammonites, or Midianites or Ishmaelites.  The very name "Arab" is an indicator of their heritage as "intermingled" people from indeterminate ancestors.  King David, however, made Jerusalem the capital of Israel about 1005 BCE, and the history of subsequent Israelite kings can be correlated with events in other cultures.  I don't know to which anthropologists or linguists you refer, but I would concede that Jews prior to the period of the Israelite kings 3000 years ago would appear culturally similar to other Semitic peoples in the region, particlarly regarding artifacts such as pottery, and those indicating methods of animal handling, wine-making, and even burial customs.  The cultural features that would distinguish Israelites would be in their story-telling and historical sense, which is preserved in documents that don't survive well for that long a period (except as recopied repeatedly by a scribal class such as the Israelites have employed since the compilation of Torah after the exodus from Egypt).  Nonetheless, more documents and artifacts containing writing are being unearthed all the time, including commercial property transactions preserved on clay.  Jews did not derive from Arabs.  Early Jews were not unlike what later Arabs appeared to be.  Abraham the Hebrew can be traced to four thousand years ago, and colloquial linguistic phrasings preserved in the Torah, particularly in Genesis, reflect other documents from Sumerian and other cultures of the period, showing their antiquity.
By the way, archaeologists, anthropologists, and linguists don't "prove" anything.  They theorize from various kinds of evidence, including various techniques to ascertain the dates of various artifacts.  They don't all agree with each others' theories, either.
Pardero Added Apr 28, 2018 - 4:14pm
Proclaim Liberty,
There is a consensus among any creditable linguists, that Hebrew is a young language that began as a western dialect of Arabic. That fact is not in contention among any serious scholars, though faith-based types may take issue with facts.
Pardero Added Apr 28, 2018 - 4:21pm
Proclaim Liberty,
I am well aware that most religions appropriated text from other cultures. 
Anthropologists are unable to distinguish between Arab and Jewish remains. They are the same.
Pardero Added Apr 28, 2018 - 4:22pm
Your fairy tales have little basis in fact.
James Travil Added Apr 28, 2018 - 5:58pm
I'm with Pardero. Not only that but the present doesn't support the statements of the author either. Case in point: A Firsthand Account of Israel's Siege on a Palestinian University -
James Travil Added Apr 28, 2018 - 6:05pm
And speaking of faire tales and the past, there exists exactly ZERO proof of a "exodus" from Egypt nor of ancient Egyptian Jewish slaves. Additionally Jerusalem was originally built by the Canaanite (Palestinian) people. Furthermore, the Jebusite/Canaanites, ancestors of today's Palestinians, founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE (Jerusalem is a Canaanite name). Originally known as Jebus, the first recorded reference to it as "Rushalimum" (or "Urussalim") appears in Egyptian Execration Texts of the nineteenth century BCE, nearly 800 years before it is alleged King David was born.
Also, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea since 7000 BCE.
To quote the renowned historian/anthropologist and “Holy Land” specialist, Professor Ilene Beatty: “When we speak of ‘Palestinians’ or of the ‘Arab population [of Palestine]‘, we must bear in mind their Canaanite origin. This is important because their legal right to the country stems…from the fact that the Canaanites were first, which gives them priority; their descendants have continued to live there, which gives them continuity; and (except for the 800,000 dispossessed refugees [of 1948 along with the further hundreds of thousands subsequently expelled]) they are still living there, which gives them present possession. Thus we see that on purely statistical grounds they have a proven legal right to their own land.” (“Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan,” 1957).
Of course this is historical fact not religious fiction, so... .
Pardero Added Apr 28, 2018 - 11:38pm
James Travil,
Impressive historical account!
Well done.
People are always dumfounded when I explain to them that Hebrew is a young language that did not exist before about 500 BC.
Pardero Added Apr 28, 2018 - 11:47pm
This P L guy is likely to delete our comments. 
I won"t bother reading his dogmatic verbosities in the future.
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 29, 2018 - 4:07am
Well, Pardero -- I see that you recognize the likelihood that your denial of the very existence of Jewish civilization and its known historical development will be treated just like the ahistorical denial that the Holocaust happened.  Those who do that also cite supposed historical authorities.  But these fabrications do not hold up under scrutiny.  James Travil also reveals his predilections in his citation of a link that ignores the background and justifications for the events reported.  My initial response to both of your attacks has been to explain that they are ignorant and wrong, but I did not come here to debate your foolishness.  I could cite, and others have already cited, the evidences that you are wrong about the connections between modern Arabs and ancient Canaanites, as well as the Hebrew language vis-a-vis Arabic in all its multi-glossic forms.  But all of this is off the topic of the brief article posted above, and it will not be pursued further.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 29, 2018 - 6:42am
Try another propaganda blog. This ain't no place here for that. No insult, but it can get harsh.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 29, 2018 - 6:48am
BTW: Jews and Arabs are BOTH semites. So spare us from that bullshit.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 29, 2018 - 6:50am
I'm Swiss, and my tribe is Helvetii. Related to the Alemanni and, further, to the Germans. So what's the problem ? Jews and Arabs are genetically RELATED as well.
Thing is that $$$ makes differences, no ?
John Minehan Added Apr 29, 2018 - 7:22am
"None of the other invisible sky-guy groups get to do so."
Clearly, you have been to neither Utah nor Vatican City . . . .
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 29, 2018 - 7:42am
Why do you keep harping on the fact that Jews and Arabs are both Semitic peoples, Stone, as if the conflict were racial?  It is not.  It is not even over a difference in wealth, though Arab malfeasance regarding international contributions is well-documented, whereby a few leaders have enriched themselves extravagantly while doing virtually nothing for their supposed constituents except in some cases trying to get them killed as fodder for propaganda benefits.  (That latter is more a Hamas trick in the Gaza region.)  Israeli Jews get along fine with Arab fellow citizens who do not set out to kill them.  We even sometimes jokingly refer to them as our "cousins".  I buy produce from a Muslim Arab businessman who purchases bulk produce wholesale in a Jewish market in Jerusalem and retails it out in my neighboring suburbs near the Seam line.  As it happens, he is not even an Israeli citizen, because he lives in a village on the unincorporated side of the Seam.  He would prosper even more, and so would his close neighbors, if Israel could incorporate his village into Israel proper without incurring UN wrath and accusations.
The problem, to answer your question, is that some Islamically-influenced Arabs refuse to accept that the Islamic Turkish Ottoman Empire dissolved after being defeated a century ago, and Jews were permitted by the conquering winners of that conflict, under international non-Arab agreements, to re-establish their sovereignty in their ancient homeland in a portion of those territories, rather than remaining subservient dhimmi under Islamic rule. It is not a racial or financial conflict; it is an ideological one that repeatedly threatens the very existence of the Jewish people and the Jewish civilization that includes and defines itself by its religiously characterized culture.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 29, 2018 - 11:27am
From 'The Thirteenth Tribe' by Arthur Koestler when speaking of Khazar-Ashkenazi-Jew: 
"It would mean that their ancestors come not from the Jordan, but from the Volga.  Not from Canaan but from the Caucasus.  And that genetically, they are more closely connected to the Hun, Waygar and Maygar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Should this turn out to be the case (and it does) then the term 'anti-Semitism' would be void of meaning, based on a misapprehension that's shared both by the killers and their victims.  The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax that history has ever perpetrated."
Proclaim Liberty Added Apr 29, 2018 - 1:19pm
@Tom -- Koestler was purveying a myth exaggerated from a true event in Jewish history.  The leader of the Khazari tribe was so strongly and favorably impressed by Jews and their long history of incredible survival and cultural development, that he induced his entire tribe to convert.  However, this contributed a very small proportion of demographic growth to the worldwide Jewish population, and even to the Ashkenazi portion of it.  Absorbing these people did not alter the overall characteristics of the Jewish people nor of the Ashkenazi Jews who were spread across Europe in places quite distant from the Khazars in western Asia. 
Could a portion of Russian Jews from, say, the Georgia province, or Azerbaijan, have a high proportion of Khazari influence in their DNA?  Possibly.  That does not justify the frequent repetition of a canard by anti-Semites that Ashkenazi Jews are not Jews at all.  The largest component of their error is their false emphasis on racism.  Jews are a civilization that developed from a family that spawned tribes, and became a nation.  At one period, we were even split into two separate kingdoms, though that experiment didn't last for much more than two centuries.  We have always absorbed individuals by intermarriage, and sometimes also merely by conviction.  These converts have become thoroughly acculturated and they have obtained all the rights of native-born citizens.  Their children become native-born citizens, and inheritors of the heritage of Abraham's promises from HaShem. 
What effect does this have on the term "anti-Semitism"?  None, because the term was always directed at a cultural identity as Jews, and not at actual genetic Semites as a race.  No genetic tests were ever performed to determine whether a Jew should be persecuted or killed or even merely disdained.  It was never more than Jewish identity, however expressed, that was denigrated.
A. Jones Added Apr 29, 2018 - 8:15pm
If Judaism is a religion how does it also claim a country?
Because Judaism is also an ethnicity, as well as a religion.
Thus, "Arab" and "Jew" signify two distinct ethnic groups, just as "Islam" and "Judaism" signify two distinct religions.
None of the other invisible sky-guy groups get to do so.
Tell that to Saudi Arabia: 90% ethnic Arab; 95% Sunni Muslim.
A. Jones Added Apr 29, 2018 - 8:19pm
Modern genetic profiling has debunked the Khazar theory more than once. Purcell is simply regurgitating mythology (including the outdated Koestler) dear to the hearts of White Trash.
Morgoth Added Apr 29, 2018 - 8:33pm
I found Tom’s Khazars:
Look!!!! Khazars!!!!!!!
I do think it’s funny how Tom keeps mixing up his Jew theory.  What are they?  Khazars?  Ashkenazim?
Stone-Eater Added May 1, 2018 - 4:44am
Your answer to me is most interesting. If only Arabs and Jews could live together as peacefully as, say, Whites and Blacks in Africa (except maybe SA), Christians, Muslims, Atheists, whatever.
Throw that geopolitical shit over board. Israel doesn't need the US as well as we Europeans don't need them. Let them try to construct and maintain their empire on their own continent. South America is big LOL
We should stop to be other's slaves.
Koshersalaami Added Sep 27, 2018 - 3:14pm
James Travil has a valid point. Neither population is going anywhere. Israel is at this point a nuclear power, so no one is physically capable of it. The Palestinians aren’t going anywhere either, whether or not anyone thinks they’re entitled to the West Bank and Gaza. There is no place for them to go. 
As to the Jews’ right to the land:
Someone, I forget who in the thread, asked why one religion should get land when others don’t. Judaism comes from a time when tribes had their own religions. So, initially, the only people who were religiously Jewish were also tribally Jewish. The best way to describe how that evolved is that Jews are a people with a religion and that people can be joined by conversion to that religion. (Not an easy process and we do not seek converts. That’s why there aren’t all that many Jews.)
Evidence that Jews come from Israel/Palestine:
Seriously? Even the Qur’an says so. There isn’t a Western religion that doesn’t. There’s a ton of archeological evidence, the two most prominent examples of which are probably the Arch of Titus in Rome and the Dead Sea Scrolls, both of which date from the period. 
OK. Modern times, British agreements, League of Nations, etc. All of which ignores one critical question:
How did Jews get most of the land they lived on in Palestine prior to the war for independence?
They bought it. Largely from absentee Turkish landlords. 
Short of the purchase of Manhattan, which wasn’t even sold by the tribe who owned it and which involved a miniscule amount of land, can you think of another country established like that? That in itself gives Jews more right to live in Israel than anyone who isn’t Native American Indian or Black has to live in the Western Hemisphere, which was all taken by conquest. 
And, as has been pointed out, why so much attention for reparations for Palestinian Middle Eastern refugees with absolutely none to Jewish Middle Eastern refugees (not Europeans, just Jews from the Middle East), who actually outnumber them in the Twentieth Century? Jews took in our own, integrated them, and kept our mouths shut. Arabs stuck Palestinians in refugee camps from 1948 to 1967. Jews would never allow other Jews to languish in refugee camps for nineteen years - there would be collections in synagogues all over the world to get them out. 
There are two other things to be said about that period:
1. Israel’s capital was established in West Jerusalem, within the 1967 borders. What other country has to go through not having the location of its capital acknowledged for seventy years? The government is not even on disputed territory. That it took this long is beyond asinine. 
2. During that period, no Jew was allowed to worship at Judaism’s holiest site. Not no Israeli, no Jew. Try to imagine how the world would react if Muslims were kept by a non-Muslim government from visiting the Kaba’a. You want to know why Israel doesn’t talk about internationalizing Jerusalem or any solution like that? That’s why. The world tolerated Jews being kept from our holiest site. 
And if anyone raises the question of how Jews in Israel treat Muslims (still badly enough for me to be embarrassed by by Jewish standards but Israeli Arabs have representation in Israel’s parliament), ask yourself how many Jewish citizens there are of the Palestinian Authority.
Zero, because the PA doesn’t accept Jews. 
Pardero Added Sep 27, 2018 - 4:21pm
Well stated comment!
I appreciate that you are pragmatic, and not an extreme fanatic, like the author. I noted that you did not rely on spurious and inaccurate Scriptural history, or fabricated and pilfered archaeological artifacts, to back any claims. 
You make good point points, but the Israelis have a higher bar to meet, than merely being somewhat more civilized and humane than the Palestinians, whose subjugation and horrid conditions have rendered them a barbaric people.
Just as genetic research shows Ashkenazi Jews to be a European genetic group, we evaluate Israeli actions by Western standards, not Arabic ones.
I will agree with you and James Travil, that the ship has already sailed, and the Israelis are there to stay. However, they must return to borders established by International Law, and take corrective action to remedy the damage they have done to Palestinian society and culture. 
I see bogus claims of purchasing land, but that is difficult to reconcile with the facts of annexation, whether for 'defensible borders' or otherwise.
Stop attacking your neighbors, performing assassinations, and funding terrorists, that attack 'unfriendly' regimes. Your hideous crimes, such as the massacres in Lebanon, will not be soon forgotten, but a good faith attempt at being a good neighbor would ultimately lead moderates to accept your presence. Behaving like gangsters and thugs is no way to win hearts and minds. Show a little integrity, no matter how low the other guy stoops. 
Koshersalaami Added Sep 27, 2018 - 5:27pm
I was answering other comments, not stating my views of Israeli politics. I agree about Israel being held to Western standards. There are respects in which I disagree virulently with the Israeli government, like regarding almost anything involving the West Bank or domestic civil rights, and respects in which I agree with the Israeli government, regarding almost anything involving Hamas and, frankly, Iran, who absolutely has a history of being the primary aggressor in that relationship, and in many ways most people in the West don’t track. The difference is that Iran uses proxies and, using them, has killed far more Israelis than the Israelis have killed Iranians, and killed most of those Israelis first. By the way, there are currently armed Iranian forces in Syria within 50 miles of Israel. As regards Lebanon, the last time Hezbollah crossed the Israeli border, Israel hadn’t crossed the border in six years. 
Almost anything. That stunt Netanyahu pulled with addressing Congress was sick, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. 
As regards Syria, Israel took the Golan Heights because of how dangerous it was in Syrian hands militarily given how little land there is between the heights and the Mediterranean, a point driven home to me when I talked to a kibbutznik who described dodging sniper fire from the heights while working in the fields. Israel doesn’t do that to Syria. 
Past that with Syria, Israel gets involved there over two issues:
1. Fire aimed over the Israeli border. That has at time killed Israeli civilians, including Israeli Arab civilians.
2. Iranian arm shipments en route to Hezbollah in Lebanon. 
Without those two issues, Israel doesn’t fire a shot. In fact, an Israeli border hospital treats anyone wounded in Syria near the border. No questions asked, and patients are released back into Syria after treatment, no matter what organization they belong to.
Israel doesn’t have a problem with the Jordanian or Egyptian border. No Israeli interest in taking territory. 
I’m personally in favor of a two state solution because I see it as the only solution that will work for both parties.  Netanyahu is at this point paying it lip service if at all.
Not that he’d be able to do much in Gaza at this point. If Israel pulled out of the settlements and opened the West Bank border, terrorism would probably be minimal. If Israel opens the Gaza border with Hamas in power, it will lead straight to dead Israeli civilians.