The Middle East: Prior Claims?

By Author: The Indignant Bystander / Francis Shimandle
Total Articles: 1
Comment this article

A Lebanese-American named Sharon Nader Sloan recently published his thoughts on the Palestinian claims that Palestine is their land, and that Jerusalem is their capital, and that Israel is occupying their land. He further notes that Palestinians believe that since the West Bank is theirs, that to resist occupation they have the right to send suicide bombers into crowded bus stations, pizza parlors, etc., and kill innocent men, women and children. And all Arab and Muslim countries support them in their claims and actions against Israel.

This Lebanese-American also concludes that although the idea that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian land has been accepted by almost everyone, it is, in fact, the greatest lie everperpetrated. And he proceeds to refute both the claim, its justifying of terrorist acts on Israel, and the supposed support for it by other Arab and Muslim nations, with some convincing
historical information.

First of all, where was the Arab support for Palestinian statehood before the Jewish state came into existence? For 19 years before Israel was formed, Jordan occupied the entire ...
... West Bank, including Jerusalem. There was no Arab demand for the Kingdom of Jordan to stop ruling the occupied territory, no clamor for the formation of a Palestinian state, or Jerusalem being its rightful capital.

So, if all the Arab hatred for Israel is based on love and support for their Palestinian brethren, and wanting them to reclaim their own state, where was that support before Israel's formation?

Truth is, there never was a Palestinian state. And in recorded history, Jerusalem has never been the capital of any country other than ancient Israel and modern Israel. How, then, can there be a claim that Jerusalem is the capital of a state which
never existed? One of the problems is that so few of us in Europe and the U.S. remember enough world history to see how events can distort reality and lies, repeated often enough, become accepted as facts.

Many, including some Arab and Muslim journalists and scholars, question even the notion of a Palestinian people. Four
elements distinguish a people - language, religion, culture and cuisine. As an example, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are all Oriental. Yet, they are different people, because they each have distinct language, different religions, different cultures and distinctly differing cuisines. People called Palestinians speak the same language, follow the same religion, exhibit the same culture and eat the same cuisine as other Arabs. They are, in fact, Arabs who happen to live in the region called Palestine.

Palestine is not, and never has been historically, the name of a nation, nor the name of a people. It is a region. Siberia is a region, too. There is, however, no country named Siberia, no people named Siberians. The Sahara is a region, as well, not a country. Arabs living in that region are Libyans and Moroccans.

Because Palestine is a region and not a nation, Britain was able to partition it and gave half to Arabs living on one side of the Jordan River, which became the Kingdom of Jordan. Because it is a region, the United Nations was able to divide the rest of
it between the Jews and the Arabs living there. Had the Arabs accepted that U.N. resolution, there would have been a newly
created Arab state called Palestine. They rejected the compromise, however, and went to war to destroy Israel. They lost. There is no Palestinian state.

David built the city called Jerusalem. His son, Solomon, built the holy temple within it. The commonwealth called Israel
lasted about 1,000 years, with one break, 400 years after David. The invaders from Babylon occupied Israel for 70 years, until Cyrus the Great, of Persia (!), helped the people of Israel regain their land, rebuild the temple and rule for 600 more years.
The Romans invaded and ruled Israel, then the Crusaders reigned. The Ottoman Empire ruled next, then the British Empire, and finally, Israel returned to its homeland and built the modern Jewish state.

In all that time, it was never, ever, a Palestinian state. Whence, then, all the discussion and controversy about an occupied Palestinian land?

Those who refer to themselves as Palestinians certainly have the right to live there, freely and in peace. But does the right
to declare it a Palestinian state come from the mere fact that they are occupying the region? Imagine California and its Mexican-American population. If this community, greater in number than the Palestinians in the West Bank, were to claim that the U.S. is occupying their land since they live there, and demanded other citizens leave so they could form their own country, how would our government respond? What if Washington said they could live there, but not claim independent
sovereignty, and they began sending suicide bombers, snipers, mortar fire, and so on, into the rest of the country?

Again, there has never been a Palestinian state. Not under the reign of Israel, of Babylon, the Romans, nor the Crusaders, the Turks nor the English, and not under the rule of the Arab Kingdom of Jordan. Evidence shows that it was never even brought up until after Israel again was established in its homeland.

Michael Kelly made several points in his May 8, 2002 Washington Post article Israel's Phony Partner which look at Yasser Arafat's role in the peace process. On the second day of 1967's Six Day War, Foreign Minister Abba Eban met with the U.N. Security Council to make Israel's case for preemptive strikes in a war forced by Arab nations. Looking at each ambassador he faced, Eban said, Look around this table and imagine a foreign power forcibly closing New York or Montreal, Boston or Marseille, Toulon or Copenhagen, Rio or Tokyo or Bombay Harbor. How would your government react? What would you do? How long would you wait?
The questions remain, and how - or whether - to recognize Arafat as a partner for peace becomes the current quandary. Officially, the U.S. still holds the position that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ought to recognize who the Palestinian
people look to as their leader, no matter how disappointed we've been with him over time.

Disappointed? Let's recap. He was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Awarded much of the land he demanded, plus a $90 million monthly(!) budget, allowed to build an armed force on Israeli territory. Finally, (as America's former top negotiator, Dennis Ross, revealed recently on Fox News), he got both President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon to promise him all of Gaza and most of the West Bank as an independent and joined Palestinian state, including a right of Palestinian return to that state, plus a multibillion-dollar reparations fund - and what does he do? Goes to war, and proveably orchestrates terrorist attacks against Israel. Yes, disappointed.

Some U.S. media, and even Secretary of State Colin Powell, may still believe Arafat is a peace partner, though Powell noted we all may disagree with what Mr. Arafat had done over time. We sure may. Take the murder of 6 people and wounding of 30 more at an Israeli girl's Jan. 17 bat mitzvah in Hadera, just one of many terrorist acts directly linked to Arafat's control in
documents found by Israeli forces in Palestinian Authority offices. These documents were revealed in a 103-page report released by Israel's government in support of Sharon's position that they cannot pursue peace with Arafat as a partner.

Mr. Kelly's article states, The New York Times buried its coverage of the report on A10 and sniffed that the evidence did ‘not appear to show definitively that the Palestinian leader ordered terror attacks.' The Post gave it front-page play but was even more dismissive, treating the Israeli evidence with open disdain. The first ‘objective' characterization of the material, third
paragraph, does not address the documentary evidence at all but in a contrary slant notes that the report contains ‘a great many assertions and allegations for which no documentary proof is offered.' In paragraph 12, after three paragraphs of Palestinian officials and lawyers dismissing the evidence as propaganda, The Post's reporter offers the first and only judgment supporting the Israeli side: ‘Nevertheless, some of the material in the report appears potentially damaging to the Palestinians, and could hurt their standing in international public opinion.'

In light of the spurious claims of Palestinian sovereignty to begin with, and growing evidence of Arafat's ongoing commitment to the destruction of Israel and her people through any and all means, this cannot be viewed as balanced reporting.

If the U.S. had credible evidence to believe that a certain rogue Islamic leader was responsible for a terrorist campaign of
murder and destruction against America and her people, what would we do? How long would we wait? We've already begun to live this. And we did exactly the right thing. Without delay. We mounted an army, with support from many free world
governments, against that leader and his followers. We bombed them, shot them, chased and arrested them and shipped them to Guantanamo Bay. And if we had their leader trapped in his compound, we would not even consider letting him out and setting him up as a partner for peace.

One of life's strangest ironies is that people of two of the world's three major monotheistic religions, sharing the teachings
of Abraham, continue this history of bloodshed. They are brother tribes, both Semites, descendants of Shem. (Despite the consistent misuse of the term, anti-semitic refers to hatred of Arab and Jew alike.) Brothers and sisters, whose bickering has gone obscenely far beyond sibling rivalry.

About the Author Marketing and Promotion veteran of 30+ years, Mr. Shimandle writes on a variety of current events, mystery fiction and childrens' stories. He partners a website, Dontforget911.com and operates a marketing consulting business in the Chicago area.