Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Damn it, I'm sick of this Arab-Israeli bullshit

  • Thread starter Thread starter plifter
  • Start date Start date
What is a "Palestinian"?

By Joseph Farah

Ever since I wrote a column last October called "Myths of the Middle East," readers from around the world have asked me what is meant by the term "Palestinian." The simple answer is that it means whatever Yasser Arafat wants it to mean.

Arafat himself was born in Egypt. He later moved to Jerusalem. Indeed, most of the Arabs living within the borders of Israel today have come from some other Arab country at some time in their life.

For instance, just since the beginning of the Oslo Accords, more than 400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank or Gaza. They have come from Jordan, Egypt and, indirectly, from every other Arab country you can name.

The Arabs have built 261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967. We don't hear much about those settlements. We hear instead about the number of Jewish settlements that have been created. We hear how destabilizing they are -- how provocative they are. Yet, by comparison, only 144 Jewish settlements have been built since 1967 -- including those surrounding Jerusalem, in the West Bank and in Gaza.

The number of Arab settlers is based on statistics collected on the Allenby Bridge and other collection points between Israel and Jordan. It is based on the number of Arab day workers entering but not leaving Israel. The numbers were published by the Israel Central Bureau for Statistics during the administration of Binyamin Netanyahu and subsequently denied as "recording errors" by the Ehud Barak administration.

Of course, the Barak administration had incentives for denying the high illegal immigration numbers, given its heavy political reliance on Arab voters. Is this a new phenomenon? Absolutely not. This has always been the case. Arabs have been flocking to Israel ever since it was created and even before, coinciding with the wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine prior to 1948.

Winston Churchill said in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."

And that raises a question I never hear anyone ask: If Israel's policies make life so intolerable for Arabs, why do they continue to flock to the Jewish state? This is an important question as we see the Palestinian debate now shift to the issue of "the right of return."

According to the most liberal claims by Arab sources, some 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs left Israel in and around 1948 when the Jewish state was created. Most were not forced out by Jews, but rather left at the urging of Arab leaders who had declared war on Israel.

Yet, there are far more Arabs living in these territories now than ever before. And many of those who left in 1948 and thereafter actually had roots in other Arab nations.

This is why it is so difficult to define the term "Palestinian." It always has been. What does it mean? Who is a "Palestinian"? Is it someone who came to work in Palestine because of a bustling economy and job opportunities? Is it someone who lived in the region for two years? Five years? Ten years? Is it someone who once visited the area? Is it any Arab who wants to live in the area?

Arabs outnumber Jews in the Middle East by a factor of about 100 to one. But how many of those hundreds of millions of Arabs are actually Palestinians? Not very many.

The Arab population of Palestine was historically extremely low -- prior to the Jews' renewed interest in the area beginning in the early 1900s.

For instance, a travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal.

The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

"The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property," the book states.

Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906.

Why was the Muslim population so low? After all, we're told that Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam. Surely, if this were a widely held belief in 1906, more of the devout would have settled there.

The truth is that the Jewish presence in Jerusalem and throughout the Holy Land persisted throughout its bloody history, as is documented in Joan Peters' milestone history on the origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict in the region, "From Time Immemorial."

It is also true that the Arab population increased following Jewish immigration into the region. The Arabs came because of economic activity. And, believe it or not, they came because there was more freedom and more opportunity in Israel than in their own homelands.

What is a Palestinian? If any Arabs have legitimate claims on property in Israel, it must be those who were illegally deprived of their land and homes after 1948. Arafat has no such claim. And few if any of those shooting, bombing and terrorizing Israelis today do either.

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.
 
cannot believe im gonna say this.....

plifter never mentioned any hate against jews!! he merely said he hates the violence and mistreatment fo those people. now what u think is happening there and what is happeneing there are very different things, do u agree with the current administration there at the moment? sharon is a muderer, he might as well pulled the trigger himself whwen he let those crazy bastards kill all those palestinians.

also ur earlier posts seems to make claim as israel as a nation was set up earlier than palestine. what about british palestine, or british turkish palestine or whatever the fuck we called it. the muslims whichever way u look at it were there firstliving as nomads. true they didnt make a nation, but they were there first and initially in much greater numbers. the encouragement of hem leaving might have also had something to do wirth their homes being burnt down, a move which was allowed by the british. what u posted makes it seem like the arabs there had made all the wrong evil moves, i just dont believe that. they did however have the chance to crush israel and israel kicked their asses in the 5 (?) day war. but what u posted seems very biast.

i am glad that america will not take any shit from israel, and isnt just gonna let them get away with provoking troop movements etc., its one of the few thing i like abiout the busgh administration. as for the religious aspect, why u help them might have something to do with the amount of jewish people in your country. jewish people are hard working, and aer therefore i very socially respectable positions, they exert a lot of influence on your country.

dont get me wrong. for me islam is one of the most dangerous things all humans have to contend with. but what u posted is just one side of the coin. :rolleyes:

no flame
 
Weapon X said:
If you were to read something besides the PLO-favouring Amerikan media,

I don't believe our media favors either side. We hear about the fighting regardless of which side initiates it.
 
Weapon X said:
Got something against "those damned Jews," plifter? :mad: [/QUOTE

its both fault of arabs and jews..... I guess one will have to surrender or be crushed by other one to finally get peace over there....:confused:
 
Weapon X said:
Got something against "those damned Jews," plifter? :mad:

Yessir, dem dang ol jews ain't nuttin but a bunch of baby killin terrerists. Dat gum adoof hiteler dude shood a finishd wut he startd.

Disclaimer:
For those of sub-human intellect, the above post contained sarcasm. It is not intended to be taken literally.
 
The most finiancially aided country by america is israel. i don't think they deserve usa money. they are both acting really stupid and they need to cut the shit out.
 
I really hate to wade into this because i can see that of those here, all have their mind made up as to who is "right or wrong" in the middle East. but - no matter who u feel is getting the short end of the stick, u should understand one thing. The day that the US ceases to be Israel's "ultimate protector/big brother of last resort" (and lets not deny that this is and has been inarguably the case) Israel will cease to exist within a short period thereafter. There are many leaders in the Arab world who would support the full invasion of Israel - they would never say that in public or to the Americans but there it is. Even the Saudis and Kuaities, etc. leadership who also depend almost soley on the US for protection would do so because they have their own radicalls that they are wary of. This is even those who seem to want capital growth and the "good life" but u cannot change the deepset feelings - they would all destroy everything for a pyrric vitory over Isael (look at Bosnia/Croatia/Macedonia)

Point is, it is always easier to take land quickly, if possible and then give up a bit of it to secure the rest uv taken. Israel is so small, it would be much easier today for arab conventional forces to quickly storm over the golan hieghts and thats all thats blocking them from taking Israel.

Unfortunatley, israel is likely to pull a Samson in this case which means that even as it was being invaded it would very possibly initiate full or limited scale nuclear retaliation - obliterating the major cities of its antagonists - thats why we gave them the bomb after all - its whats kept the arabs at bay these many years and the US has had to do a lot less work on the day to day basis. kinda like a "relatively cold" war for the middle east
 
Top Bottom