OCCUPATION?

Am Yisrael Chai
Seeking Justice through Truth
milw skyline-3
Issue: # 27
April 5, 2009
EDITED: Newsletter of The Committee for Truth and Justice

MythBuster #2
Mythbuster #2 is: "The Arab-Israel conflict is over land"

This is a very crucial and basic myth because it affects everything. We hear terms like "occupation", "settlements" and "land for peace" which all depend on land. But what if the conflict is not about land? The terms: "occupation" , "settlements", and "land for peace" are null and void, irrelevent, and meaningless if the conflict is not about land. More importantly, all of the so-called peace talks center on issues related to land, but what if land is really not the issue?

It is said that one cannot solve a problem unless and until one identifies the problem. If the negotiators think the problem is land, but it is not; then the problem will never be solved.

Below we address this issue by answering a series of questions.
CTJ


If the issue is about land, then why did the Arabs murder Jews in Israel before "occupation" and before the State of Israel, i.e, before land was an issue at all?

In 1920-21 the Arabs of Jerusalem, Rehovot and other areas massacred dozens of Jews. The press called these riots, but they were more accurately termed massacres. These massacres occurred just after WWI when Turkish rule was over and the Arabs felt freer to attrack Jews. These also were perpetrated against Jews who had lived in Israel for centuries actually milennia, these were not immigrants. In addition of course this was decades before the State of Israel and "occupation". The Arabs also massacred Jews in Israel in 1929 and 1936, before any occupation and before the State of Israel existed.

Therefore, if the conflict was about land, then these massacres would not have happened.

Therefore for Arabs, the issue is not about land it is about Jews.
If the conflcit is about land, then why did the Arabs not create a state on the land when they had full control of it?

In 1948 the UN partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine minus Transjordan with part for the Jews and part for the Arabs. The Jews promptly declared the formation of the State of Israel, the Arabs promptly attacked the Jews in an attempt to drive them into the Mediterranian. The Jews prevailed. At the end of this war the Arabs were in full control of all of the West Bank including all of Jerusalem and Gaza. The Arabs held all of this land for 19 years and they never once asked for a state or attempted to create a state.

So what is the difference between now and between 1948 and 1967? Today the Arabs actually have less land then they had control of between 1948 and 1967, yet now they want a state on less land. The difference is that between 1948 and 1967, Arabs occupied the land and today Jews occupy the land.

Therefore for Arabs, the issue is not about land, it is about Jews.
If the conflict is about land, then why did the Arabs not fight for the land when the Jordanians and Egyptians occupied the land?

So here we have total occupation by Egypt and Jordan and what did the Palestinians do? Did they complain about "occupation" and demand that the Egyptions and Jordanians end the occupation? NO. Did the Palestiniam Arabs demand of the Egyptions and Jordians to be free from occuaption and that they must have their own state of Palestine? NO.
After the War of Independence n 1948, the Egyptions occupied Gaza and Transjordon annexed the West Bank such that they changed their name to Jordan.

Therefore, the Arabs never wanted any particular land, the only wanted the land Jews happened to be on at the time. .

Therefore for the Arabs, the issue is not about land it is about the Jews.
If the conflict is about land, then why was the PLO formed before occupation of West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem?


The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) was formed in 1964. but Israel did not "occupy" West Bank or Gaza or all of Jerusalem until 1967. So what Palestine did the PLO want to liberate? Israel.

Today the PLO tells us they want the West Bank and Gaza for a state, but in 1964 they had full control of West Bank and Gaza plus all of Jerusalem. So what Palestine did they want to liberate? Therefore, again the issue for Arabs is not about land it is only about land that Jews happen to occupy.
Jews inhabit.

Therefore for Arabs, the issue is not about land, it is about Jews.

If the conflict was about West bank and Gaza, then why did the original charter of the PLO state that they had no interest in either and why did they change the charter after Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in 1967?

PLO Charter of 1964: when Arabs held the West Bank and Gaza
Article 24: "(The PLO) does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom or in the Gaza Strip". So what land were the Palestinian Arabs interested in occupying?

PLO Charter of 1968: when Jews held the West bank and Gaza
Article 24: The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them.

Therefore, for Arabs, the issue is not about land, it is about Jews.

Our conclusion is not just based on rthetoric, it was proven conclusively twice: Lebanon and Gaza.

Israel returned to Lebanon all of the land it had supposedly "occupied" according to ther UN in 2000, yet this did not lead to any peace at all. The removal of Israel from Lebanonese land resulted in attacks, murders, kidnappings and invasion. Therefore, Israel gave land and the result was not peace but an increase in war as the land given was used for war and the gesture of returning land was viewed as weakness and therefore an opportunity to murder more Jews.

Israel again gave back all of Gaza in 2005 after forcebly expelling 8500 Israelis from Gaza. Not only did Israel give the lands back but also gave the Arabs millions of dollars of greenhouses for plants this could be used to feed their population or used to make profits to fund their society. The Arabs in turn elected Hamas to lead them, destroyed the nurseries and synagogues, and used the land to launch over 8,000 rockets into Israel and to attack Israel daily.

Our conclsion is not just theory, it has been proven repeatedly.


The issue is NOT about land, it is about hatred of Jews.


Join Our Mailing List
QUICK LINKS



Committee for Truth and Justice | 6931 N. Beech Tree Drive | Glendale | WI | 53209

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
End the Illegal Occupations!
by Prof. Steven Plaut

Lead the way and show the Israelis the light.

So let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists claim that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was re-created in 1948, it had been almost 1,900 years since the last time Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1,900 years ago. And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim to these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the Arabs last exercised sovereignty over that land 1,000 years ago.


You all with me? 1,900-year-old-claims are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old claims trump them and are indisputable.

Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the same thing as a claim on behalf of Palestinian Arabs. After all, the last time that Palestinian Arabs held sovereignty over the lands of "Palestine" was... never. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in Palestine.

Ever.

It is true that Arabs once exercised sovereignty over parts or all of historic Palestine. There were small Arab kingdoms in the south of "Palestine" already in late Biblical days, and they were important military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty back then in the Land of Israel. After the rise of Islam, historic "Palestine" was indeed part of a larger Arab kingdom or caliphate. But that ended in 1071, when Palestine came under the rule of the Seljuk Turks. That was the last time Palestine had an Arab ruler. After that, it was always ruled by a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British and - briefly - French.

In any case, why does the fact that Palestine once belonged to a larger Arab empire make it any more "Arab" than the fact that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish or British empires?

Now, it is true that Palestine probably once had a population majority who were Arabs, but today it has a population majority who are Jews. So if population majorities are what determine legitimacy of sovereignty, then Israel is at least as legitimate as any other country.

So why exactly do the anti-Zionists claim that a thousand-year-old claim by Arabs, who were never ruled by Palestinian Arabs, has legitimacy, while a 1,900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947? The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate claim of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel - because it is the most recent.

The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved here from some other places. Never mind that there was actually always a Jewish minority living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks or British. Does the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there?

The claim would be absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact that most "Palestinian Arabs" also moved to Palestine from neighboring countries, starting in the late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that a people moves from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to legitimate sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?

If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave.

The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes, of course, will be asked to move aside; in fact, to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly, the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners.

The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America.

It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arab imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will, of course, have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners - which would be, of course, the Jews.

And right after all this, Israel will be happy to implement the Road Map in full.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Prophet Elijah, Israel's Most Famous Settler

Posted: 18 Apr 2009 08:14 PM PDT BY SULTAN
While most people are familiar with the Prophet Elijah, or Eliyahu HaNavi, one of the more famous biblical personalities, the common designation for his name remains a puzzle.

He is called Eliyahu HaTishbi or Elijah the Tishbite, and Tishbi's meaning remains a matter of controversy. Some insist that it refers to a place name, though no clear location has been agreed on. Others offer various other explanations, without any definitive answer.

However reading the original Hebrew given presents its own explanation. "And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the settlers of Gilead " וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ הַתִּשְׁבִּי מִתֹּשָׁבֵי גִלְעָד

Tishbi is paired with Toshavei or Settlers. Eliyahu is described as one of the settlers of Gilead. Gilead at the time was disputed with the Kingdom of Aram, which attempted to conquer it. As such the residents of Gilead at the time held a parallel function to "settlements" today, staking a Jewish claim on the land.

Tishbi has always been given at its most literal, as settler. Within that context Eliyahu HaTishbi might well mean Eliyahu the Settler. Which would make the Prophet Elijah, Israel's most famous settler.

As Gilead was the subject of a series of wars between Aram and the Kingdom of Israel, settlement there would have been perilous. Particularly since Ben Haddad, King of Aram at that time was stronger than the Kingdom of Israel. Ahab, the corrupt King of Israel, persecuted his own people but bowed before Ben Haddad. It was a Prophet who urged him to stand and fight, which resulted in the defeat of Aram.

In the present day Gilead, being on the other side of the Jordan, is part of the Kingdom of Jordan. A Saudi kingdom set up by the British using the exiled Hashemite monarchy, ruling over a largely Palestinian Arab population (making a farce of the constant demands for a Palestinian state).

Ben Haddad however intended to seize not merely Gilead, but Samaria (the Shomron) as well, which was at the heart of the Kingdom of Israel. Ahab's cowardice was so great that he agreed to Ben Haddad's demands in the following exchange.

Thus saith Ben-hadad: Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine.'

And the king of Israel answered and said: 'It is according to thy saying, my lord, O king: I am thine, and all that I have.'


As a line of increasingly corrupt kings persecuted their own people, while behaving with cowardice toward enemy kings who insisted on raiding and claiming parts of Israel. It was thus then as it is now, the courage came from the settlers and the prophets who remained in dangerous areas and urged those in power to have faith and resolve. Eliyahu was not only Israel's most famous prophet, he was also its most famous settler.

In Israeli history, the kings and prime ministers, and the insular elites located in the capitals, have often been willing to make compromises and concessions to the enemy... while it has been those living on the edge of war zones, in the lands that were threatened by the sword, such as Elijah the Settler, who served as the resistance and provided the courage and morale that the nation badly needed.