Re: BBC editor: Jews should think of Palestine during Seder


By Stephen Franklin
March 26, 2010
Share

The new head of BBC ethics, Aaqil Ahmed, who is telling Jews that they should think of Palestine during Passover, does not have a perfect track record for accuracy and impartiality.

In a programme called Love thy Neighbour; Jerusalem for which Mr Ahmed was commissioning editor, shown on Channel 4 on 19th May 2007 Lord Ashdown accused Shlomo Lahat of killing three Arab residents of the Moroccan Quarter of Jerusalem (the former slum in front of the Western Wall). Ashdown said that Lahat's subordinate officer Etan ben Moshe had said this in an article in an Israeli newspaper. He apparently based this on the word of an interviewee on the programme who said that she had been told that it had been written in an Israeli paper.

I complained at the time that no such thing had happened. David Batty, the producer of that particular programme emailed a reply to me, with a copy to Mr Ahmed saying:

"Re the destruction of the Moroccan Quarter in 1967 and alleged deaths of 3 Palestinians. The account you refer to is not taken from the recollection of one person but from a newspaper confession by one of the Israeli army officers in charge of the bulldozers that destroyed the Moroccan Quarter. Our interviewee, Aisha Masloui, is referring to an interview given by this officer - Eitan Ben Moshe - to the Israeli newspaper Yorshalim on 26 November 1999 in which he claims that 3 Palestinians died. We were unable to interview Ben Moshe directly as he has since died but his account has never been challenged."

There never has been an Israeli newspaper called Yorshalim. The closest to it that existed in 1999 are “The Jerusalem Post” and the Hebrew Weekly “Iton Yerushalayim”. He was referring to neither of these. He was referring to a completely false story that appeared on several pro-Arab web sites that which has this made up interview with the non-existant major Etan Ben Moshe in a non-existent Israeli daily newspaper called Yorshalim

This particular “interview” is the only reference I could find in many internet searches to any publication, Israeli or otherwise, called Yorshalim.

It was particularly inappropriate to make such a charge against Shlomo Lahat, because he is totally committed to Palestinian human rights, being on the board of the human rights organisation Yesh Din.
http://www.yesh-din.org/site/index.php?page=about.us&lang=en

As far as I am aware neither former General Lahat, nor the men under his command in Jerusalem in June 1967, ever received an apology from Channel 4 or Mr Ahmed.

I hope that Mr Ahmed is thinking at this time of those that he has wronged.

COMMENTS

Dan Judelson

Fri, 03/26/2010 - 20:40

Rate this:

0 points

"BBC editor: Jews should think of Palestine during Seder" says some JC subeditor & this error is then repeated by Stephen Franklin: "Aaqil Ahmed ... is telling Jews that they should think of Palestine during Passover". Except as the article makes absolutely clear, he did no such thing- he asked a question and the inquiry was welcomed by the rabbis present. Ahmed did no telling, no exhorting. Why is it necessary to claim that he did?


Stephen Franklin

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 02:37

Rate this:

0 points

If may have been a question, but it was an "Are you still beating your wife?" sort of question.

There was an underlying assumption in that question that the responsibility for Palestinian suffering lay with the Israelis, rather than with the Palestinians' own political leadership.

I would suggest that it is a false assumption.


tomeisner2

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 17:55

Rate this:

0 points

Well it is the truth that Israel is responsible for evicting 750,000 Palestinians from their land just as 500.000 Israeli settlers continue to occupy the West
Bank. They won't for ever because history does not stand still.


Stephen Franklin

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 20:05

Rate this:

0 points

@tomeisner2

No it isn't the truth. Israel did not evict 750,000 Palestinians from their land.
http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/Refugees/8.html

But 850,00 Jews were forcibly evictedd from Arab countries
http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm


tomeisner2

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 20:45

Rate this:

0 points

Well we can disagree with each other on this one until the cows come home but the fact remains that in 2010 500,000 illegal settlers have no right to be in the west bank. Their so called right to be there is all based on fairy stories from 2000 years ago. I long for the day when they leave.


Stephen Franklin

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 21:03

Rate this:

0 points

As you said we can disagree with each other till the cows come home.

They have every right to be there.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlemen...


tomeisner2

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 21:33

Rate this:

0 points

What would you say if the French were to build settlements in East Sussex for 500,000 and claim it for France, or indeed if Germany were to do the same?


tomeisner2

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 21:44

Rate this:

0 points

p.s. my previous posting the comparison maybe isn't so clever because presence of the illegal settlers have a very negative impact on the Palestinians whereas most Brits love French cuisine and wine and of course most of us would welcome the Germans making the trains run on time!


Stephen Franklin

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 21:50

Rate this:

0 points

It wouldn't be the same. Most people who call themselves Palestinians today are descended from people who came into the land in the 19th or early 20th century (until November 1947). Until 1917 Palestine was just a part of the Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire.

The last independent national government in the Holy Land before the State of Israel was Jewish. The Jewish people have considered the Holy Land to be their national home for centuries, and nobody else did.

Until the 1960s when people referred to Palestinians they meant Jews who lived there.


tomeisner2

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 22:14

Rate this:

0 points

As late as 1882 there were only 24.000 Jews living in Israel/Palestine. About the same population as Buxton! the non Jewish population was 276.000 who were the forefathers of today's Palestinians.


Stephen Franklin

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 22:41

Rate this:

0 points

1882 was when Jewish refugees from Tzarist pogroms started arriving. You could as easily have chosen a date before April 1834, when the Egyptians arrived.
http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/ottoman/28.htm

In 1937 The Peel Commission report said "The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews."

In fact there was a massive immigration into Palestine by Muslims during the period of the British Mandate.

Jewish immigration was restricted early in the Mandate and illegally (under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate) and dramatically restricted from May 1939 to November 1947 at the cost of many lives.


Stephen Franklin

Sat, 03/27/2010 - 23:00

Rate this:

0 points

According to Professor Sir Martin Gilbert during the British Mandate Muslims came to Palestine from

Algeria, Cyrenaica (now Libya), Egypt, Iraq, Italy, Morocco, Persia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Transjordan, Tunisia and Turkey.


tomeisner2

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 08:55

Rate this:

0 points

So Stephen does this mean then that in the 19th c. there 24,000 Jews and no one else living in the area?


Stephen Franklin

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 09:11

Rate this:

0 points

No. I refer you to my post of yesterday at 21:50.

"MOST (NOT ALL) people who call themselves Palestinians today are descended from people who came into the land in the 19th or early 20th century (until November 1947). Until 1917 Palestine was just a part of the Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire.
The last independent national government in the Holy Land before the State of Israel was Jewish. The Jewish people have considered the Holy Land to be their national home for centuries, and nobody else did.
Until the 1960s when people referred to Palestinians they meant Jews who lived there."


Stephen Franklin

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 10:32

Rate this:

0 points

The Arabs who lived in the Holy Land in the 19th c did not consider themselves to be Palestinian and their regional capital was Damascus not Jerusalem,


Stephen Franklin

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 11:00

Rate this:

0 points

Incidentally the rural Bedouin population of the Holy Land in the 19th c was largely nomadic and would work wherever there was demand for rural labour in the Syria province of the Ottoman Empire.

The land was owned by absentee landlords who rented the land for fixed periods to tenant farmers, who would work the land until it was exhausted.
When their tenancy ran out it would take some time before the land had recovered and the hired labour would move on, frequently outside of the Holy Land.

The largest community in Jerusalem has for centuries been Jewish and since the mid-19th c (when the entire urban population of the city lived in what is now called East Jerusalem) the majority population of the city has been Jewish.


Jon_i_Cohen

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 11:34

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen has an excellent blog here and quotes some eminent and highly accurate resources that clearly lay out the historical facts for you.
Hopefully the left-wingers posting will read, study, learn and absorb, before retorting with any further inaccuracies,misguided and illinformed posts.
Well done Stephen, and thank you.


Yvetta

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 12:14

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen, where did Aaqil Ahmed make his comments re Pesach?
Are they online?


Stephen Franklin

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 12:47

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks Yvetta for getting back to the subject of the blog.

I was responding to the article in this week's JC
BBC editor: Jews should think of Palestine during Seder
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/29947/bbc-editor-jews-should-think-pal....


Stephen Franklin

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 14:15

Rate this:

0 points

Thank you Jon for your kind words and Chag Sameach to you and all.


Yvetta

Sun, 03/28/2010 - 18:26

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks, Stephen. I'll check it out ...
Chag Sameach to you too.


Peter Simon

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 00:08

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen Franklin's assertions are totally inconsistent with the standard bile peddled by the revisionist crowd. Most of them claim that the 'palestinians' (small p of course) only arrived in the area around 700 AD and therefore the Jews (who are of course linearly descended from people who lived there 2000 years ago) have the better claim. Franklin obviously hasn't attended the bigots' conference to have the party line whipped into him, claiming instead that 'most .... Palestinians [capital P!!] today are descended from people who came into the land in the 19th or early 20th century'.


Stephen Franklin

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 09:13

Rate this:

0 points

I get my facts from research, not from meetings.

Professor Sir Martin Gilbert is one of the most eminent historians in the UK. To suggest that his the facts published in his books are influenced by the fact that he is Jewish is simply anti-Semitic.
The same is true of that suggestion with regard to those eminent academics whose articles I have provided links to if they happened to be Jewish.

The quote from the Peel Commission Report of 1937 was certainly not from a Jewish source.

As for DNA evidence it shows the opposite of what Mr Morris suggests.

It has been proven that Sephardi Jews (spent the last 2000 years largely in the Iberian peninsular, the Levant and North Africa) and Ashkenazi Jews (spent the last 2000 years largely in Central and Eastern Europe) of the priestly family (Cohen), are of common origin.

The study, which was published in Nature in January 1997 said:
"... the same haplotype distinction can be made between priests and lay members within each population. This result is consistent with an origin for the Jewish priesthood antedating the division of world Jewry into Ashkenazi and Sephardic communities, and is of particular interest in view of the pronounced genetic diversity displayed between the two communities."
http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropologymuseum/2006IA/DNA_PDFS/yDNA/Hamm...

In another DNA study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA journal
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full.pdf
it was shown that Jews are genetically related to other Middle Eastern people.

I personally am a British citizen and have never served in the armed forces of any country. I am a non-violent person and have never wielded a rifle or grenade. I think that Geoffrey Morris's post was an anti-Semitic rant.

I think that Geoffrey Morris's post was simply an anti-Semitic rant.

Peter Simon the bit between the dots was relevant. I said "most people who call themselves Palestinians today...". I think that those few whose families have been there a long time are probably descended from Jews. DNA test results indicate such a commonality and a very few of those were considered to have been Palestinian appear to have maintained their Jewish connection.
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/weblog/arab_muslim-world/are-some-palesti...


Jon_i_Cohen

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 10:24

Rate this:

0 points

Oh dear Oh dear!
Some new names:-
Geoffrey Morris and Peter Simon?
Jewish or de-legitimisers pretending to be Jewish?
For your benefit read and educate yourselves, and then move over to the Guardian web-site where your views will be welcomed.

In the Arabs own words there has never been a Palesinian Arab national identity or people.
Dr Harry Mandlebaum writes the following, using soley Arab, Muslim, and foreign sources. Jewish / Israeli sources were deliberately left out to avoid accusations of bias.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Arabs in the Holy Land. Historically, a "Palestinian" people never existed. The English name "Palestinian", to describe the local Arab population, was invented AFTER the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. These Arabs do not even have a native name to describe themselves in their own Arabic language. The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land have migrated to Palestine and invaded the land after 1917, from neighboring Arab countries. There is only one possible solution to the "Palestinians" desire for a homeland - let them return to where they came from - to where they lived earlier for hundreds or thousands of years - to their real homeland in their original Arab countries.
Unknown to most of the world population, the origin of the "Palestinian" Arabs' claim to the Holy Land spans a period of a meager 30 years - a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of years of the region's rich history.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Muslim Arabs in the Holy Land. By contrast, the Jews, despite 2000 years of persecution and forced conversions by various conquerors, have throughout most of history been the majority population there. In Jerusalem Jews were always the largest demographic group, except for periods when conquerors specifically threw them out and prevented them from returning.
When General Allenby, the commander of the British military forces, conquered Palestine in 1917/1918, only a few thousand Muslim Arabs resided in the Holy Land. Most of the Arabs were Christians, and most of the Muslims in the area either came from Turkey under the Ottoman Empire, or were the descendants of Jews and Christians who were forcefully converted to Islam by the Muslim conquerors. These Muslims were not of Arab origin. Most references to Arabs in Palestine before 1917 refer to the Christian Arabs, not to the Muslims.
It is important to note that estimates and censuses conducted by the Muslim conquerors were biased. Therefore, the only reliable data is provided by non-Muslim sources. Tourists and politicians, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, have documented their observations of the population in the Holy Land beginning more that a thousand years ago. Let's start at the early days and continue into the Ottoman period:
The historian James Parkes wrote: "During the first century after the Arab conquest [670-740 CE], the caliph and governors of Syria and the Holy Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons."
In year 985 the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained: "the mosque is empty of worshipers... The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population" (The entire city of Jerusalem had only one mosque?).
In 1377, Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable Arab historians, wrote: "Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years... It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement".
In 1695-1696, the Dutch scholar and cartographer, Adriaan Reland (Hadriani Relandi) , wrote reports about visits to the Holy Land. (There are those who claim that he did not personally visit the Holy land but collected reports from other visitors.) He was fluent in Hebrew and Arabic. He documented visits to many locations. He writes: The names of settlements were mostly Hebrew, some Greek, and some Latin-Roman. No settlement had an original Muslim-Arab name with a historical root in its location. Most of the land was empty, desolate, and the inhabitants few in number and mostly concentrated in Jerusalem, Acco, Tzfat, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza. Most of the inhabitants were Jews and the rest Christians. There were few Muslims, mostly nomad Bedouins. The Arabs were predominantly Christians with a tiny minority of Muslims. In Jerusalem there were approximately 5000 people, mostly Jews and some Christians. In Nazareth there were approximately 700 people - all Christians. In Gaza there were approximately 550 people - half of them Jews and half Christians. Um-El-Phachem was a village of 10 families - all Christians. The only exception was Nablus with 120 Muslims from the Natsha family and approximately 70 Shomronites.
In 1835 Alphonse de Lamartine wrote: "Outside the city of Jerusalem, we saw no living object, heard no living sound. . .a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, in the highways, in the country."
In 1844, William Thackeray writes about the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem: "Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride."
In 1857, the British consul in Palestine, James Finn, reported: "The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."
In 1866, W.M. Thomson writes: "How melancholy is this utter desolation. Not a house, not a trace of inhabitants, not even shepherds, to relieve the dull monotony ... Much of the country through which we have been rambling for a week appears never to have been inhabited, or even cultivated; and there are other parts, you say, still more barren."
In 1867, Mark Twain - Samuel Clemens, the famous author of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer", toured the Holy Land. This is how he described the land: "There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent; not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings ... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
In 1874, Reverend Samuel Manning wrote: "But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude.... Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter -- "the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants." (Jeremiah, ch.44 v.22)
In 1892, B. W. Johnson writes: "In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life... A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted... I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us."
In 1913, a British report, by the Palestinian Royal Commission, quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea: "The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the [Jewish] Yabna village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."
As we can see, throughout history, as documented by Arab historians and by foreign observers before 1917, the land was desolate; there were practically no Muslim Arabs in the cities outside of Jerusalem (except 120 Muslims in Nablus); and the number of Muslim Arabs (other than Ottoman Muslims or Christian Arabs) was minuscule, most of them nomadic Bedouins. The difference between these multiple authentic accounts and the falsified Muslim-Arab propaganda is huge, almost beyond imagination.
When the Holy Land was taken from the Ottomans by the British, it was no longer under Muslim control. The Quran commands Muslims to take land away from non-Muslims, including land which they have never trodden on before. Following the British conquest of the Holy land, the Muslim Arabs embarked on a massive immigration into the Holy Land, fulfilling their religious obligation to capture as much foreign land as possible.The following accounts describe the massive Arab immigration after 1918:
In 1930/31, Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote about the Arabs in Palestine: "We found it inhabited by fellahin (Arab farmers) who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria... Large areas were uncultivated... The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbors, the bedouin (Arab nomads)."
The British Hope-Simpson Commission recommended, in 1930, "Prevention of illicit immigration" to stop the illegal Arab immigration from neighboring Arab countries.
The British Governor of the Sinai (1922-36) reported in the Palestine Royal Commission Report: "This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria."
The governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey El Hurani, admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over 30,000 Syrians from Houran had moved to Palestine.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Holy Land, noted in 1939 that “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.”
The Arab population in the Holy Land increased only because of their massive immigration from neighboring Arab countries. Before 1918, when the Arab immigration started, only a minuscule number of Muslim Arabs lived in the Holy Land, practically all of them in Jerusalem. This is why it is so difficult to find an old-age Muslim-Arab whose grandparents were born in the Holy Land.
The Quran explicitly encourages lying and deception if it helps Muslims achieve a desired goal . To deny the massive invasion of the Holy Land by foreign Muslims, the falsified Muslim-Arab propaganda claims that it is a myth. If it is indeed a myth, how can anyone explain the following simple observations?
The grandparents of the author's wife were born in the Holy Land in the 19th century. They saw with their own eyes how empty the land was at the time. They also lived through and experienced first-hand the British conquest and the Arab's massive invasion of the land that started in 1918. This invasion lasted for only 30 years, and ended in 1948 with the evacuation of the British from the land and the declaration of the state of Israel.
The family names of many Arabs who now occupy the Holy Land reveal their country of origin: Masri (from Egypt ), Iraqi (from Iraq), Tarabulsi (from Tarabulus-Tripoli in Lebanon), Hourani (from Houran in Syria), Husseini (from Jordan), and Saudi (from Saudi Arabia).
Following the publication of an earlier version of this article, the author received an email message from a reader who used to work with Arabs in Gaza and in various villages in the West Bank in the 1970's. In his email the reader describes friendly discussions about family history with his Arab co-workers. Most of the co-workers had grandfathers who immigrated to the Holy Land from neighboring countries.
When Churchill said that “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.” was he lying? Churchill was not a Muslim...
The name "Palestina" is a Latin-Roman name based on the Hebrew Biblical name of the ancient "Philistines" -- "Plishtim" in Hebrew. The translation of this name to English is: "invaders". The Philistines arrived from the Mediterranean islands near Greece and invaded the land about 4000 years ago . The Philistines are extinct since approximately 2000 years ago, and have no ancestral or historical relationship to Arabs. Before 1917, during the 400-years rule of the Ottoman empire, the Ottomans did not call the Holy Land "Palestina". The British decided to renew this ancient name and called the land "Palestine". The local Arabs never called themselves "Palestinians", not even during the British mandate. Both Arab and British leaders referred to them only as "Arabs". For example: The Hope-Simpson report published by the British in 1930, contains the phrase "the number of Palestinian unemployed, whether Arab, Jew or other...". "Palestinian" was used only as an adjective in reference to the location and also included Jews. The Arab inhabitants were always referred to as "Arabs". The word "palestinians" does not appear anywhere in this report. "Palestinian Arabs", "Palestinian Jews", and "Palestinian Christians" were common terms. But, "Palestinians", as a noun, before 1948, was not yet invented.
After 30 years of invasion, following the end of the British mandate and the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arabs recognized the fact that they invaded foreign land and invented for themselves a name in English -- "Palestinians". If the British were to call the land "New England", and the local Arabs were to call themselves "English" would they automatically become English? It is important to emphasize that the concept of a "Palestinian" to describe the local Arab residents was invented by the Arabs AFTER the declaration of the state of Israel. This group of Arabs who started calling themselves "the Palestinian nation" after 1948, does not have an original name in their native Arabic language. Is there any nation in the world which does not have a name in its original native language? The Arabs who invaded the Holy Land do not have a name in their native Arabic language because they are not, and have never been, a unified group or a nation.
Historically, a "Palestinian" people never existed. The fact is that the Arabs who now call themselves by the English name "Palestinians" don't even know what their name is or should be in Arabic. Even Arab leaders and historians have admitted that a "Palestinian" people never existed. For example:
In 1937, the Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Peel Commission: "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. Palestine is alien to us."
In 1946, Princeton's Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "It's common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history."
In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The 'Palestinian people' does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel."
Joseph Farah, an Arab-American journalist, writes: "The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity."
Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist acknowledged the lie he was fighting for: “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian? ... we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians. They removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag.”
The Syrian dictator Hafez Assad said: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity".
Dr. Azmi Bishara, a notable leader of the Arabs in Israel, who fought against the Israeli "occupation", said in a TV interview: "There is no Palestinian nation. It's a colonial invention. When were there any Palestinians?"
The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land have migrated to Palestine and invaded the land after 1917, from neighboring Arab countries, predominantly from areas now known as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. None of these countries existed as nations prior to 1913. They were nothing but a disorganized collection of tribes, constantly terrorizing each other, trying to seize land from their neighbors. Unfortunately, those Arab invaders, imported into the Holy Land their age-old "culture" of terrorizing neighbors to seize land. Many of them were social outcasts and criminals who could not find jobs in their own countries so they searched for their luck elsewhere. Some of them were accepted by the British regime as a source of cheap labor and were allowed to settle on unoccupied Jewish land. Even Yassir Arafat, the leader of the PLO, is not a native of the Holy Land. He called himself a "Palestinian refugee" but spoke Arabic with an Egyptian dialect. He was born in 1929 in Cairo, Egypt. He served in the Egyptian army, studied in the University of Cairo, and lived in Cairo until 1956. He then moved to Saudi-Arabia and founded the Al-Fatah terror organization, the precursor to the PLO, in Kuwait in 1958, together with his Saudi-Arabian friends. How exactly does that constitute a "Palestinian refugee"? Being born in 1929 in Cairo, he cannot even be considered a son of Palestinian refugees (there were no refugees in 1929). Arafat must have been a good student of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim religion, who said in the Quran: "War is deception".[16]
In their propaganda, the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" consistently demand that Israel and the world recognize their "pre-1948" rights. That's about 60 years ago. Mysteriously, they are never willing to add another 60 years to their "historical" claims on the Holy Land. They know very well that doing so will send them back to where they came from - Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Years ago, during negotiations with the, so-called, "Palestinians", a Israeli negotiator proposed to revise a mention of their claim of "pre-1948" rights and replace it with "pre-1917". The "Palestinians" vehemently opposed. Now we know why.
If there is anyone who still believes that a "Palestinian" nation ever existed before the end of the British mandate and the founding of the state of Israel, would they please be kind enough to answer when was it founded and by whom? What was its name in Arabic (not in Latin-English)? What was its form of government? What were its borders? Name one top "Palestinian" leader before Arafat? Which country ever recognized its existence and when? In which library or museum can we find any of its literature, coins, or historical artifacts? The answer to all these questions is "nil". As stated by Zahir Muhsein: "The 'Palestinian' people does not exist."
Some Arabs consider themselves the descendants of Abraham, the forefather of the Jewish nation. Ironically, if not for Muhammad's study of the Bible, the Arabs would not have known of the existence of Abraham. Muhammad invented the Muslim religion in the 7th century AD, in Saudi Arabia. He studied the Bible in order to be better equipped in his attempts to persuade the Jews to follow his newly invented religion. When the Jews refused, he dictated the stories of the Quran (the Muslim bible) to his students, and filled it with his own imaginary accounts of Biblical events. (Muhammad himself did not know how to read or write.) He even took the liberty to change the God-given day of rest, Saturday - the Sabbath. Since Sunday was already taken by the Christians, he picked Friday as the next-best Muslim day of rest.
Muhammad never visited Jerusalem and the Holy Land, and did not consider them important enough to mention their name in the Quran even once. By comparison, Mecca and Medina, the only two Muslim holy cities, are mentioned in the Quran hundreds of times. Even though the name of the Holy Land is not mentioned in the Quran, the Quran refers to the Holy Land many times as the land of the children of Israel.
The Jewish Holy Temple stood on Temple Mount long before the Muslim religion, or any other current world religion was conceived. Even when the founders of the Christian religion walked around in the streets of ancient Jerusalem there were no mosques nor churches there - only the Jewish Holy Temple and nothing else. The land of the Jewish Holy Temple in Jerusalem was purchased by King David, for the Jewish people, approximately 850 years BCE. The deed, the name of the previous owner, and the purchase price were recorded in the Bible (See Samuel-B Ch. 24 and Chronicles-A Ch. 21-22).
Today the Muslim "Palestinians" claim to own Temple Mount, the site of the Jewish Holy Temple in Jerusalem. They claim it is "their" holy site. Does anyone in the rest of the world know which way the Muslims in Jerusalem face when they pray? When the Muslims in Jerusalem pray in their mosques, even in the "Al Aktza" mosque built on the edge of Temple Mount, they actually stand with their back turned to Temple Mount. And, when they bow down in their prayers they show their behind to the site of the Holy Temple. How consistent is that with considering it a Muslim holy site?
The Muslims have long ago recognized that the Holy Temple is a Jewish holy site. Its name in Arabic is "Al Quds" - "The Holiness" in English, which is an abbreviation for "The House of Holiness" - The Jewish Holy Temple. The fact is that Jerusalem is not important enough to the Muslims to be mentioned even once in the Quran, while Mecca and Medina, the only two Muslim holy cities, are mentioned hundreds of times. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, up until 1967, they never considered it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
Can any Muslim in the world produce any credible evidence for their connection to this holy site, other than in Muhammad's dream? Believe it or not, the one and only source for the Muslim's claim to Jerusalem and the site of the Holy Temple, is a mention in the Quran of a dream that Muhammad had about an unknown "far distant place (mosque)". This "far distant place (mosque)" could not have been in Jerusalem, because in Muhammad's time there was not even a single mosque in Jerusalem. The first mosque in Jerusalem was built 83 years after Muhammad died. Perhaps this "far distant place" is the site of the White House in Washington DC? Or the Vatican in Italy?
The best reference for understanding the Muslim-Arab mentality and politically-motivated falsification of history is Muhammad's own advice to his followers: "War is deception".
The real problem facing those Arabs today is not the lack of a homeland. The historical root-cause of their problem and frustration is the fact that the countries they came from have not agreed to accept them back in. This is why so many of them live, up until today, in refugee camps, in neighboring Arab countries, lacking fundamental civil rights. In their frustration they feel that the only hope and choice they have is to try and steal a country. Many of the vehicles and the agricultural equipment in the Palestinian Authority have been stolen from their Israeli neighbors. For a while, Israel suffered the highest rate of automobile thefts in the world! Most of these stolen vehicles were later found in towns and villages of the Palestinian Authority. If invading foreign land is so easy; if stealing vehicles is so easy; why not try and steal a country too?
There is only one possible solution to the "Palestinians" desire for a homeland. It is the only solution that will satisfy their claim of the right to return to their homeland. Since helping them return to where they lived for less than 30 years is their own definition of justice, then helping them return to where they lived earlier for hundreds or thousands of years is, by the same definition, a better justice. Let's all help them get the better justice they deserve. Let's help them return to where they came from - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
Recent proposals have suggested a two-state solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict - one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. The map below shows that a much more generous solution already exists - 21 states - one for the Jews and twenty for the Arabs.
The Quran contains more than 100 verses commanding Muslims to fight a war against non-Muslims. Some verses command Muslims to chop off heads and fingers and terrorize and kill non-Muslims. Other verses command Muslims to take land away from non-Muslims. Muslims are also prohibited from living in peace with non-Muslims on non-Muslim land. Anyone who avoids fighting against non-Muslims is punished. Because of such religious commandments, there is no chance and no hope that Muslims will ever live peacefully together with non-Muslims who live on non-Muslim land. Temporary periods of calm are nothing but a waiting period - waiting in ambush - waiting for an opportunity to strike.
History proves that a population exchange is the only possible solution, other than war, to conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, in 1923, the war between Turkey and Greece ended only when both sides agreed to a population exchange of more than two million Muslims and Greek-Orthodox Christians. Similarly, in 1947, more than 14 million Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, have exchanged locations in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
More than 800,000 Jews have relocated out of the Arab countries; about 600,000 moved to Israel and 200,000 moved to other countries. Now it is time to end the conflict between Jews and Muslims in Israel. The only possible peaceful solution is to complete the second half of this Jewish-Muslim population exchange by returning the Muslims in the Holy Land back to the Muslim countries where they came from.There is no shortage of space in the Arab-Muslim countries.
So,"Peter Simon & "Geoffrey Morris", if the Arabs accept that there are NO Palestinian Arabs, what chance have you got of convincing anyone else?
So, back to the Guardian now!


Stephen Franklin

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 11:05

Rate this:

0 points

Jon Thanks for your support but your post is too long.


Jon_i_Cohen

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 11:29

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen
You're right about the length of my post - but I find it so infuriating finding these lefties continualy posting on the JC !


Stephen Franklin

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 12:03

Rate this:

0 points

I too find anti-Israel and anti-Semitic posts infuriating, but I consider myself to be of the liberal left.

To be honest I don't see how somebody genuinely committed to human rights and fighting prejudice in all its forms can not support Israel.

Best to give a link to some expert if you want to show a detailed argument or to keep refute their main points briefly.

I was infuriated too by Geoffrey Morris's post in particular and it probably showed in my next response.


mattpryor

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 12:39

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen, this is exactly the point that we need to make loud and clear.

Attempts to characterise people that support Israel as "right wing" or "extremist" are just another way to delegitimise Israel and Israel's supporters.

People who attack Israel's right to exist in the name of human rights demonstrate the worst kind of hypocrisy - demonising one group of people under the pretence of defending the "human rights" of another.

Another thing to take note of is, how many people that defend Israel try to demonise or delegitimise Palestinians? I've hardly encountered any. Most people who care about the region would dearly love to see a just and lasting resolution to the conflict for everyone in the region.

As the situation develops however I'm becoming more convinced that imposing a solution on the population without first addressing the deep and severe social problems will cause more violence not less.


Stephen Franklin

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 13:22

Rate this:

0 points

It is hardly surprising that I agree with you Matt. Your last point is particularly pertinent.

There is a myth current in the Obama administration and in the British Foreign office that if only a peace agreement could be reached between Israel and the Palestinians then the world as a whole would be a safer place, so such an agreement should be forced on the parties.

Nobody wants a genuine peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians more than the Israelis.

Unfortunately both the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza have continued their incitement against Israel in breach of their commitment at the outset of Phase 1 of the Roadmap.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/roadmap122002.pdf
They are both indeed teaching their young to aspire to be suicide bombers against Israel and that Israel has no right to exist at all.
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1894
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1732
http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2419.htm.
If a peace agreement is forced on people before a significant period has passed when there is no officially inspired hatred or incitement I fear that such an agreement would just be a prelude to violence on a scale much greater than we have seen for many years.

There must be a gradual meeting of minds and as the threat of violence recedes then greater contact can take place and relationships can be built. Only then would a peace agreement have a solid foundation.


DLeigh-Ellis

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 23:21

Rate this:

0 points

Excellent post Geoffrey, Jons rants have for some time been the most tedious part of the jc website.


Stephen Franklin

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 00:39

Rate this:

0 points

Geoffrey Morris's earlier post questioning the authority of distinguished academics because they are Jewish and lying about the DNA record of the historic link of the Jewish people to the Holy Land show that he is anti-Semitic.

If you are complementing him on his posts DLeigh-Ellis that does not reflect well on you.

I notice that none of the posts have questioned in any way the truth of accuracy of the story at the heart of my blog.


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 09:12

Rate this:

0 points

@Geoffrey Morris & DLeigh-Ellis
If you had read any of my post you will have learnt that I refer to the case from the Arab point of view, it is the Arabs themselves that concur with my view that there is no such entity/state/people as a palestinian Arab people. Perhaps it is a concept too difficult for you to grasp.


Lanne

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 15:52

Rate this:

0 points

Geoffrey Morris says "(unless of course you believe the revisionist lies and extremist doctrines which he propagates and which are becoming increasingly common on pro-Israeli, Jewish blogs) would be ethnically cleansed." If anyone were to say that revisionist lies and extremist doctrines were increasingly common on blogs written by any other ethnic group it would be called racist. Geoffrey is really saying Israeli supporters and Jews are people that lie, cannot be trusted and are extremists. He is anti semitic.


Lanne

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 17:09

Rate this:

0 points

I mean If anyone were to say that revisionist lies and extremist doctrines were increasingly common on blogs written by any other minority ethnic group it would be called racist.


DLeigh-Ellis

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 18:07

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen, I was referring to Geoffreys post made just before mine, not the earlier one. If you perceive me to be prejudiced in any manner, I suggest you read some of my blogs on this website.

I am fed up of being labelled as anti-semitic on this website for simply putting across a viewpoint that distinguishes between Jewish identity and conformity with Israeli ideals.

Jon, I assure you that you have never stated anything too complicated for anyone to grasp...


Lanne

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 18:20

Rate this:

0 points

Dr Leigh- Ellis, read my previous post, Geoffrey's post calling Israeli's and Jews extremists and liers is clearly anti Semitic. If I were to go to work and say that an ethnic minority were full of lies and extremists, I would be sacked for racist behavior so the same rules should apply to Jews and Israeli supporters. Disagreeing with Israel's policies is not Anti-semitic but encouraging the anti semitic posters by showing them support only encourages anti semitism.


DLeigh-Ellis

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 20:49

Rate this:

0 points

Are you and I even reading the same post....

Geoffrey responded to somebody who constantly abuses anybody who disagrees with him. He did it with a fair amount of restraint too....

Your assertion that disagreeing with Israels policies 'is not Anti-semitic but encouraging the anti semitic posters by showing them support only encourages anti semitism' is problematic.

When I disagree with a policy of Israels I explain why I have come to that reason, I also do not single Israel out, chances are that it would not matter to me where in the world terrible things were happening, if they were terrible. But this is the JC blog, it is not the place to discuss Tibet, Darfur or whatever issues you think I am ignoring solely to pick on Israel. I assure you, it is simply a question of place and context.

The notion that the presence of an enemy should stifle debate and progression is totally illogical. If alternative viewpoints cannot be expressed how can the situation ever be resolved? Criticism of Israeli policies by Jews or Israelis does not generate antisemitism. It shows that there is a conduit through which a compromise on the Israel/Palestine solution can be reached. The extremists on both sides will never sit down and talk, it is the moderates who must lay the foundation.

Finally, you assert that Geoffry is antisemitic for 'calling Israelis and jews extremists and liars.' What he stated actually read 'unless of course you believe the revisionist lies and extremist doctrines which he propagates and which are becoming increasingly common on pro-Israeli, Jewish blogs.' He is referring to bloggers not all Israelis and Jews, simply those who choose to write... and it makes sense given half the stuff posted on these boards.


Stephen Franklin

Wed, 03/31/2010 - 23:42

Rate this:

0 points

You clearly are not reading the same posts as me DLeigh-Ellis.

Far from responding with restraint he started off by comparing Jon Cohen to a cornered rat.

As nothing that Mr Cohen had said on this page had even been challenged until then what he said was not not only unduly aggressive, taken in the context of a follow-up to previous anti-Semitic comments by Geoffrey Morris on this page, it seemed like he was descending into the darkest traditions of anti-Semites by comparing Jews to rodents.

You would do yourself a favour by not justifying his posts or your support for them.


DLeigh-Ellis

Thu, 04/01/2010 - 01:00

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen, all I did was comment positively on Geoffrey's post, it was nothing more than a passing remark that you deemed, 'did not reflect well on me.'

No offence, but I don't require somebody who thinks they can judge somebody on the base of one line to tell me how to do myself a favour.


Jon_i_Cohen

Thu, 04/01/2010 - 08:34

Rate this:

0 points

@DLeigh-Ellis
Stephen Franklin is right, by showing your support for peter simon/geoffrey morris & tomeisner2, who are clearly not Jewish and are using the oldest anti-semitic terminology in the book:- "bile", "rats", and use spurious sources for their comments, you are falling into their trap and portaying yourself as a "self-hater". If this is not the case you should be showing support both for Stephen Franklin and myself. This web site is the Jewish Chonicle and my postings are from a Jewish, pro-Israel point of view, they are not rants, anything less is not suitable for the Jewish Chronicle web site and should be posted elsewhere ie The Guardian.


Lanne

Thu, 04/01/2010 - 10:22

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh- Ellis 'When he said "unless of course you believe the revisionist lies and extremist doctrines which he propagates and which are becoming increasingly common on pro-Israeli, Jewish blogs.' Most pro-Israeli and Jewish blogs are written by Jews so he is calling mainly the Jews liers and extremists. If someone does not agree with Isreal's policies why do they feel the need to label blogs mainly written by Jews and pro Israeli's as extremists and liers? It is attacking them as people rather than saying why he disagrees with their beliefs.


Stephen Franklin

Thu, 04/01/2010 - 10:32

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh-Ellis

If somebody started a post by referring to somebody of Afro-Caribbean with the N word I hope that you wouldn't comment positively on that post.

You might consider that that one line says enough for others to pass judgement on him.

In fact I think that Geoffrey Morris gives plenty more ammunition to those that pass such judgement, but that one line and his previous posts on this page, in my opinion, are damning enough.


DLeigh-Ellis

Thu, 04/01/2010 - 16:48

Rate this:

0 points

Jon, it is yourself that brands me as a self-hater, if you read my arguments you would see that I make a huge effort to show how my opinions do not come from irrational hatred but from thorough consideration. I have explained many times how what I say does not come from an antagonistic pov, but from a desire for reconciliation.

Lanne, 'increasingly common,' is the key phrase... It is a trend that it highly noticeable - the JC is leaning ever further to the right, and that is hard to argue against. No antisemitism there, he is commenting on the people here, not the religion.

Stephen, as I said earlier, judging somebody and their ideas based on one line is a terrible way to approach the world. If you choose to damn me for one line, refusing to look beyond the words to the ideas then, put simply... I don't really care.

Anyway, I think this discussion is over as geoffrey's posts no longer seem to be visible.


Stephen Franklin

Thu, 04/01/2010 - 19:27

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh-Ellis

I didn't damn you. I said that you did yourself no favours by calling Geoffrey Morris's anti-Semitic post "excellent". I also suggested that Mr Morris damns himself with his own words.
It is hardly surprising that his posts have been removed.


Jon_i_Cohen

Thu, 04/01/2010 - 23:43

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh-Ellis
I am sure you are a very nice chap really - but by allying yourself with the antisemites and Israel delegitimisers that blog on this web-site you leave yourself open to such critiscism.
As for reconciliation, who with? Hamas? Ahmadinejad? How can you have reconciliation with those whose aim is to destroy you?
And finally for the JC being right wing, we are obviously not reading the same JC, it is so far to the left as be almost off the scale!!
Masorti, Reform,Liberal,Progressive, Gays, Gay Marriage, never mind the Israel stance, need I say more?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.