Map map on the wall, who’s most existing of them all?

Middle East
on 133 Comments

Palestine never existed — or so, I have often been told, is a stock Zionist claim.

But what is meant by Palestine having, or having not, ‘existed’? Humans have lived and died in the region we call Palestine for about as long as our species has walked the earth, regardless of who had the biggest club, the grandest throne, or the most F16s. What does it mean for the land to have been, or not to have been, ‘Palestine’? And how does it alter the present-day political, legal, or ethical landscape?

I have occasionally argued with people who claim that Zionists deny the existence of the geographic term ‘Palestine’ before the post-1948 resistance. Well, maybe there are such individuals, but it is not the claim made by any savvy Zionist. The misunderstanding leaves individuals supporting Palestinian justice open to being proven ‘wrong’ on a straw issue.

Mappamundi (detail illustrated above) from the Rudimentum Novitiorum, Lubeck, 1475. Printed from a woodblock. East is at the top.

The mainstream Zionist construct is not that there was ‘no Palestine’, but rather that Palestine never existed as a sovereign, independent political entity. In the course of the arguments I’ve had over this, I have encountered such resistance that I even been accused of secretly being on the ‘other side’.

A postcard addressed to Golda Meir in Palestine recently made the Facebook rounds in order to ‘prove’ that even Zionist leaders acknowledged that Palestine ‘existed’. Most commonly, late nineteenth century maps of Palestine whose titles label it as such viralize on social media in the belief that they ‘prove’ the Zionists wrong.

But they do not. Such artifacts merely demonstrate that the land was being referred to as such, not that ‘Palestine existed’ in our cultural concept of a political-geographic space. The Zionist claim is even more fundamentally ludicrous, but it is not contradicted by the word ‘Palestine’.

Herewith an attempt to clarify this issue.

A few days ago, an interesting Facebook exchange I had with Jocelyn Hurndall about this topic was screen-grabbed by a troll and written about by the prolific pro-Israel blogger, Daphne Anson.

Ms. Anson (I will assume that Daphne Anson is the blogger’s real name) summarizes her position thus:

When will these people get it through their heads that the issue is not whether the name Palestine was applied to the Holy Land (it was, by the Romans, in order to erase the Jewish connection with Eretz Israel) but whether there was a sovereign state of Palestine as pro-Palestinian activists such as themselves maintain (there was not, of course, for since its invasion by Romans that land has always been ruled by someone else, latterly the Ottoman Empire, of which it was a backwater)?

Thank you Ms. Anson (if you’re trolling), yes, that clearly explains matters. But I note that you cropped out the rest of my Facebook posting that would have made your blog post moot.

To disentangle this issue, let’s first establish the reason for the Zionist claim that Palestine never existed as a sovereign, independent political entity: It is to justify Israeli ‘right’ to the land.

Let’s take a look at the three premises implicit in this logic.

The Rudimentum Novitiorum, opened to its woodblock map of Palestine, based on the pilgrimage of the thirteenth-century Dominican Burchard of Mount Sion, who was in Palestine between 1274 and 1284. As with the world map, east is at the top. Lubeck, 1475.

1. The claim that Palestine was never a sovereign territory (we are supposed to think: never a ‘country’).
This claim is nonsensical on its face. Palestine includes regions that are among the longest inhabited on earth. Jericho, for example, has been continually inhabited for several millennia before there was any Biblical Israel.

The nation-state mindset that now seems universal, and what we intuit as political autonomy, was unknown until the last millisecond of human society. Palestine had local rule, regional rule, always blurring into other centers of power, as was the earth-wide political norm until the nation-state with its clinically defined borders — except, in superb irony, for Israel, which still refuses to commit itself to any borders. And like much of the rest of the world, Palestine also morphed in and out of occupations that exerted more or less control in conflict with, or collaboration with, local rule.

Burchard of Mount Sion’s ship reaches the coast of Palestine. Detail from the woodblock map of Palestine in the work Mer Des Hystoires, 1491.

2. The claim that historical Israel was a sovereign political entity (we are supposed to think: the land in the Bible was a ‘country’).
The Zionist narrative, however, treats the Israel cited in the Judeo-Christian Old Testament as though it were a large, sovereign nation, and indeed a long-lived one. The ancient Biblical kingdom was “the Hebrew Nation”, as Revisionists referred to it during the British Mandate. And it had no antecedent; it was not simply one wave in the complex human history of the region, but was the unique defining sovereign entity of a vast swath of the Levant.

Finally, the settler state self-proclaimed in 1948 is the ‘reconstitution’ or ‘re-establishment’ of that ancient ‘nation’. To be sure this connection was embedded in our collective hard-wiring, Zionist leaders also exploited the psychological power of geographic place-names, giving their creation what they called ‘Jewish’ geographic identity — ‘Israel’ — since, as Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders put it in a secret meeting in 1941, “they would [otherwise] never get a Jewish majority”.* In other words, they would never have enough settlers unless they invoked the power of messianic nomenclature.

The Zionist ‘return’ to Israel — necessary for the settler state — requires the construct of a ‘diaspora’ composed of ‘the same people’ as the subjects of the Biblical realm, a geo-political entity with a population tied to it that is modular in both space and time. This association of an allegedly distinct population with an historical geographic term seeks, implicitly, to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing that Zionism pursues.

Geographic regions, not the ruler or religion du jour, have populations. Palestine, like anyplace else on earth, experienced waves of settlement, assimilation, local rule, influx, out-flux, conquest, colonization, influence in, influence out, natural disasters, and wars. Populations did not pick up and move in and out with changing faiths and sovereigns.

3. Connecting the dots: The claim that either [1] or [2] have any relevancy.
The overriding issue, however, is that none of this matters. The very argument is preposterous. Let’s say that nothing called Palestine was ever a sovereign state. Let’s say a great and mighty Eretz Israel ruled the land three thousand years ago. So what? Ancient history, whether evidence-based or Biblical, is irrelevant.

Descriptio Et Sitvs Terrae Sanctae Alio Nomine Palestina… (The description and location of the Holy Land, also known as Palestine…), by the Flemish mapmaker Gerard de Jode (literally, “Gerard the Jew”). Copperplate engraving, published in the 1593 Speculum Orbis Terrarum. Photo: Stanford University.

When beginning in the early 1880s, European Zionists decided to move on in, people already lived there, period, end-of-story. They had been living there for centuries, lived through the various upheavals, political shifts, wars, and all the other permutations that have defined human civilization.

The Zionist assertion that people’s right to live their own lives in their own homes on their own land is contingent on a ‘sovereign state’ having once ruled over them — ‘them’ itself a misleading term — is a chauvinistic perversion that not even our present-day notions of political space would accept. The argument is ludicrous, and like so much of the Zionist world construct, it seems that this reasoning is to apply only to Palestine, not to the rest of the world. (I can invent my own narrative: I am a descendant of Epipaleolithic civilization that once ruled the Levant with full political authority, strong but sagacious. My ancestors were booted out in 8671 BC. We have never given up hope of returning home.)

Ms. Anson decreed that “American violinist and propagandist against Zionism Tom Suarez … has become excited by some maps.” Having been involved in the history of cartography for decades, there were rare times when I became excited by fresh analysis of some maps. But my ‘excitement’ here consisted simply of pointing out that ‘Palestine’ appears on Western maps centuries before the late nineteenth century examples commonly invoked — and, agreeing 100% with Ms. Anson, that these maps do nothing to refute the Zionists’ claims. Those claims, rather, self-implode under the most elementary scrutiny of their internal logic and morality, without ‘Palestine’ or any other nomenclature entering the equation.

Palestine discussed in Bernhard von Breydenbach’s Peregrinatio in Terram Sanctam, 1486.

Maps, nomenclature, and geographic thought always reflect a society’s collective subconscious, and this is particularly relevant in the case of Palestine. It is no coincidence that most of the European mapping of the Holy Land during the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries was Biblically based, even as the same cartographers raced for the latest secular data for every place else in the world. (A sample of this phenomenon is seen in articles I wrote for the 2002 exhibit of Holy Land maps, Borders and Boundaries, mounted at the Herbert & Eileen Museum, Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, a small bit of which is available online.)

It is this same disconnect that today enables Israel to position itself as a realm from an ancient holy book in our allegedly modern, secular geographic world view. Indicative of the role of Palestine in the European cartographic psyche, the first printed map of European origin of certain date to be based on actual observation was of Palestine (see Rudimentum Novitiorum, open book, above). The work in which it appeared contained only one other map, the non- empirically based world map illustrated at the beginning of this article.**

* See Suárez, State of Terror, p73.

** The only European printed map of certain date preceding these 1475 works is a small schematic “T-O” map of 1472, whose nomenclature was limited to the three continents.

Tom Suárez’ books on the history of cartography include: Early Mapping of the Pacific, Charles E. Tuttle, 2004; Early Mapping of Southeast Asia,Charles E. Tuttle, 1999; Shedding the Veil: Mapping the European Discovery of America and the World, World Scientific, 1992; In edited volumes, ‘Early Portuguese Mapping of Siam’ (in Smithies, 500 Years of Thai-Portuguese Relations: A Festschrift, The Siam Society, 2011); ‘Genesis of the American West: The Cortes Map’ (in Cohen, Mapping the West, Rizzoli, 2002).

About Tom Suarez

Tom Suarez is the author most recently of State of Terror. Ordering and reviews can be found at state-of-terror.net

Other posts by .


Posted In:

133 Responses

  1. JeffB
    April 30, 2017, 12:26 pm

    @Tom

    I think this is worth responding to.

    The claim that Palestine was never a sovereign territory (we are supposed to think: never a ‘country’)

    The definition of a country is a nation residing in a territory governing that territory. So yes, if there is no government there is no country. Moreover there is little evidence for a distinct: language, culture, history or national culture prior to Zionism. Inhabitation does not make a country. New Jersey is inhabited but it isn’t a country.

    The claim that historical Israel was a sovereign political entity (we are supposed to think: the land in the Bible was a ‘country’).

    Actually the claim Zionists make is Judaea was a sovereign political entity. The Greeks certainly agreed when they conquered it. The Greeks certainly agreed when they were pushed out. And then Romans certainly agreed it was one when they conquered it and tried to rule it as part of their empire.

    people’s right to live their own lives in their own homes on their own land is contingent on a ‘sovereign state’ having once ruled over them

    That’s precisely the right you all seek to deny them. Every day there is an argument about the “settlers” right to live their own lives in their own homes on their own land. If you believe that people have a right to live where they are born, welcome to Zionism of the 2017 regardless of whether you would have agreed with the Zionism of 1917 or not.

    • Tom Suarez
      April 30, 2017, 4:52 pm

      Hello Jeff B., thank you for the comment. Your definition of a country as “a nation residing in a territory governing that territory” is indeed today’s geo-political mindset, as I hoped I had made clear in my article. But why is this relevant as regards the Zionist project? (the messianic application would be deemed laughable in any other circumstance and is NOT part of today’s geo-political mindset). As regards the right of Israelis born in Palestine (aka Israel) to live there, yes of course. I hope I was not misunderstood to suggest otherwise.

      • echinococcus
        May 1, 2017, 5:29 am

        Tom,

        As regards the right of Israelis born in Palestine (aka Israel) to live there, yes of course.

        Which course? You know that jus soli is not a general rule –in fact it is not the principle of citizenship in several civilized nations, either.

        So how is it a matter of course? It contradicts even the principle of citizenship of the Ottoman imperial jurisdiction, which was based on the nominally religious “millet” system (continued now by the Stone Age Zionist entity.)

        The owners of the place, i.e. the Palestinian people, have not been consulted in a fair plebiscite, so we have no representative opinion that would allow bestowing some Palestinian citizenship on the local issue of any Pole, Bessarabian or Yemeni who thought he’d drop by and violate international laws.

        So what makes such a rather strange idea a matter of course?

      • Tom Suarez
        May 1, 2017, 10:23 am

        Hello Echinococcus,
        My opinion: Settler children (whether born in Israel or O.T.s) are blameless. They should be equal citizens.

      • Mooser
        May 1, 2017, 1:28 pm

        “They should be equal citizens.”

        I think they should be given the privilege of leaving Palestine at any time. They should not be used as human shields.

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2017, 5:42 pm

        @Tom

        You are unusual for the BDS crowd in supporting the rights of Israeli settler children. That’s a moral position and I applaud you for it. The post was written under the assumption that wasn’t your position. Taking that position eliminates the contradiction.

        As for your question about the relevance and the Zionist project the change from Israel (a place with little evidence) to Judaea a place with enormous evidence makes a huge difference in the argument. We know a lot about Judaea from independent sources and evidence and Judaea meets the country criteria (up until at the very least 63 BCE and likely for about 130 years after that) while Palestine (the Arab country not the Roman / Byzantine country) never did.

        We may not be disagreeing here.

      • talknic
        May 1, 2017, 8:15 pm

        @ JeffB May 1, 2017, 5:42 pm

        ” We know a lot about Judaea from independent sources and evidence and Judaea meets the country criteria (up until at the very least 63 BCE and likely for about 130 years after that) while Palestine (the Arab country not the Roman / Byzantine country) never did.”

        So what? Israel proclaimed its borders effective 00:01 May 15th 1948. Nothing outside those borders was Israeli, nor is it by any agreement now.

      • Siddhartha
        May 2, 2017, 7:04 pm

        @Tom
        My opinion: Settler children (whether born in Israel or O.T.s) are blameless. They should be equal citizens

        My opinion: settler children are not blameless, they inherit the sins of their fathers.

        Automatic citizenship based on place of birth rewards violent colonialism.

        On the other hand, allowing automatic citizenship for settlers’ children means that Palestinian refugees born in mandate Palestine should be allowed to return and arguments over ancient birthrights become irrelevant.

        And what of the status of Palestinian refugees’ children born elsewhere that would have been born in mandate Palestine if not for the violent expulsion of their parents by the zionists? Surely these innocent children should receive automatic citizenship?

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2017, 9:01 pm

        “Settler children (whether born in Israel or O.T.s) are blameless. They should be equal citizens”

        Yes, sir, if there is one thing all the “settler children” can’t wait to do, it’s live as equals and compete with Palestinians. They’re just counting the days til they can do that.

      • oldgeezer
        May 2, 2017, 10:32 pm

        @Mooser

        Oh mooser, you old cynic you. How could you be so hard hearted. How could you overlook the depth of the humanity he expresses. How have you failed to notice the effort and argument he has put into alsi ensuring the rights of Palestinians to have luved amd grown up where they were born. And their children. And their children’s xhildren.

        It’s not like he’s a venal racist concerned solely with his own welfare and dispossesing those of lesser rights. It’s not like he’s only concerned for his tribe over others.

        He’s a man of high values and morality.

        Well…. one willing to tramp on the necks and lives of others in order to ensure his own self interest anyway.

        Consider the kids! Subtext… if it benefits me and mine. Otherwise screw ’em

        Personally i am not sure of these types are f.o.s. or simple a p.o.s. or more likely both.

      • echinococcus
        May 3, 2017, 2:09 am

        Hello again Suarez,

        Of course kids are blameless. How is that conceivably relevant? Since when does being blameless give all possible rights? I am totally blameless vis-à-vis the Costa-Rican government and people, but I just don’t get the Costa-Rican citizenship by just asking!

        Kids are blameless, but as I already wrote and you no doubt have sometimes heard, several civilized countries do not recognize an automatic right to citizenship based on the place of birth. Moreover, in this case Zionist entity invaders all have a homeland and at least a right to a passport, thanks to a pretty universal rule of direct descendence.

        “They should be equal citizens” -Why?
        Did the Palestinian people, owners of the sovereignty, authorize it?

      • Talkback
        May 3, 2017, 8:32 am

        JeffB: “You are unusual for the BDS crowd in supporting the rights of Israeli settler children. That’s a moral position and I applaud you for it.”

        Yeah, as moral as someone from the Zionist crowd supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees tand their children o return or that Palestinians and their children as such could settle anywhere in their homeland.

        ROFL. I’m just kidding. Such a moral Zionist doesn’t exist.

      • talknic
        May 4, 2017, 12:43 am

        “Settler children (whether born in Israel or O.T.s) are blameless. They should be equal citizens”

        Blameless, yes. However;

        A) They already have Israeli citizenship.

        B) What about their Israeli parents? Boot them out, but allow their children to stay? Or for the sake of the children allow parents and children equal citizenship.

        Furthermore if they already have Israeli citizenship, should they forgo one for the other or might they become dual citizens if Palestine were to allow dual citizenship?

        Would Israel agree to reciprocate with dual citizenship for Palestinians? ‘equal citizenship’ might be a whole lot easier said than done

      • YoniFalic
        May 4, 2017, 4:59 am

        I know of no situation where past or ongoing crime (genocide in the case of Israel and Zionists) establishes a right.

      • echinococcus
        May 4, 2017, 9:10 am

        Talknic,

        A) They already have Israeli citizenship.

        Thereby sealing the total success of the genocidal Zioperation, with Talknic and others recommending that such success be respected and not allowed to be undone.
        The only significant citizenship they have, or at least the automatic right to one, is that of their countries of origin, so they can be sent out of Palestine. Or to the US, which has already guaranteed taking up those who don’t like their own countries of origin –provided they are “Jewish”.
        Palestine meaning Palestine, as of before the British invasion.

        B) What about their Israeli parents? Boot them out, but allow their children to stay? Or for the sake of the children allow parents and children equal citizenship.

        Why should the children stay, forget the parents? I haven’t seen any of you guys asking the only ones entitled to decide, i.e. Palestinian people, in the absence of any duress or occupation.

        Or, yeah, add the bloody Brownshirt parents, too, under some family reunification scheme, to ensure the definitive success of Zionism! Very good.

        Furthermore if they already have Israeli citizenship, should they forgo one for the other or might they become dual citizens if Palestine were to allow dual citizenship?

        My my, now all of a sudden we respect some Palestinian decision as to citizenship, do we? But just making sure it is some occupied, enslaved, US-bought non-existing “Palestine” led by “Israel” occupation policemen. Not the Palestinian people consulted freely.
        Because the latter may require getting rid of the “Israel” monster in the first place, I imagine.

        Would Israel agree to reciprocate with dual citizenship for Palestinians? ‘equal citizenship’ might be a whole lot easier said than done

        If you really believe that “Israel” will agree to anything at all anytime, including the very existence of an unoccupied Palestinian non-Bantustan –I mean if you really consider it possible willingly coming from a Zionist entity undefeated by major violence or pie-in-the-sky US pressure, you must be a very trusting person.

      • Talkback
        May 4, 2017, 2:23 pm

        I still think that neither Israelis nor the settlers are the problem, but the fact that they claim rights they deny to Palestinians, especially to Palestinians refugees. That is the right to return or to settle everywhere in hist. Palestine.

      • Mooser
        May 4, 2017, 5:26 pm

        “I still think that neither Israelis nor the settlers are the problem, but the fact that they claim rights they deny to Palestinians, especially to Palestinians refugees. That is the right to return or to settle everywhere in hist. Palestine.”

        Well, when you come up with a way for people to be Israelis or settlers, and not claim those rights, and deny them to the Palestinians, you let us know.

      • Mooser
        May 4, 2017, 6:30 pm

        “That is the right to return…”

        None of the Zionists, by any stretch of the imagination was ‘returning’.

      • yonah fredman
        May 4, 2017, 8:20 pm

        Mooser- if myths and liturgy sometimes reflect a stretch of the imagination, that is precisely the term that is used ” return to zion”. Certainly the Palestinians qua inhabitants might scoff at the phrase, but I don’t know how (or if) true believers in the qoranic tradition of respect for pre mohammed prophets: moses and David and respect for the book and people of the book and thus the book of psalms, how can they denigrate this language found in the book.
        Of course those who have no respect for the book, they can denigrate or derogate all you want.
        And also the book does not supercede all considerations. And also just because jews fixate on specific phrases from the book, does not mean that jews are deserving and will get to keep the land of zion. But from a believer perspective your mockery is not fitting.

      • Mooser
        May 5, 2017, 11:22 am

        That’s right “Yonah”! Belief in the Jewish religion should return material rewards, like land, political power and monetary support. And legal and moral immunity!

        Everybody knows that, the Gentiles, the world, God Himself- they all owe us Jews something. The bill has come due, and we are going to get paid!
        And you “Yonah”, are just the guy to collect that debt. After all, it’s right there “on the books” ain’t it?

      • Mooser
        May 5, 2017, 6:09 pm

        “But from a believer perspective your mockery is not fitting.”

        Sure, because Zionism is the true measure and only measure of Jewish belief. And to mock Zionism is to mock Judaism.

      • talknic
        May 6, 2017, 11:29 am

        @ echinococcus May 4, 2017, 9:10 am

        Talknic, A) They already have Israeli citizenship.

        “Thereby sealing the total success of the genocidal Zioperation, with Talknic and others recommending that such success be respected and not allowed to be undone”

        Quote me. Otherwise STFU thx. Your stupid accusations against me are quite tiresome, unnecessary and becoming more and more bizarre.

        “The only significant citizenship they have, or at least the automatic right to one, is that of their countries of origin, so they can be sent out of Palestine. “

        For children born in Palestine., Palestine is their country of origin. However, I’m of the opinion they should be with their parents if their parents are booted out

        Talknic, B) What about their Israeli parents? Boot them out, but allow their children to stay? Or for the sake of the children allow parents and children equal citizenship.

        “Why should the children stay, forget the parents? I haven’t seen any of you guys asking the only ones entitled to decide, i.e. Palestinian people, in the absence of any duress or occupation.”

        Strange.

        Furthermore if they already have Israeli citizenship, should they forgo one for the other or might they become dual citizens if Palestine were to allow dual citizenship? http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/map-map-on-the-wall-whos-most-existing-of-them-all/#comment-878481

        “Or, yeah, add the bloody Brownshirt parents, too, under some family reunification scheme, to ensure the definitive success of Zionism! Very good.”

        If you say so

        “My my, now all of a sudden we respect some Palestinian decision as to citizenship, do we? “

        Strange: This yours “I haven’t seen any of you guys asking the only ones entitled to decide, i.e. Palestinian people, in the absence of any duress or occupation.” You’re running around in circles. Take a chill pill

        “But just making sure it is some occupied, enslaved, US-bought non-existing “Palestine” led by “Israel” occupation policemen. Not the Palestinian people consulted freely.”

        If you say so. I haven’t

        Talknic: Would Israel agree to reciprocate with dual citizenship for Palestinians? ‘equal citizenship’ might be a whole lot easier said than done

        “If you really believe that “Israel” will agree to anything at all anytime…. etc blah blah.”

        No. Why do you think I asked?

        You’re barking up the wrong tree

        again

    • RoHa
      April 30, 2017, 8:31 pm

      “The definition of a country is a nation residing in a territory governing that territory. ”

      What do you mean by “nation”? P-nation, n-nation, c-nation, or something else?

      • talknic
        May 1, 2017, 4:27 am

        Ooops

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2017, 5:47 pm

        @RoHa

        Sort of neither and sort of both. If the p-nation is also an n-nation then since they created a government they become a country. If the p-nation isn’t an n-nation you might very well have an empire or a confederation not a country.

        Your assumptions and Tom’s assumptions are a bit different which is making the question complicated.

      • RoHa
        May 2, 2017, 2:00 am

        “If the p-nation isn’t an n-nation you might very well have an empire or a confederation not a country.”

        Would Canada, Brazil, India, Iran, China, and Russia count as countries? I could make a case for each of them having more than one n-nation.

        (I am not sure that this is terribly important, since I do not see the rights of the Palestinians dependent upon whether or not Palestine was ever a “country”.)

    • talknic
      May 1, 2017, 12:55 am

      @ Jeff B

      Whether or not Palestine existed or was a state doesn’t give Israel any legal, moral, ethical or historical right to claim ANY territories outside of its borders

      At 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel proclaimed the borders in its official plea for recognition effective and it was recognized as such. Nothing outside of those borders was Israeli. No further territories have been legally acquired by Israel by any legal agreement with Palestine.

      GC IV has been ratified by a majority of nations, thereby passing into Customary International Law. All law is binding. Israeli citizens, Arab, Jew, non-Jew alike are prohibited by CG IV to protect the rights of the occupied AND for the protection of the civilian population of the Occupying Power from the likely collateral consequences of belligerently occupying another people and their territories.

      Only a scum government would encourage its citizens to illegally settle in contravention of GC IV thereby putting themselves in harms way in a war zone and only a scum government would lie to its citizens in order to convince them it is their right to settle in occupied territories outside the State. Only scum would support such a government and only scum would purposefully loan specifically poor Jews money specifically at interest, to put themselves specifically on the front lines.

      • talknic
        May 1, 2017, 4:28 am

        Correction: Israeli citizens, Arab, Jew, non-Jew alike are prohibited by CG IV from settling in Occupied Territories to protect the rights of the occupied AND for the protection of the civilian population of the Occupying Power from the likely collateral consequences of belligerently occupying another people and their territories. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/map-map-on-the-wall-whos-most-existing-of-them-all/comment-page-1/#comment-878033

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2017, 5:51 pm

        @talknic

        Whether or not Palestine existed or was a state doesn’t give Israel any legal, moral, ethical or historical right to claim ANY territories outside of its borders

        I’m not sure how your concept of “right” here is relevant. Tom’s article is about what happened. Not what should have happened. I’d also say you are disagreeing with the author. He’s saying precisely the opposite. That nations do have a right to form states and the borders of that state are defined by the borders of the nation not the borders imposed by external entities.

        So read the article and take it up with him.

      • talknic
        May 1, 2017, 8:22 pm

        @ JeffB May 1, 2017, 5:51 pm

        ” … nations do have a right to form states and the borders of that state are defined by the borders of the nation not the borders imposed by external entities.”

        Uh huh. Israel proclaimed its borders effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time. Nothing that lay outside of its borders was or is now Israeli by any agreement.

        The stench of your hypocrisy is classic ZioNutter. Only a real cretin would make your argument and not also apply it to Palestine, now under Israeli occupation, where Israel demands more of what is not Israeli while offering no thing

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2017, 10:57 pm

        @talknic

        I really don’t want to be covering the same ground over and over. But Israel did not proclaim its borders in 1948. There was no Israel to proclaim borders. The Yishuv agreed to proposed borders. Those borders were rejected by the other party and the civil war continued in mandate Palestine. In 1949 there was an armistice. Israel has never relinquished claim to any territory from Mandate Palestine except Gaza.

      • talknic
        May 2, 2017, 12:14 pm

        @ JeffB May 1, 2017, 10:57 pm

        “… Israel did not proclaim its borders in 1948. There was no Israel to proclaim borders. “

        Strange. May 15, 1948

        Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

        “The Yishuv agreed to proposed borders. Those borders were rejected by the other party and the civil war continued in mandate Palestine. “

        Strange

        “ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE … etc etc ”
        http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx

        “In 1949 there was an armistice. Israel has never relinquished claim to any territory from Mandate Palestine except Gaza.”

        It has been inadmissible to acquire territory by war since at least 1945.

        BTW the Egypt /Israel Armistice Agreement, that’s when parties agree in case you didn’t know, Israel agreed that” 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. “ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp

        In the Lebanon/Israel Armistice Agreement, Israel agreed that the ” … Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/71260B776D62FA6E852564420059C4FE

        .

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2017, 12:42 pm

        “Only a real cretin would make your argument and not also apply it to…”

        Haven’t you noticed “JeffB’s” big lapel button? It say “Jews sui generis!”

    • YoniFalic
      May 1, 2017, 3:52 am

      Yehud and Samar were non-sovereign provinces within the Persian Empire when the Greeks conquered the Persians.

      The first independent ruler of Judea during the Greco-Roman period was Judah Aristobulus I c. 104–103 BCE. Alexander Jannaeus c. 103 – 76 BCE was the second independent ruler. Salome Alexandra or Alexandra of Jerusalem (141–67 BCE) was the last independent ruler of Judea during the Greco-Roman period. These rulers were Judeans and not Jews a term that should only be used after the 10th century CE.

      Greco-Roman Judeans are ancestors of native Palestinians and not of E. European Jewish Slavo-Turks, whose ancestors converted to Judaism about approximately 1300 to 1000 years ago and who have only fictional connection to Palestine.

      None of the E. European invader population (or its non-European lackeys) has any right to live in Palestine under the international anti-genocide legal regime. It was vile and criminal to found a state after Auschwitz in post-Auschwitz genocide (and especially after the Nuremberg IMT which is terminus a quo for the international anti-genocide legal regime).

      The international anti-genocide legal regime is completely meaningless as long as the State of Israel continues to exist and if the criminal genocidaire invader population is granted rights on the basis of the criminal genocide that it has committed and continues to commit.

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2017, 5:54 pm

        @Yoni

        Jew is just a translation of Judaean as you well know. Jews make claim to be Judaeans. I don’t buy into your conversion theory it falls apart too quickly. If these converts had no contact with descendants of original Judaeans how did they come to be able to do things like speak Hebrew and Aramaic? If had contact why do you suspect the missionaries didn’t have natural children?

        Similarly for Palestinians. If Palestine is descended from Judaea then why do they speak an Eastern Arabian peninsula language and worship and Eastern Arabian peninsula god?

        Unless you want to talk pure racism in terms of percentages of DNA I don’t know how your theory makes any sense at all.

      • Jerry Hirsch
        May 2, 2017, 2:10 am

        Yonifalic,

        Elhaik’s Khazar theory you allude to has been debunked, and by a surprising source.

        David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan refutes Elhaiks Khazar theory. Here is a short excerpt from his well documented rebuttal.

        “The most important error in Elhaik’s paper, however, is actually openly admitted: namely that there is actually no “Khazar DNA” in existence, against which any sort of measurement can be taken.

        Elhaik himself admits this in his paper: the “Khazars have been vanquished and their remains have yet to be sequenced. . .”—in other words there is no record of what exactly Khazar DNA might have been.

        As there is no record of what Khazar DNA is—it is, ipso facto, physically impossible to determine who is descended from it and who is not.

        Elhaik attempts to circumvent this major problem by selecting what he calls “surrogate populations”—in this case, “contemporary Middle Eastern and Caucasus populations.”

        Anyone with a basic understanding of historical events in the Caucasus in particular will immediately see that Elhaik’s assertion that current populations in that region can be taken to reflect those of 1,500 years ago, is highly problematic and quite simply, unsustainable.

        The Caucasus, a region at the border of Europe and Asia, situated between the Black and the Caspian seas, has been crisscrossed by numerous peoples and races over the last 2000 years, ranging from Indo-Europeans, Semites, Mongols and others—and is today highly genetically diverse. A claim that DNA samples from this region can be taken as any sort of DNA yardstick, is dubious to say the very least.

        Finally, Elhaik’s methodology in comparing the DNA samples is, to make an understatement, unique to him. As Marcus Feldman, director of Stanford University’s Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, said, “He [Elhaik] appears to be applying the statistics in a way that gives him different results from what everybody else has obtained from essentially similar data.”

        https://www.justice4poland.com/2016/08/16/rethinking-the-khazar-theory/amp/

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2017, 12:59 pm

        “Elhaik’s Khazar theory you allude to has been debunked, and by a surprising source.

        David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan refutes Elhaiks Khazar theory. Here is a short excerpt from his well documented rebuttal.”

        Wow! And I thought I did ‘irony’?
        Good work “Jerry” but I warn you, it’s a risky thing on the web, tends to backfire.

        “Well documented”? Good one. yeah, I’m sure a lot of people noted Dukes ‘rebuttal’.

      • lyn117
        May 3, 2017, 10:48 pm

        @JeffB “Jew is just a translation of Judaean”

        No, a Judaean is a person from Judaea. A Jew is a member of a religious/cultural group.

        Having contact with ancient Jews (circa 1300+ years ago) is exactly how the Khazarians converted. Ancient Jews sent out proselytizers. The actual Jews who were proselytizing at that time were more likely from Mesopotamia, they weren’t Judaeans.

        @Jerry Hirsch

        Actually, the Khazarian theory is supported by DNA evidence, see
        https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/1/61/728117/The-Missing-Link-of-Jewish-European-Ancestry

      • G. Seauton
        May 6, 2017, 2:42 am

        Yoni, I follow your argument and generally appreciate your points. Since I am not a historian, however, I have a couple of questions.

        (1) It seems to me that in referring to Eastern European Jews as “Slavo-Turks,” whose ancestors converted to Judaism “approximately 1300 to 1000 years ago and have only fictional connection to Palestine,” you are following Shlomo Sand. But is there a historical record beyond what Sand presents that establishes that link, and how do you reconcile the “Khazar Hypothesis” with the sparseness of the historical record concerning the Khazar Empire (if that record is indeed as sparse as is claimed)?

        (2) What is a serious rebuttal to Sand’s many detractors among modern historians that goes beyond dismissing them as frauds and charlatans? (Serious question.)

        I tend to think that Sand is correct, but the outright rejection of his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” by so many historians — OK, maybe they’re just Zionists with an agenda — makes me wonder.

      • YoniFalic
        May 8, 2017, 7:04 am

        @G. Seauton,

        1. Sand is not an historian of Jews, Judeans, and Judaic populations as I am. He is an historian of France.

        2. Yet Sand explains something obvious. The claim that the Romans expelled Judeans, who were taken or expelled to Italy, migrated into France & Germany (actually Lotharingia), and thence east is so stupid and moronic that believing this nonsense puts one’s sapience in question.

        3. Most of the Judaic population by the 2nd century (and probably much earlier) were of non-Judean origin. Judaism was a regional cult that spread to other regions like the Olympian cult. Lyn117 is absolutely correct about the distinction between Judeans and Jews. Classic Greek and Latin authors (including those that practiced a Judaic or Hebraic religion) made a similar distinction between Judeans and Judaics.

        4. Colloquial Palestinian Arabic is Palestinian Judean Hebrew/Aramaic that has been relexified to Arabic while Colloquial Iraqi Arabic is Mesopotamian Aramaic that has been relexified to Arabic. Semiticists noticed this linguistic evolution in the 19th century even if “relexify” is a modern term.

        5. JeffB and Jerry Hirsch belong to the class of morons, ignoramuses, or liars that spew evil and ridiculous Zionist ideas. I recommend reading the following to understand how truly evil and stupid their ideas are and why such people deserve the hate and scorn of all decent human beings.

        http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2007/07/no-rivkele-there-wasnt-roman-exile-of.html

        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1PzrttiPfjMMHd1MnJXMHVrWTQ

        I am a native speaker of Modern Israeli Hebrew, Yiddish, Polish, and Ukrainian. It is obvious to me that all are Slavic languages. MIH and Yiddish are relexified Slavic languages.

        https://books.google.com/books/about/Two_tiered_Relexification_in_Yiddish.html?id=JL7CY2MW63gC

        Dense reading but on the mark.

        http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2014.00462/full

        http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2016.00141/full

        https://books.google.com/books?id=QdqYOjtjdNkC

        I took courses from Nadia Abu el-Haj at Columbia. I consider her one of the top Jewish studies scholars of our generation.

      • MHughes976
        May 8, 2017, 11:22 am

        I wonder, lyn and yoni, how you understand ‘Ioudaioi’ – they ‘have much advantage every way’ you know – in the New Testament? Is the usage consistent?

      • YoniFalic
        May 8, 2017, 11:41 am

        Jesus was a Galilean subject of a Judean sovereign. Often the classical writers describe the subjects of the Judean sovereigns by means of the demonym Judean even though the subjects might use more specific terminology among themselves.

        Jesus practiced a popular form of Judaic religion. The dominant form in the region was elite Jerusalem Temple Judaic religion.

        The Herodians (and the preceding Hasmoneans) also had subjects that did not practice a Judaic religion.

        Shaye Cohen argues in The Beginnings of Jewishness that Jewishness begins in the 3rd century. I would argue for a later date and that there is no specific temporal boundary point but a gradual evolution. For example Saadya Gaon is in the 10th century a fully Rabbinic Jewish thinker, and his Karaite opponents represent fully Karaite Jewish thinkers.

        Before Saadya there are scholars and believers that approximate Rabbinic or Karaite Jewish thinking and faith, but the edges are blurry or less distinct.

      • YoniFalic
        May 8, 2017, 12:17 pm

        BTW, I see no reason not to translate Ἰουδαίους by means of “Judeans” in Romans 3:9.

        Τί οὖν; προεχόμεθα; οὐ πάντως· προῃτιασάμεθα γὰρ Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι,

        Using the word “Jew” to translate any form of Ιουδαίος found in the New Testament is completely wrong.

      • echinococcus
        May 8, 2017, 1:26 pm

        Falic,

        Using the word “Jew” to translate any form of Ιουδαίος found in the New Testament is completely wrong

        You should provide a little more detail to convince the theologically clueless. Linguistically it may mean, depending on context, Jew, Judean, or, as you just observed, also “subject of the Judean dynasties”.

        One possible clue for not interpreting ιουδαίοι as “Jews” would be passages where non-Palestinian Jews are called something else in contrast to the Palestinian ones, or if there is a consistent use of, say, `εβραίοι for the tribe or religion vs. ιουδαίοι for geography, etc. Is there something like that, or any other clues?

        If the only reason you say the only interpretation is geographical because non-Jewish populations were part of the kingdom of Judea, it may well be that the meaning was left to context of use. That is often the way language works.

      • Mooser
        May 8, 2017, 3:19 pm

        “5. JeffB and Jerry Hirsch belong to the class of morons, ignoramuses, or liars that spew evil and ridiculous Zionist ideas”

        Or maybe they have a sense of how much the world owes the Jews? And the certainty they are in line for the pay-off.

      • YoniFalic
        May 8, 2017, 10:39 pm

        Here are some links from people that care about theology from a religious perspective.

        http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/Yahshuawasnojew%5B1%5D.htm

        http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/difference-translation-makes-ideological-analysis-ioudaios-debate-james-crossley/

        James Crossley seems unaware that most of our knowledge of the Khazars comes from Jewish sources. His peremptory dismissal of the obvious origin of E. European Jews in Slavic and Turkic conversions shows that he has been mentally colonized by Zionism.

        As for the common Latin usage which tends to be extremely precise, consider the fiscus iudaicus, to wit, Judaic tax imposed on all who practiced Judaism. The tax was not a fiscus iudaeus, to wit, Judean tax. A person did have to come from Judea or have Judean ancestry to be subject to the fiscus iudaicus. In fact, most who paid the fiscus iudaicus were not Judean in either sense.

      • YoniFalic
        May 9, 2017, 9:47 am

        My thoughts get ahead of my typing. Sorry. I meant the following.

        A person did NOT have to come from Judea or have Judean ancestry to be subject to the fiscus iudaicus. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/map-map-on-the-wall-whos-most-existing-of-them-all/#comment-176705

      • Mooser
        May 9, 2017, 11:03 am

        “Rabbinic Jewish thinker, and his Karaite opponents represent fully Karaite Jewish thinkers.”

        Judo-Bolsheviks vs. Karate Jews. That’s a match I’d pay good money to see.

      • YoniFalic
        May 9, 2017, 4:06 pm

        While relations between Karaite Jews and Rabbinic Jews went steadily downhill in Eastern Europe since the 18th century, there was one famous Karaite Jew, who could be considered a Judeo-Bolshevik.

        His name is Adolph Abramovich Joffe. You can find his last letter to Leon Trotsky here.

        https://www.bolshevik.info/last-words-of-adolf-joffe.htm

        On the 16th November 1927, scarcely ten days after the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution, Adolf Joffe shot himself. At his bedside he left a letter to Leon Trotsky, a translation of which we are publishing today for our readers (1) together with a brief explanatory introduction. These are the words of a genuine Bolshevik and victim of the Stalinist terror.

    • echinococcus
      May 1, 2017, 5:15 am

      Jeff is losing it again. Intent on demonstrating that Zionists are indeed barbarians totally devoid of any sense of history. Just like the Nazis or the Turanists, he comes with

      The definition of a country is a nation residing in a territory governing that territory. So yes, if there is no government there is no country. Moreover there is little evidence for a distinct: language, culture, history or national culture prior to Zionism.

      Just forgets that not only Palestine flourished as a region to itself within all of the great empires of the West and some of the East, his pathetic, fleeting little Jewish shepherd kingdoms also were insignificant cogs within these empires. Not to mention that history outside his myth book does not even bother to document his mythical kingdoms.

      If our homegrown racial fascists have only contempt for non-independent nations, the same content applies to their little corners that perhaps existed.

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2017, 5:56 pm

        @echinococcus

        There was a period of time that Judaea was independent and it didn’t perhaps exist. The evidence for Judaea: historically, archeologically, linguistically is overwhelming.

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2017, 11:27 pm

        @echinococcus

        Not to mention that history outside his myth book does not even bother to document his mythical kingdoms.

        Excluding all the archeological evidence both in Israel and outside (for example the Arch of Titus in Rome) that still exists: and of course the many books of the Christian Apocrypha that that are quite detailed:
        Eusebius of Caesarea in Præparatio Evangelica ix. 18, 23, 27
        Clement of Alexandria i. 23, 154
        Strabo, The Geography, Book XVI.ii.34-38, 40, 46, c. 22 CE
        Tacitus: The Histories, Book V
        Josephus of course
        Pliny the Elder writes about the conquest of Judaea throughout

        etc… I don’t know where you got this idea that Judaea’s existence is questioned by anyone.

      • echinococcus
        May 2, 2017, 9:28 am

        Don’t make me laugh, I have cold sores. Of course there is abundant documentation that there was, among several other (rather fluid) little fiefdoms in Palestine, also Judaean “kingdoms”. What is not documented is any title to exception, as they don’t seem to have been the single entity of Syria, or even only Palestine, or independent of the neighboring empires, i.e. just one relatively insignificant hen roost among many. Not what would fit your strange 19th C Bismarckian standards for “Country”.
        Not that anything would justify the invasion of Palestine in the 19-20 C anyway. Shoo.

      • G. Seauton
        May 9, 2017, 12:24 am

        Yoni, thank you for your answer. The reading is very interesting.

        Echinococcus, I think what Yoni is saying is that the word Ιουδαίος is used to mean “Jew” in the sense of “practitioner of Judaism,” as opposed to, say, a Judean believer in Christianity, among other adherents to that belief, especially since the New Testament relates the emergence of Christian practice within the Jewish context (and as it happens, within the territory of Judea and expanding outwards).

    • Talkback
      May 2, 2017, 11:03 am

      JeffB: “The definition of a country is a nation residing in a territory governing that territory. So yes, if there is no government there is no country. ”

      Not true in states under protectorate, mandate or occupation, etc.

      JeffB: “Moreover there is little evidence for a distinct: language, culture, history or national culture prior to Zionism.”

      Irrelevant regarding the right to self determination.

      JeffB: “Inhabitation does not make a country. New Jersey is inhabited but it isn’t a country.”

      Straw argument. New Jersey is part of the US. If it wasn’t part of any state it’s inhabitants could exercise their right to self determination by creating a state or merging with another.

      JeffB: “Every day there is an argument about the “settlers” right to live their own lives in their own homes on their own land.”

      Another straw man. Citizens of an occupation power don’t have a right to settle in occupied territories. It doesn’t matter if they are Nazis or Zionists.

      JeffB: “If you believe that people have a right to live where they are born, welcome to Zionism of the 2017 regardless of whether you would have agreed with the Zionism of 1917 or not.”

      But only if you are a Jew and not if you are a Palestinian or his descendant who wishes to return. That’s Zionism 101, one of the most disgusting examples of racism since 1947.

      JeffB: “We know a lot about Judaea from independent sources and evidence and Judaea meets the country criteria (up until at the very least 63 BCE and likely for about 130 years after that) while Palestine (the Arab country not the Roman / Byzantine country) never did.”

      Well JeffB, we know that Palestine was a STATE under mandate according to the mandatory, the permanent mandate commission of the league of nation, the permanent court of international justice (see Mavromatis case) and every bi- or multilateral state contract that the mandatory concluded on Palestine’s behalf and entered the Nation League treaty series.

      We know that a nationality law was enacted in 1925 which formed the Palestinian nation. Palestinians are a constitutive people, a nation/citizenship. Jews are not and will never be. The Zionist abuse of the term “nation” refers only to a “nationality” WITHIN citizenship not to a nationality in the sense of citizenship. And the fact that Israel only sees Jews as “nationals” while Nonjews are excluded is the same to the Nazi’s appproach which saw only volkish Germans as nationals while Jews and others were excluded.

      JeffB: “Whether or not Palestine existed or was a state doesn’t give Israel any legal, moral, ethical or historical right to claim ANY territories outside of its borders.”

      Oh well, what right did Israel have to claim ANY territory within 48 borders? Excßt the pseudo legal invention of a “historical right” which doesn’t exist in international law at least since 1945 and the following Nuremberg trials?

      JeffB: “That nations do have a right to form states …”

      Exactly. People with Palestinian citizenship had the right to see Palestine being released into indepedence in 1948. Refugees and illegal immigrants don’t have this political right. And settlers who are enforced upon the population violate the the populations’s right to self determination. Whether in 1917, 1927, 1947, 1967 or in 2017.

      • G. Seauton
        May 9, 2017, 10:18 pm

        OK, referring to my own comment above (i.e., I think what Yoni is saying is that the word Ιουδαίος is used to mean “Jew” in the sense of “practitioner of Judaism,” as opposed to, say, a Judean believer in Christianity….), I think that’s not exactly right. Jews were not necessarily separate from Christians at that time. Christians were a particular sect of Judaism during the time when Paul lived. The major categorical distinction was between Ioudaioi and Hellenoi, or Jews and Gentiles. (Hellenoi is from the same root as the word for Greeks, if I’m not mistaken.) So Paul could be referring to some Christians as Ioudaioi, I think. Paul himself was from Tarsus, not Judea, but of Jewish upbringing. Were his parents Judeans? I find no information on that. But I think he refers to himself as Ioudaios. Yoni? Please correct whatever I’ve got wrong here. Thanks.

      • MHughes976
        May 10, 2017, 4:33 pm

        GS – in Galatians 1:13+ Paul refers to himself as formerly ‘within Judaism’ and zealous for the traditions of the fathers. In Philippians 3:3+ he says that was circumcised on the 8th day and a Hebrew of the Hebrews (= understanding the Hebrew language?), in II Cor. 11:22 that he is Hebrew, Israelite and of Abraham’s seed. Is he avoiding using Ioudaios because he was not born in Judaea? I don’t really think so, because he refers to the Galilean Peter as ‘Ioudaios’ in Gal. 2:14, just as he refers to Titus ‘being Greek’ a few verses earlier – this being a cultural term, surely, rather than a reference to birthplace. So with respect I differ from Yoni on this.
        The Greek for a Greek, Hellen, has the plural Hellenes.

    • lyn117
      May 3, 2017, 6:52 pm

      Since the Crusader state of Jerusalem was an independent and sovereign entity, that must give every Christian in the world the right to move to Palestine and form an independent, sovereign Christian state there, and terrorize, massacre or expel most of the existing Jews in order to create a solid Christian majority. Also, because, as we all know, Palestine is the Christian homeland (I mean, Jesus walked there).

      • RoHa
        May 3, 2017, 10:34 pm

        I just said that. I’m glad you agree.

      • G. Seauton
        May 11, 2017, 3:49 am

        To MHughes976 — Interesting comment — maybe you’re right, but I’m not entirely convinced. You’re right about the plural of Greek being Hellenes (I should have read my Liddell and Scott more carefully), and my Greek is rusty. So I used a King James translation side by side with the Greek New Testament. But Hellen also had the meaning “Gentile”; the King James version translates Romans 2:9, to which Yoni refers above, as saying, “What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin….” The word in the Greek for “Gentiles” is Hellenas, which is an accusative plural form. In Romans 1:14, we have Hellesin te kai Barbarois …., which is “to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians,” from the line “I am debtor to both the Greeks, and to the Barbarians….” in the King James. So Hellen is a third-declension noun, I suppose. But if there are no form differences in the plural for “Greeks” and “Gentiles,” what contexts did the translators of the King James Bible use to make the distinction? Other texts in different languages? I’m not a Bible scholar, so I don’t know. In any case, I do think that there was clearly a Hellenes vs Ioudaioi distinction, which I see as “Gentiles” vs. “Jews,” or adherents to Judaism. And there was not an absolute distinction between Ioudaioi and Christians during Paul’s time, since some (most?) of the Christians also considered themselves Ioudaioi. For example, at one point Paul reproaches Peter, whom he calls Ioudaios, for living like a Gentile while expecting the Gentiles to follow the Law (Galatians 2:14) — as I see after writing this you already pointed out.

      • MHughes976
        May 15, 2017, 4:59 pm

        Steve Mason’s ‘Jews, Judaeans, Judaizers, Judaism’ in the Journal for the Study of Judaism 38, 2007 seems to the locus classicus for Yoni’s ‘Judaean’ view of Ioudaioi.

    • Vikram
      May 4, 2017, 1:37 pm

      I don’t understand why you talk about rights as clearly you Zionists don’t give a tinker’s curse about the rights of others. The Zionist takeover of Palestine was a criminal enterprise from the start. This is clear from the writings of Zionist leaders from the start. All that bullshit about “a
      Land without a people for a people without land” was bullshit.

      However, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting him back in. More and more American Jews are becoming wise to the reality of the situation and it is only a matter of time before the majority of Americans realise that they have been lied to for so long. Then, the game will be up.

      • echinococcus
        May 4, 2017, 4:09 pm

        Vikram,

        However, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting him back in.

        That’s a passing strange statement.
        Especially given that you must have heard that so many Asian and African countries did put the genie back in the bottle. Among very many others, India kicked out the English in 1946 or thereabouts. Algeria got rid of most its French colonists in 1962. That’s just yesterday!

      • YoniFalic
        May 5, 2017, 7:28 am

        And let’s not forget Ireland! It’s not quite complete, but the settler invader population is gradually losing out in the north and will probably be gone in slightly more than a generation.

        The moving Belfast map describes what will happen in Stolen and Occupied Palestine very quickly when the white racist genocidal European colonial settler invaders and their lackeys finally realize they must leave.

        http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/two-tribes-a-divided-northern-ireland-1.3030921

  2. MHughes976
    April 30, 2017, 10:08 pm

    It seems odd to define country, normally a place, in terms of nation, normally a group of people.

    • WH
      May 1, 2017, 4:52 pm

      Hardly. England took its name from the Angles, the smaller tribe in the Anglo-Saxon duo. Some Celtic Britons migrated to modern-day France, to the region which became known as Brittony. Some Norse folk also moved to France, and their domain was subsequently called Normandy. There are countless other examples; in times of migration, it’s common for a people to arrive somewhere and name the country after themselves, or for someone else to refer to it like that.

      • MHughes976
        May 1, 2017, 6:43 pm

        Yes, that is true, but I don’t think that a connection of names is the same thing as a definition. I don’t object to unusual definitions for a special purpose but in normal usage England is not the people who have this or that characteristic but the place where those people live.

    • JeffB
      May 1, 2017, 6:02 pm

      @MHughes976

      There are for most places not clean natural borders. How does one define where one place (territory) ends and another starts?

      Is Alderney part of England?
      Is Sark part of England?
      Is Lihou park of England?

      How does one answer those questions. That’s why we talk in terms of nations.

      This gets worse for most places in the world that aren’t Islands. For example the Island of Hispaniola is divided into Haiti and the Dominican Republic because two nations (one French speaking, one Spanish speaking) live there.

      • talknic
        May 1, 2017, 8:29 pm

        @ JeffB May 1, 2017, 6:02 pm

        ” How does one define where one place (territory) ends and another starts?”

        Like this

        May 15, 1948

        Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel , “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law</strong. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      • MHughes976
        May 2, 2017, 11:23 am

        There are all sorts of problems in demarcating both territories and populations. I think that Sark is definitely not part of England but perhaps I could claim that the people of Sark have some sort of affinity with us English. (They mightn’t agree; I don’t know any of them.). The nation is not necessarily easier to demarcate than the territory. Scotland is surely (surely!) part of Britain but it is much doubted whether Scots are British. But that is not the real point. It is surely (surely!) extremely convenient to keep one list of words for territories and one for groups of people and to keep their meanings separate.
        Perhaps I’m making (even) less sense than usual because I’ve been visiting the family in America and am a bit jet lagged. Maybe I’ll get a burst of energy and coherence later.

  3. MHughes976
    May 1, 2017, 7:59 am

    The people living in a certain area are just as much subjects or citizens of a sovereign state if a) that area is the entire territory of the state in question or b) it is one of many provinces of a larger state. Conquest – killing and taking possession, excluding or disfranchising – is rather ckearky an offence, a cruel one, too – against the people of an area even if other areas, formerly other provinces of the same polity, are not conquered. If it is true that being born in an area (rather than being born to parents rightfully present) implies full political rights there then the current regime in Palestine is, unless you introduce certain very strong exceptions to the rule, clearly problematic.

    • JeffB
      May 1, 2017, 6:04 pm

      @MHughes976

      How so? Keep going with that hypothetical where you drop “rightfully present”.

      • MHughes976
        May 2, 2017, 11:06 am

        I meant that if the right to full citizenship with all the trimmings is absolute for those born in place, as in the US though not in the UK (where the presence of the parents has to be in some degree rightful), then Israel, which has exercised sovereign power in a way that excludes many local borns and disfranchises others, is doing something problematic, i.e. not treating the right as absolute but as contingent on something.
        I understand the Zionist view to be that there are two sorts of right to full citizenship in the Holy Land – an inherent right (birthright) for all who are Jewish and a conferred right for some who are not Jewish but to whom it is possible for a government springing from the Jewish population to extend generosity – it being understood that generosity within the needs of security and survival will be a prominent festure of the situation. The rights of locally born non-Jewish people are then contingent on their not being a threat to the ‘birthright’ group. If they are a threat, even just by being and remaining there, their rights are limited and precarious. That is to say that in an important sense they have no right to be there at all.
        Some of us think that the imposition of this theory has been a cruel act, in itself a moral offence, meaning that the Israeli presence is wrongful.
        One of the reasons frequently offered for denying birthright to Palestinians is the claim that ‘Palestine is not a country’, only a province of some larger, cuitually homogeneous entity. There can be a bit of discussion about this, but I cannot see how it’s going to make any difference to the Palestinians’ moral rights.

  4. Elizabeth Block
    May 1, 2017, 9:57 am

    Shlomo Sand (in The Invention of the Jewish People) quotes Isaac Asimov saying that maybe he’s not descended from people who lived in ancient Palestine, but from people who lived in Central Asia (the Khazars), and he says “Who knows? and who cares?”
    Wise man.

    • Mooser
      May 2, 2017, 1:03 pm

      “Isaac Asimov saying that maybe he’s not descended from people who lived in ancient Palestine, but from people who lived in Central Asia”

      That’s cool, I’m descended from people who lived in Central Park. No, not “on” Central Park.

  5. Boo
    May 1, 2017, 11:35 am

    “Sovereign, independent political entities”, aka “nations”, are largely sociopolitical figments that have no real-world ground truth, particularly in the Mideast.

    The “nations” created by the colonialist powers’ post-WW1 divvying up of the corpus of the senescent Ottoman Empire provide all the evidence we need.

    Reference to this bogus standard is all too typical of radical Zionism’s infamous reliance on circular reasoning.

    • JeffB
      May 1, 2017, 6:12 pm

      @Boo

      You are having a big war in Syria and Yemen, and one just recently in Iraq right now showing that those nations certainly are real. If the Alawites don’t exist how are they fielding an army?

  6. eljay
    May 1, 2017, 12:16 pm

    It doesn’t matter whether an ancient Israelite nation did exist in geographic Palestine and/or a Palestinian nation did not. What does matter is that at the time of Partition there did exist an indigenous (non-Jewish and Jewish) population in geographic Palestine, and geographic Palestine was the homeland of those (non-Jewish and Jewish) people as well as of (non-Jewish and Jewish) people up to n-generations removed from it.

    Jewish people more than n-generations removed from geographic Palestine were citizens of their respective homelands throughout the world. They were not “ancient Israelites” and their migration to and colonization of Palestine was not a “return” to some “ancient homeland”.

    • RoHa
      May 1, 2017, 8:13 pm

      Exactly, Mr. eljay.

      • eljay
        May 2, 2017, 7:16 am

        || RoHa: Exactly, Mr. eljay. ||

        Thank you, Herr Doktor. But, please, let us dispense with the formalities. :-)

  7. Ossinev
    May 1, 2017, 1:11 pm

    @JeffB
    “If you believe that people have a right to live where they are born, welcome to Zionism of the 2017 regardless of whether you would have agreed with the Zionism of 1917 or not”

    Feel free to accuse me of being pro – semantic but are you saying that only settlers who were born in “Judea” and ” Samaria” have the right to live there. Surely this would make all those Brooklynites illegal illegal settlers who should return forthwith to Brooklyn where they were born and where they have the right to live ?

    • JeffB
      May 1, 2017, 6:09 pm

      @Ossinev

      would make all those Brooklynites illegal illegal settlers

      There aren’t that many Brooklynites settlers. That’s one of your regular tropes that simply lacks factual evidence.

      Anyway people born in Brooklyn have USA citizenship. They may be invited by the government of another country whether it be France, China or Nigeria to emigrate there and become citizens. That’s what happened in Israel. Few take the offer but those who did are there by invitation of the governing power of that territory. So no they are under no obligation to return.

      • lyn117
        May 3, 2017, 11:02 pm

        @JeffB,

        You seem to be under the impression that anything a “governing power” does is legal. In particular, confiscating property of a non-favored ethnic group for the benefit of the ethnic group that the “governing power” claims to represent. When the Nazis confiscated property from Jews they expelled from Germany, for the benefit of “Aryans”, was that legal? When they took over large swathes of Poland and Denmark, and then “governed” them, would it have been legal for them to install German civilian colonies all over France and Greece, and drive out the local French and Grecians so that the Aryans could live in “security”?

  8. zaid
    May 1, 2017, 3:07 pm

    Jund Filastin was a district in the Islamic Caliphate. if the people there didnot have a distinct culture then this district wouldnot have existed.

    The people living in Palestine were labelled Al Filastenyieen (The Palestinians) throughout the Islamic history and before, Al- Dhahabi mentioned several hundreds of Muslim scholars and labelled them Filasteneyeen in his book Siyar ِAalam Alnubala’a.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jund_Filastin

    • JeffB
      May 1, 2017, 6:18 pm

      @Zaid

      Don’t know what you mean by “the Islamic Caliphate” but there were lots. For most of the time Palestine seems grouped with Egypt:

      Tulunids (868–905 CE)
      Ikhshidids (935–969)
      Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171)
      Ayyubid dynasty (1171–1250)
      Mamluks (1250–1517)

      If you meant the earliest then Palestine wasn’t a province. There were 2 Aylya and Ramlah covering the territory.

      • zaid
        May 3, 2017, 4:54 pm

        The Rashudeen and Umayyad Caliphate.

        Read the link.

  9. Misterioso
    May 1, 2017, 3:08 pm

    For the record:

    The first known written reference to Palestinians as a people (Peleset) was c.1150 BCE at the temple of Medinet Habut. They were among those who fought with Egypt during Ramesses III’s reign.

    The Jebusite/Canaanites, ancestors of today’s Palestinians, founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE. 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 said King David was born.  (To the best of my knowledge, thus far, no archaeological evidence, or more importantly, writings of contemporaneous civilizations, have been discovered that prove Solomon or David actually existed.)

    The region between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea was referred to as “Palestine” by the Greek historian Herodotus (“the father of history”) during the 5th century BCE.

    100 years later, in the mid-4th Century BCE, Aristotle referred to Palestine while discussing the Dead Sea in his Meteorology. “Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine….”

    Jewish historian Josephus’s (c.37-100 CE) The Jewish War, Antiquities of the Jews contains many references to both “Palestine” and “Palestinians.”

    Contemporaries of Jesus also routinely referred to Palestine as “Palestine.” In the first decade of the 1st Century, the Roman poet Ovid mentioned Palestine in both his famed mythological poem “Metamorphoses” and his erotic elegy “The Art of Love.” He also wrote of “the waters of Palestine” in his calendrical poem “Fasti.” Around the same time, another Latin poet, Tibullus wrote of “the crowded cities of Palestine” in the section “Messalla’s Triumph” in his poem “Delia.”

    The claim that the Roman emperor Hadrian officially changed the name of the region to “Syria Palaestina” or simply “Palestine,” in 135 CE is contradicted by the fact that by then, the terms “Syrian Palestine” and “Palestine” had already been in use for over 600 years.

    When the Muslim Arabs arrived in Palestine led by Caliph Omar in 638 CE, they retained the administrative organization of the territory of Palestine as it had been under the Romans and later, the Byzantines. They referred to the territory as Filastin – no “P” in Arabic.  Many Jews refer to the arrival of the Muslims as a “liberation” for Omar gave them unfettered access to Jerusalem which they had been denied under the Christian Byzantines. Omar was equally generous to the Christians: “Never in the sorry story of conquest up to that day, and rarely since, were such noble and generous sentiments displayed by a conqueror as those extended to Jerusalem by Omar.” (Report by Sir William Fitzgerald on the Local Administration of Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Government Printer, 1945, p.4);

    To quote the opening sentence of the section entitled “Filastin” that appears in the book “Dictionary of the Lands,” written by geographer Yaqut ibn Abdullah al-Hamawi in 1225: “Filastin: It is the last one of the regions of Syria in the direction of Egypt. Its most famous cities are Ashkelon, Ramle, Gaza, Arsuf, Caesaria, Nablus, Jericho, Amman, Jaffa and Beit Guvrin.”

    By about 1300 AD there were virtually no Jews in Palestine, which was a recognized geographical concept using coinage with “Filistin” written on them.  There were diaries of Palestinian travelers who said they missed “Palestine” and a distinctive Palestinian dialect of Arabic had evolved. From 1300 on, the vast majority of people who lived in Palestine were Christians and Muslims.

    In 1603, Shakespeare wrote in his play Othello: “Emilia: I know a lady in Venice would have walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip.” (Act IV, Scene iii.)

    In 1863, The Religious Tract Society of London published its “Pictorial Journey Through the Holy Land; or Scenes of Palestine.” In this work Beersheba is described as the southern limit of Palestine. Beersheba lies south-east of Gaza on the northern edge of the Negev desert. Palestine is described as “south of Lebanon”. (BTW, for all who spread the myth that “Jordan is Palestine,” there is no suggestion that Palestine extended east of the Jordan River.)

    European tourist books of the nineteenth century refer to “Palestine,” as did Theodor Herzl in his correspondence and the 1917 Balfour Declaration as well as the 1922 Class A League of Nations British Mandate.

    To quote 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 expelled before and after the war Israel launched on 5 June 1967]) 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”)

    To again quote Beatty: “[The Muslims] converted the Canaanites (who, through all the changing sovereignties – although diluted by foreign blood – still formed the backbone of the rural population) to the Muslim faith, intermarried with them; and the language and customs of the crossroads [i.e., Palestine] in time became Arabic; the architecture in time, Arabic; the population itself, partially Arabic.” (ibid)

    Eminent Jewish historian, Professor Maxime Rodinson, of the Sorbonne, agreed with Beatty: “A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century.  But…the Palestinian population soon became Arabized…in a way that it was never to become Latinized or Ottomanized.  The invaded melted with the invaders…. [By the 20th century,] the Arab population of Palestine was native in all the usual senses of the word.” (“Israel and the Arabs,” 1968)

    The United Kingdom of Israel lasted a mere 77 years or so (about 1004-927 BCE) and never controlled the coast from Jaffa to Gaza. Even the Hasmonean Dynasty under the Maccabees lasted only 70 years (about 140 – 70 BCE) and it was under Roman tutelage. By way of comparison, apart from about 200 years when the Crusaders occupied Palestine in whole or in part, Egyptians ruled the region between the River and the Sea for 615 intermittent years, including the era of the Muslim Mamelukes; the Romans ruled the region for 677 continuous years.  It was also ruled for several centuries by two other peoples: the Arabs (Muslims), for 447 continuous years (638-1085) and the Ottoman Turks (Muslims), for 401 uninterrupted years (1517-1918).

    In short, Jewish rule over the region between the River Jordan and the Sea was less than a blip.

    • RoHa
      May 1, 2017, 8:11 pm

      “apart from about 200 years when the Crusaders occupied Palestine in whole or in part,”

      Occupation is the wrong term. The crusaders set up an independent sovereign Christian state in Palestine.
      Also, Palestine is the country in which Christianity originated. (According to the Christians.)

      These two facts prove that Palestine is the ancient homeland of Welsh Methodists and Holy Rollers. They have every right to establish a Methodist Roller state there.

    • jon s
      May 2, 2017, 6:09 am

      I know of at least one Jewish source which refers to “Palestine”. To be precise: “Palestini”.
      Midrash Breishet Rabba (the midrash on Genesis), chapter 90, paragraph 6, refers to three countries which suffered famine: Phoenicia and Arabia and Palestini.
      ויהי רעב בכל הארצות בשלש ארצות בפנקיא ובערביא ובפלסטיני

    • Jerry Hirsch
      May 2, 2017, 9:07 am

      Misterioso, to establish for the record that today’s Palestinian Arabs are descended from the ancient Canaanites requires evidence.

      There are currently four competing claims to their true ancestry.

      1. Canaanite
      2. Philistine
      3. Arab
      4. Jewish

      Apparently the Palestinian Arabs themselves are confused as to their ancestry. Can you clear up this confusion and provide the evidence that will settle this issue?

      • gamal
        May 2, 2017, 10:59 am

        “Apparently the Palestinian Arabs themselves are confused as to their ancestry”

        no here the confusion is entirely yours. Palestine is a country not an ethno-religiuos cult. For instance why did you leave out Swabian, French, Italian, Turkish, Central Asian, Sudanese ….Palestine is a country. the sad settler JonS is impressed that there are Palestinians with names that link them to the adjacent territories, like the Hijaz the Hawran and Egypt, its simple its a country not a cult.

        your second confusion is that you think that you are portraying yourself as something other than a frothing at the mouth racist fabulist because it is a fact that in Human terms all male plugs are compatible with all female receptors and as such real stuff is complex, idiot, nowhere did anyone refine a pure essence of “nation”, in Egypt, frankly, this seems particularly unlikely.

      • RoHa
        May 2, 2017, 6:47 pm

        Establishing the multiple strains of Palestinians ancestry might be of technical interest, but it will not change their moral status. They will have exactly the same rights as they had when their ancestry was merely guessed at.

      • RoHa
        May 2, 2017, 6:57 pm

        Quite right, gamal.

        But I think JeffB is still trying to refine the pure essence of a nation in his alchemical laboratory.

      • jon s
        May 3, 2017, 3:49 am

        gamal,
        1. I’m not a settler. In fact , I’ve always opposed the settlements. I even boycott them.
        2. I’m not sad, especially since our Beersheva football team just won a consecutive championship!
        3. “it’s a country, not a cult”. I agree.

      • Mooser
        May 3, 2017, 11:50 am

        “1. I’m not a settler. In fact , I’ve always opposed the settlements. I even boycott them.”

        Won’t even take pride in the Zionist accomplishment. No wonder real Israelis hate the left. You are still crafting your stance to appeal to Americans, or trying to.
        No wonder Israel keeps the left completely impotent.

      • Mooser
        May 3, 2017, 2:17 pm

        .” I’m not sad, especially since our Beersheva football team just won a consecutive championship! “

        Another Eritrean wandered into Beersheba? Team motto for Beersheba: ‘Kick fast and don’t snitch’

      • Mooser
        May 8, 2017, 12:04 pm

        “Apparently the Palestinian Arabs themselves are confused as to their ancestry”

        Exactly. As a Jew, I am very confused about my own. Any reason why I shouldn’t be?

  10. JeffB
    May 2, 2017, 3:48 pm

    @talknic

    The provisional government of Israel. And it has been illegal for states to acquire territory by war, not parties in a civil war.

    • Talkback
      May 2, 2017, 6:12 pm

      Calling violent settler colonialism a “civil war”. How cute.

      • talknic
        May 2, 2017, 8:37 pm

        @ Jeff B

        “The provisional government of Israel.”

        I can’t find ‘Israel’ in the LoN Mandate for Palestine. It says this in the first paragraph

        “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, etc “

        Can’t find Israel in the LoN Covenant Article 22 or anywhere else in that document

        I suggest less Ziocaine

        And it has been illegal for states to acquire territory by war, not parties in a civil war”

        Parties to a civil war do not acquire territory. They might control territories, illegally dispossess people, steal real estate, destroy villages, homes, farms, orchards, rape, pillage, murder, but the territory remains the property of the state in which the civil war exists. At that time the state was the nation state of Palestine. See Article 7 of the Mandate under which Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925.

    • lyn117
      May 4, 2017, 11:09 am

      “And it has been illegal for states to acquire territory by war, not parties in a civil war.”

      Since the 1948 war was (you say) a civil war, and only Palestine existed at the beginning of it, it was Palestine’s civil war and all the territory Israel acquired in that war was illegally acquired.

      • talknic
        May 4, 2017, 5:58 pm

        Israel didn’t exist during the civil war in Palestine. On the declaration of Israeli statehood, with Jewish forces already outside the borders proclaimed in Israel’s plea for recognition, it became a war waged by a the State of Israel against Palestine, no longer a civil war.

      • JeffB
        May 5, 2017, 4:58 pm

        @lyn117

        Israel didn’t acquire territory the Yishuv did. You vague language is screwing you up.

        1947:
        Government is British. British government controls a territory, mandatory Palestine.
        There are 2 factions

        Yishuv: Jews living in the territory they have some allies abroad

        Arab faction: Palestinians living in the territory plus foreign terrorist organizations plus direct military intervention.

        There is no Israel yet. A civil war can result in one group becoming dominant, the territory splitting or any number of other possible outcomes.

        Outcome: 73% of the territory ends up in the hands of the Yishuv that territory becomes Israel. The remaining 27% is divided between Jordan and Egypt. Israel, Jordan and Egypt all don’t recognize each other’s claim and all of what had been mandatory Palestine is disputed territory.

        Later diplomatically Egypt and Jordan both make peace and recognize Israel’s claim to the 73%.

      • talknic
        May 5, 2017, 9:32 pm

        @ JeffB May 5, 2017, 4:58 pm

        “Israel didn’t acquire territory the Yishuv did. You vague language is screwing you up.”

        The Yishuv was a state? WOW!! I wonder if they knew! States acquire territory. Terrorists control land by terrorism. It was illegal to acquire territory by any coercive measure (war/force) by at least 1945.

        “1947:
        Government is British. British government controls a territory, mandatory Palestine.
        There are 2 factions

        Yishuv: Jews living in the territory they have some allies abroad …. “ Conveniently forgetting Jewish terrorists in typical ZioPuking style. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=files%20of%20jewish%20interest%20UK%20terrorists You can’t help but lie when the whole Zionist Federation project is built on lies.

        You also conveniently forget Aliyah Bet http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/aliyah-bet-1939-1948 and the non-citizen status of large numbers of specifically poorJews loaned money by investors in the Jewish Colonial Trust, specifically at interest on the one condition they specifically put themselves on the front lines in the Zionist Federation’s war on Palestine.

        “Outcome: 73% of the territory ends up in the hands of the Yishuv that territory becomes Israel.”

        The Israeli Government of the time tells us you’re spouting crap JeffB. Israel proclaimed its boundaries over only 56% of what had been Mandate Palestine in 1947 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf You’ve been shown this information many times now. Why do you continue to lie and make a thorough idiot of yourself?

        “The remaining 27% is divided between Jordan and Egypt”

        Is bullsh*t all you have JeffB. Neither Jordan or Egypt claimed for themselves any of the territory that remained of Palestine.

        Israel signed Armistice Agreements with both Egypt and Jordan, AGREEINGthey were the Occupying Powers over Gaza and the West Bank

        Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip. Didn’t build illegal settlements, didn’t even attempt to annex. The West Bank as it is now officially named, was legally annexed at the request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of the other Arab states (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI

        ” Later diplomatically Egypt and Jordan both make peace and recognize Israel’s claim to the 73%.”

        You of course can show this alleged recognition. Right?

        You’re a blatant liar for Israel which is really odd because lying is against the basic tenets of Judaism. Lying for the so called Jewish State is quite bizarre, especially when it’s knowingly done. You must be very proud

    • echinococcus
      May 6, 2017, 8:34 am

      Jeff seems to have found his matching word-weaseler in Talknic. Call it “civil war”, and all of a sudden the colonial shock troops that England amassed and armed for 30 years for just such an operation, that of keeping control when the time would come to relinquish the so-called fake mandate, become ‘rebels’. Abracadabra! All responsibilities disappear. The colonial overlord is now a disinterested observer, the Zionist genocidal riffraff is magically cleansed of all crimes of their pre-47 life (by having been baptized, full-immersion born-again in the stolen water of the Jordan, no less) because, you see, they were no state actors before becoming state actors, and their new state, the English-American bastard, is suddenly held immune…

      End result: you aren’t supposed to destroy that abomination because all that wordplay has made it untouchable. It’s still a genocidal vipers’ nest of illegal intruders but they have been hallowed and anointed, so continue being slaves.

      The best part is to observe the extent of the disagreement: one wants to keep all of it, the other one “only” 56%. No Palestinians anywhere except if US-approved.

      • talknic
        May 6, 2017, 10:58 am

        @ echinococcus May 6, 2017, 8:34 am

        ” Call it “civil war”, and all of a sudden the colonial shock troops “that England amassed and armed for 30 years for just such an operation, that of keeping control when the time would come to relinquish the so-called fake mandate, become ‘rebels’. Abracadabra! All responsibilities disappear. “

        If you say so. I haven’t.

        Zionism declared war on Palestine 1897. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/atzmons-against-merchant/#comment-878189

        and

        The Zionist colonization of Palestine is the problem. The fact that the majority of the world’s states, believing Zionist promises to adhere to the law, recognized Israel and its admission to the UN is the problem. The fact that Israel now exists, legal or not, like it or not, is the problem. If you can’t acknowledge what HAS transpired, you have a problem. It has nothing what so ever to do with the situation being morally, ethically legally or logically acceptable, because it’s clearly not!

        and

        If territory were stolen/occupied/cleansed by pre-state actors before a State existed and were that State after having declared its borders to return those stolen/occupied/cleansed territories, the State would not be guilty of accepting stolen goods. The criminals would still be guilty of stealing/terrorism/ethnic cleansing et al, not the State.

        If the State takes the stolen/occupied/cleansed territories for itself through creating illegal facts on the ground, it’s crime is being in possession of stolen territories and creating illegal facts on the ground. The criminals are still guilty of stealing/terrorism et al.

        Other states accepting a de facto situation doesn’t make it legal. de facto recognition is not de jure. de jure can only come about by agreement between Israel and Palestine. An agreement might include waiving the right to pursue the State and/or pre-state actors for their past crimes.However, the crimes were still committed and other States might one day take an interest in pursuing any of the parties
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-877903

        “The colonial overlord is now a disinterested observer, the Zionist genocidal riffraff is magically cleansed of all crimes of their pre-47 life (by having been baptized, full-immersion born-again in the stolen water of the Jordan, no less) because, you see, they were no state actors before becoming state actors, and their new state, the English-American bastard, is suddenly held immune”

        If you say so. I haven’t. See above
        “End result: you aren’t supposed to destroy that abomination because all that wordplay has made it untouchable.”

        If you say so. I haven’t. See above.

        Save your bile for those deserving of it.

      • Mooser
        May 6, 2017, 8:56 pm

        “Jeff seems to have found his matching word-weaseler in Talknic.”

        Because “talknic” doesn’t begin and end every post with “Delenda est Israel!”?

      • echinococcus
        May 6, 2017, 11:04 pm

        Mooser,

        Thanks for the chuckle. Essentially no, but if we don’t go into the detail for the umpteenth time, there is that, too –of course.

        The parallel did occur to me, of course, but it is extremely irritating. I’ve always held Cato for a 1st-class asshole, the worst of all, from the day I heard/ read about the bastard.

  11. JeffB
    May 2, 2017, 5:11 pm

    @MHuges976

    We don’t disagree there. Once one backs away from the idea that there are illegitimate people whom one is morally obligated to oppress / destroy and instead works for the equality for all residents in a territory you are agreeing not disagreeing with Zionism. Zionism is having practical problems implementing this equality, and those practical complications need to be overcome but that’s an entirely different line of argument than the one you have been pushing for where people’s rights are dependent on their ancestry.

    • lyn117
      May 4, 2017, 11:17 am

      @JeffB – Zionism is all about giving privileges to Jews and only Jews in Palestine. MHughes didn’t push for an argument where people’s rights are dependent on their ancestry. You have, like most Zionists, based your arguments on imaginary facts and in utter violation of logic.

      • JeffB
        May 5, 2017, 5:04 pm

        @lyn117

        MHughes didn’t push for an argument where people’s rights are dependent on their ancestry.

        Actually he did. He’s been pushing this argument about ancestry. I thinking he’s backing away from it a bit because the argument regarding ancestry in practice but I’m not sure.

        Zionism is all about giving privileges to Jews and only Jews in Palestine.

        Nonsense. Palestinians still exist in Israeli controlled territory. Israel is obvious strong enough to end that existence. They haven’t. Ergo there are some privileges Zionism wishes to extend to non-Jews in Palestine.

      • Mooser
        May 5, 2017, 7:39 pm

        “Nonsense. Palestinians still exist in Israeli controlled territory. Israel is obvious strong enough to end that existence. They haven’t. Ergo there are some privileges Zionism wishes to extend to non-Jews in Palestine.”

        Letting them live? That’s the “privilege” the Zionists have extended to the Palestinians?

        “Israel is obvious strong (sic) enough to end that existence.”

        Nonsense “JeffB” Tell me, how would Israel “end their existence”? Good ol’ “JeffyB”! Can’t make Zionists out of his own kids, but he’s ready to organize the Israelis into Einsatzgruppen

      • Annie Robbins
        May 5, 2017, 10:46 pm

        existence is a privilege extended by jews to non jews in palestine? who knew?

        this whole zionist “right to exist” framing has taken on a whole new meaning — i think we’re on to the next level! ‘You’ll all be our slaves, if you’re worthy, if you behave well’ and you’ll love it, it will be a privilege! – http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/israeli-lecturing-palestinian/

        (don’t forget to click cc for captions)

      • eljay
        May 5, 2017, 11:21 pm

        || Annie Robbins: existence is a privilege extended by jews to non jews in palestine? who knew? … ||

        Zionists have a penchant for redefining words or terms.
        Existence = privilege seems to be Zionism’s latest casualty.

      • RoHa
        May 6, 2017, 12:22 am

        The captions come out white on white. Can’t read them.

      • MHughes976
        May 6, 2017, 10:35 am

        I’d better review what I’ve been ‘pushing’!
        My definition of Zionism is ‘the belief that people who are Jewish, and they only, have an inherent right, now commonly called birthright, to a share of sovereignty in the Holy Land, others having a share only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs’. This is the proposition with which I’ve been saying I disagree.
        The claim relates strongly to ancestry, makes it impossible to treat everyone equally and ‘without privilege’ and has what Yonah has called a ‘cruel vector’.
        There is sometimes (I dont know whether lyn would agree with this) overwhelming utility in hereditary rights: for instance, societies should give room for inherited property. For children there is normally great disutility and harm in either relocation without sufficient provision or separation from parents, for adults there is normally harm in having to live without full rights. So it should be abnormal – Israel has always been very abnormal in this respect, as I have been trying to point out – not to accept as full citizens in the area of sovereignty those born of citizen parents or those born locally, categories that will in most circumstances overlap very greatly. This is a kind of limited hereditary right.
        I agree that when we think of utility there are likely to be utility-based exceptions to rules. However, Israel’s exceptions, the exclusion of the Palestinians of 48 and the disfranchisement and humiliation of the 67ers, have created massive harm for all to see and are very bad candidates for exceptions based on general utility. Others, like the absence from UK law of American-style anchor children, may be more justifiable even considering the interests of would-be immigrants wanting to know where they stand.
        We have discussed the settler children, whose status I would regard as unsettled pending an agreement. You can’t commit a violent crime that creates rights for anyone. If a chiid is born in a place invaded and ravaged – and there has been some ravaging – by its parents then that child ought to consider that there is utility for the whole human race in discouraging that kind of behaviour and that this may mean that (s)he should move on. However, if there is an agreement that regularises things then s(he) may have rights under it. Might does not create right but agreements putting an end to episodes of violence may do so. That sort of agreement is still lacking in Palestine.
        I’ll try pushing those ideas and see what happens.

      • Mooser
        May 6, 2017, 1:12 pm

        “this whole zionist “right to exist” framing has taken on a whole new meaning”

        It sure does! Every appeal to “rights” and every fantasy of Zionist omnipotence is evidence that Zionists are scared to death.

    • Talkback
      May 4, 2017, 2:03 pm

      Jeff: “Zionism is having practical problems implementing this equality.”

      Yeah, certain Afrikaaners had “practical” problems with implementing equality, too. And certain Germans … ah, never mind.

    • eljay
      May 4, 2017, 2:57 pm

      || JeffB: … Zionism is having practical problems implementing this equality … ||

      Seeing as how Zionists want Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine, it’s no surprise that they’re having “practical problems” implementing equality.

    • talknic
      May 5, 2017, 9:23 am

      “Zionism is having practical problems implementing this equality “

      Too busy implementing inequality?

      ” Once one backs away from the idea that there are illegitimate people whom one is morally obligated to oppress / destroy and instead works for the equality for all residents in a territory you are agreeing not disagreeing with Zionism”

      Strange http://mondoweiss.net/2017/05/alternative-ceremonies-criticizes/

      BTW When R U gonna start backing away Jeff?

  12. JeffB
    May 2, 2017, 5:17 pm

    @RoHa

    Would Canada, Brazil, India, Iran, China, and Russia count as countries?

    Under the above definition.

    Canada. English dominated since 1760s, yes.

    Brazil. Seems to have one dominant culture. Not sure because I don’t know enough about Brazil.

    India. Probably there is no Indian nation. This is a classic confederation that is trying to build a cohesive national identity. They aren’t there yet. A century from now they likely will be.

    Iran. Not even sure why this is borderline. Would put in clear cut yes unless I’m missing something.

    China. Hard to tell because the dictatorship is so strong. We’ll have to see.

    Russia. Yes, dominant nation.

    • inbound39
      May 2, 2017, 7:22 pm

      @JeffB……..The biggest hurdle Israel has in its legitimacy which is insurmountable is the current State of Israel,apart from in many cases being outside of its declared borders of 1948 was created and carved out of Palestine by the UN which had no mandate to carve up Foreign countries. In fact it violates its own Charter.

      Israel was imposed in essence on the Palestinians by roaming hordes of European Jewish Terrorists like Irgun and Sterngang-Lehi and Palmach et al no different to ISIS tactics in many ways. And ISIS seeks to impose a Caliphate…….no different to Israeli Jewish Terrorists imposing a State……..A Jewish State…..A Religious Supremacist State. Is this what you support? It has no legitimacy.

      • JeffB
        May 5, 2017, 4:50 pm

        @inbound39

        I don’t know that the UN didn’t and for that matter doesn’t have a mandate to carve up countries to avoid civil war. That’s precisely what they have done many times. The fact that their partition failed and there was a nasty ethnic civil war proves their intent. More importantly though Israel wasn’t born out of UN partition it was born from the ethnic civil war.

        Israel was imposed in essence on the Palestinians by roaming hordes of European Jewish Terrorists like Irgun and Sterngang-Lehi and Palmach et al no different to ISIS tactics in many ways.

        That total nonsense. Israel was imposed on Palestinians by the 600k Jews who lived within the proto-state of the Yishuv and wanted full self determination most importantly control of the immigration policy whose barriers had just induced millions of deaths.

      • talknic
        May 5, 2017, 9:49 pm

        @ JeffB May 5, 2017, 4:50 pm

        ” The fact that their partition failed “

        Strange

        ” … the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

        “More importantly though Israel wasn’t born out of UN partition it was born from the ethnic civil war.”

        It was declared and recognized within its self proclaimed UNGA res 181 borders.

        //Israel was imposed in essence on the Palestinians by roaming hordes of European Jewish Terrorists like Irgun and Sterngang-Lehi and Palmach et al no different to ISIS tactics in many ways// . https://www.google.com.au/search?q=files%20of%20jewish%20interest%20UK%20terrorists

        ” Israel was imposed on Palestinians by the 600k Jews who lived within … “

        Oooops moment there Jeff B. No one had or has the right to impose their statehood over an already existing state, especially when those doing the imposing are a minority

        ” .. the proto-state of the Yishuv”

        That’s a new one. Can you point it out in law. thx, much appreciated

        ” and wanted full self determination most importantly control of the immigration policy whose barriers had just induced millions of deaths”

        Bullsh*t is sooooo you Jeff B. You’ll say anything no matter how f*cked up and ridiculous

      • andrew r
        May 7, 2017, 10:38 am

        JeffB: the immigration policy whose barriers had just induced millions of deaths

        As I point out in this comment, it makes little sense to claim that had the Yishuv not been constrained by the British immigration quotas, they would have rescued millions of Jews across Europe. IOW, that wasn’t their agenda. Zionist propaganda has always hidden the fact of the Yishuv leadership being unprepared and unwilling to rescue Europe’s Jews en masse behind British policy and Arab opposition. Ruppin compared a wave of unrestricted immigration to a flood of lava and Weizmann bluntly stated Zionist settlement was about “redemption” for the Jewish people, not a rescue mission.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/10/atlantic-expulsion-palestinians/#comment-857996

        Ruppin may not have made it clear in public while he was alive, but he certainly didn’t want any given Jew possible to join the colony he was building.

        All immigrants who became ill or were injured irreversibly during their stay in Palestine were forced by the PO and, later, by the Jewish Agency, to return to their ports of origin and for this purpose the authorities even agreed to pay for the ticket and other necessary expenses. From the beginning of the 1920s, those who were forced to leave included the chronically sick, who had already been ill in their countries of origin, victims of work accidents who could no longer support themselves, and also large families whose provider had died or become crippled and who were left with no means of support. By this method, among others, the PO and the Jewish Agency fostered the healthy “elements” and weeded out the weak and the ill, in the spirit of Ruppin’s eugenic planning.

        (Etan Bloom, Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture, 260, 304 – can be found on scribd)

        Ruppin in another instance demonstrated his insincerity about rescuing Jews with a plan that relied on the majority of Jews fleeing Germany to assimilate in the US and never reach Palestine… while their currency back home would be used to sell German goods in Palestine to benefit the Yishuv. (In fact 60,000 Jewish Germans emigrated to Palestine before the war, 20,000 of whom actually utilized the ha’avara agreement).

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-N5zfJVwAAnZYL.jpg:large
        (Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, 295, 379)

      • Keith
        May 7, 2017, 7:57 pm

        JEFFB- “…most importantly control of the immigration policy whose barriers had just induced millions of deaths.”

        I assume that you are referring to the Zionist immigration policy which discouraged Jewish immigration to any destination other than Palestine? I am sure you are aware that the Zionists opposed Jewish immigration to the US and Britain? Roosevelt had a plan to save several hundred thousand Jews which was frowned upon by the Zionists. With vigorous Zionist support, perhaps 500 thousand to 1 million Jews could have been saved. At the time, the Yishuv lacked the infrastructure to absorb a significant number of Jews in Palestine, hence, they were de facto denying a significant number of Jews, primarily non-Zionists and anti-Zionist, the chance to live in the Western democracies so that the Zionists could focus all of their energies and money on the redemption of the Jewish people. The Zionists have always emphasized Jewish tribalism over Jewish lives.

    • talknic
      May 2, 2017, 8:56 pm

      https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-the-south-Indians-protest-when-the-Indian-passport-gets-issued-with-Hindi-written-on-it

      For those too overdosed with Ziocaine to read or comprehend, the passport says Nationality “INDIAN”

    • RoHa
      May 3, 2017, 10:32 pm

      And yet we conventionally call them all countries. We call Switzerland a country, as well.

      Re Iran: The north west of Iran is Azeri, the south east is Balouchi, and the country includes Arabs, Kurds and some people called Lurs. Very confusing for me, since I think of a lur as a large Viking horn.

      (I had an Iranian student whose mother was Turkish, and whose father was Farsi, so he learned both languages from his parents. But they lived in Tabriz, so his education was in Azeri. He learned English at school.)

      But as I said previously, it is not very important. It has no effect on the rights of Palestinians.

      • JeffB
        May 5, 2017, 4:53 pm

        @RoHa

        Understood. There is a more formal definition being used. Its not uncommon formal definitions are less liberal than informal ones. That happens in most areas of speech. Moped, electric bike and electric motorcycle are used interchangeably informally formally there is 0 overlap.

  13. inbound39
    May 3, 2017, 8:57 pm

    I have always thought Israeli’s need to go to rehab….eighteen months intensive residential treatment….settlers sent directly to locked wards.

  14. Ossinev
    May 5, 2017, 8:10 am

    @JeffB
    “Zionism is having practical problems implementing this equality”

    Classic inverse Ziocrap. Should read Zionism is having practical problems implementing inequality but with the help of their puppet America,the European states , all those Ziodollars and of course the arch collaborator Abbas they have managed so far.

    • JeffB
      May 5, 2017, 4:53 pm

      @Ossinev

      Reread what you wrote. It doesn’t even make sense. They are having implementing but have managed so far. So then how are they having problems?

  15. Ossinev
    May 6, 2017, 1:38 pm

    @JeffB

    “Reread what you wrote. It doesn’t even make sense. They are having implementing but have managed so far. So then how are they having problems?”

    Au contraire reread what you wrote. I did not say “They are having implementing but have managed so far”. You have simply extracted elements from two separate sentences to come up with an imaginary sentence which of course doesn`t make sense.

    What I actually said doesn`t make sense in your fragile Zio psyche simply because you are in denial about the blatant oppression , racism and inequalities being visited on the Palestinians every hour of everyday which is a self evident contradiction to your surreal claim about”Zionism is having practical problems implementing this equality”

    “As to the “So then how are they having problems?”. Can`t get my head around this one I`m afraid but perhaps it would help if I refer you back to Eljay`s comment above.
    “Seeing as how Zionists want Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine, it’s no surprise that they’re having “practical problems” implementing equality”

    Tell you what JeffB let`s go back to your original statement which in your mind obviously makes total sense and to support your daft claim about “implementing this equality” give us some clear examples of these “implementing equality” Zionist schemes and projects to which you refer together with the supposed “practical problems” (remember deeds not words ).

Leave a Reply