Skip to comments.Palestinians mark their 1948 displacement (AP pushes the lie)
Posted on 05/15/2014 4:35:14 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Palestinians marched in the West Bank and Gaza on Thursday to commemorate their displacement in the 1948 Mideast war that followed the establishment of the state of Israel.
Sirens wailed at noon in Ramallah and elsewhere across the West Bank for 66 seconds to symbolize the number of years since the Nakba, or catastrophe in Arabicthe term Palestinians use to describe their defeat and displacement in the war.
Israel overcame the armies of surrounding Arab states as well as local Arabs who attacked after the Jewish state was declared on May 15, 1948. [ ]
It is time for the leaders of Israel to understand that there is no homeland for the Palestinians except Palestine, and it is here we are staying, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in his Nakba Day address broadcast Wednesday night.
It is time to end the longest occupation in modern history, Abbas added.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
FREEPERS HISTORY OF THE “CRISIS”
Israel asks: “Will you become Israelis (like 20+% of Israel today) no matter your faith? If so stay where you are. (Israel has two official languages like Canada...)
“We will PAY YOU for your homes and you can make war against us. We will give you safe passage...”
“Palestinian” (Jordanian) answers: “GIVE ME THE MONEY JEW BITCH”
So he gets the money and wages war... Once Twice... Thrice...
40... 50... 60 years on:
“GIVE ME MY HOUSE JEW BITCH!”
Americans on college campuses echo:
“GIVE BACK THE LAND JEW BITCH!”
Kerry: “GIVE LAND, GIMME NOBEL JEW BITCH...”
/END HISTORY LESSON
The AP source is named Mohammed.
You are correct, Palestine and Palestinians will be obliterated.
It feels close, but I really can’t say, feelings are unreliable. This crap with the heathens could go on for decades. That I think it won’t is irrelevant.
A Homeland for the Palestinians?
The need and justification of a Palestinian homeland has been repeated so often and so insistently that people all over the world have come to accept it as an inevitability. That homeland, it is generally agreed, would consist of the Gaza Strip and most of Judea/Samaria, generally referred to as the West Bank. Even many good people in the U.S. and even our president, a well-intentioned man, advocate a homeland, a Palestinian state, at the end of the so-called road map.?
What are the facts?
An unwarranted request. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. That is a concept that, by the drumbeat of incessant propaganda, has been foisted on the world. The so-called Palestinians are the same Arabs that live in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Never at any time in history did the Palestinians have a homeland, nor did they ever demand one.
In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted to set up both a Jewish and an Arab state within the borders of the territories. The Arabs were allotted three contiguous areas and the enclave of the city of Jaffa. The Jews were allotted three discontiguous areas. Jerusalem was to be an international city. In order to get their homeland, the Jews reluctantly accepted the unfavorable deal. The Arabs rejected it out of hand and instead invaded the nascent Jewish state with the armies of six nations. The ragtag Jewish forces decisively defeated the aggressors and stayed in control of most of the area. Egypt retained control of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan occupied Judea/Samaria (the West Bank). Had the Arabs accepted the United Nations partition plan, they would have had their Palestinian homeland for almost 60 years. They spurned the opportunity when it was available to them.
For nineteen years, until the Six-Day War, the territories involved were under the control of Jordan and Egypt. Never during those years was there ever a demand for a Palestinian homeland. Only after the Six-Day War in 1967, when the territories reverted to Israeli control, did the insistent clamor for a Palestinian homeland arise.
Although the Israelis would probably be glad to get rid of those bothersome and rebellious people, it is regrettably not that simple. The declared goal of the Arabs, a goal never rescinded, is the destruction of Israel. Were they granted an independent state, it would geographically and strategically dominate all of Israel. Within a very short time, this Palestinian homeland would be bristling with the most advanced weaponry, in all likelihood including weapons of mass destruction. Arab armies would be invited to participate in what they would hope to be the final onslaught against Israel and against the hated Jews.
How about other nationalities that yearn for a homeland, for their own state? There are first of all the Basques, the vast majority of whom live in the northern region of Spain. They are a unique people, with a language and a culture that has no relationship to anything else in the world. They have been fighting to become liberated. But Spain most vociferous in the promotion of a Palestinian homeland refuses that. An independent Basque homeland would not endanger Spain in any way. But does the world, does the UN support the Basques in their quest for independence? Of course not!
Or take the Kurds. They are a distinct group. They live in a land that is part of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Armenia. They have been fighting for independence for centuries, but it has never been granted. An independent Kurdestan would not endanger the countries that now occupy it. But does the world, does the UN support the Kurds in their quest for independence? Of course not!
And then there are the Tibetans. They are a distinct people, unique in language and religion. They have been annexed by China, which has flooded the country with its settlers. The Chinese are fully in the process of making Tibet into an integral part of China. Clearly, an independent Tibet would not be any existential threat to China. But does the world, does the UN support the Tibetans in their quest for independence? Of course not!
The quest for an independent homeland for the Palestinians is unwarranted because the Palestinians are not a distinct people which never had or even claimed such a homeland, and because the creation of such a homeland would be an existential threat to Israel. Both the world and especially the Europeans dont really care about self-determination they dont lose any sleep over the Basques, the Kurds, the Tibetans or others who yearn for a homeland. They care about their own political and economic interests, which they cloak in the language of political morality. And of course, there are quite a few who wouldnt shed a tear if, at the end of the day, Israel were indeed wiped from the face of the earth.
No deal with an arab is ever final.
Nope. Not even historically was that the so-called land of “Palestine” (Philistine land). And not even people like Zuheir Mohsen of the PLO would claim Jordan to be “Palestine”, even saying that his intent was to “unite Palestine and Jordan”, referring to them as separate entities, once his dream of making the Levant “Judenrein” came to be that isso that meant “Palestine” and Jordan would be united under the Arab Nationalist Caliphate.
It won’t go on for decades, that’s for sure. Once Iran gets their “nuclear umbrella”, all bets are off.
Wonder why we don't have small enclaves of Germans and Poles, living in crap enclaves, blowing things up and demanding to get their stuff back?
Of course, the difference is that the Palestinians left voluntarily in 1948, so that the Jews could all be more neatly slaughtered by the invading Arab armies, with the assurance that they could come back to collect the spoils after the killing was done. Unfortunately for them, they chose poorly.
The Israeli mistake was in not pushing them all into Egypt and Jordan before sealing the border.
I wish it were sure, however, I have been burned several times by people who persuaded me that they had solved the puzzle and gave specific dates for events.
Well, the dates came and went. The best presentation, the one that really got my attention was created by a good man who put it on the net free. So while his research was impeccable, he still got it wrong. Nothing happened that was supposed to happen.
You can check it out. Google Dewey Bruton, Daniel’s Timeline.
Still, it continues to feel close but I just cannot buy into anymore date setters for events. The Four Blood Moons by Mark Biltz is the current attention getter.
Mark may be right. I thought Dewey was right too.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
One can never set dates. Date-setters, to my mind, are trying to defy Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.
Invited to leave in 1948
The people are in great need of a “myth” to fill their
consciousness and imagination....
— Musa Alami, 1948
Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem
in an irresponsible manner.... they have used the Palestine
people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and,
I could say, even criminal.
— King Hussein of Jordan, 1960
Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes .... 
— Khaled Al-Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war
The nations of western Europe condemned Israel’s position
despite their guarantee of her security.... They understood
that ... their dependence upon sources of energy precluded
their allowing themselves to incur Arab wrath.
— Al-Haytham Al-Ayubi, Arab Palestinian military strategist, 1974
At the time of the 1948 war, Arabs in Israel were invited by their fellow Arabs — invited to “leave” while the “invading” Arab armies would purge the land of Jews.1 The invading Arab governments were certain of a quick victory; leaders warned the Arabs in Israel to run for their lives.2
In response, the Jewish Haifa Workers’ Council issued an appeal to the Arab residents of Haifa: [See Official British Police Report ]
For years we have lived together in our city, Haifa.... Do not fear: Do not destroy your homes with your own hands ... do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens.... But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace for you and your families.”3
While the Haifa pattern appears to have been prevalent, there were exceptions. Arabs in another crucial strategic area, who were “opening fire on the Israelis shortly after surrendering,”4 were “forced” to leave by the defending Jewish army to prevent what former Israeli Premier Itzhak Rabin described as a “hostile and armed populace” from remaining “in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route . . .”5 In his memoirs, Rabin stated that Arab control of the road between the seacoast and Jerusalem had “all but isolated” the “more than ninety thousand Jews in Jerusalem,” nearly one-sixth of the new nation’s total population.
If Jerusalem fell, the psychological blow to the nascent Jewish state would be more damaging than any inflicted by a score of armed brigades.6
According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, “the majority” of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and “68%” left without seeing an Israeli soldier.7
After the Arabs’ defeat in the 1948 war, their positions became confused: some Arab leaders demanded the “return” of the “expelled” refugees to their former homes despite the evidence that Arab leaders had called upon Arabs to flee. [Such as President Truman’s International Development Advisory Board Report, March 7, 1951: “Arab leaders summoned Arabs of Palestine to mass evacuation... as the documented facts reveal...”] At the same time, Emile Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Command, called for the prevention of the refugees from “return.” He stated in the Beirut Telegraph on August 6, 1948: “it is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews.... It would serve as a first step toward Arab recognition of the state of Israel and Partition.”
Arab activist Musa Alami despaired: as he saw the problem, “how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? ... The people are in great need of a ‘myth’ to fill their consciousness and imagination. . . .” According to Alami, ar indoctrination of the “myth” of nationality would create “identity” and “self-respect.”8
However, Alami’s proposal was confounded by the realities: between 1948 and 1967, the Arab state of Jordan claimed annexation of the territory west of the Jordan River, the “West Bank” area of Palestine — the same area that would later be forwarded by Arab “moderates” as a “mini-state” for the “Palestinians.” Thus, that area was, between 1948 and 1967, called “Arab land,” the peoples were Arabs, and yet the “myth” that Musa Alami prescribed-the cause of “Palestine” for the “Palestinians” — remained unheralded, unadopted by the Arabs during two decades. According to Lord Caradon, “Every Arab assumed the Palestinians [refugees] would go back to Jordan.”9
When “Palestine” was referred to by the Arabs, it was viewed in the context of the intrusion of a “Jewish state amidst what the Arabs considered their own exclusive environment or milieu, the ‘Arab region.’ “10 As the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser “screamed” in 1956, “the imperialists’ ‘destruction of Palestine’ “ was “an attack on Arab nationalism,” which “ ‘unites us from the Atlantic to the Gulf.’ “11
Ever since the 1967 Israeli victory, however, when the Arabs determined that they couldn’t obliterate Israel militarily, they have skillfully waged economic, diplomatic, and propaganda war against Israel. This, Arabs reasoned, would take longer than military victory, but ultimately the result would be the same. Critical to the new tactic, however, was a device designed to whittle away at the sympathies of Israel’s allies: what the Arabs envisioned was something that could achieve Israel’s shrinking to indefensible size at the same time that she became insolvent.
This program was reviewed in 1971 by Mohamed Heikal,12 then still an important spokesman of Egypt’s leadership in his post as editor of the influential, semi-official newspaper Al Ahram. Heikal called for a change of Arab rhetoric — no more threats of “throwing Israel into the sea” — and a new political strategy aimed at reducing Israel to indefensible borders and pushing her into diplomatic and economic isolation. He predicted that “total withdrawal” would “pass sentence on the entire state of Israel.”
As a more effective means of swaying world opinion, the Arabs adopted humanitarian terminology in support of the “demands” of the “Palestinian refugees,” to replace former Arab proclamations of carnage and obliteration. In Egypt, for example, in 1968 “the popularity of the Palestinians was rising,” as a result of Israel’s 1967 defeat of the Arabs and subsequent 1968 “Israeli air attacks inside Egypt.”13] It was as recently as 1970 that Egyptian President Nasser defined “Israel” as the cause of “the expulsion of the Palestinian people from their land.” Although Nasser thus gave perfunctory recognition to the “Palestinian Arab” allegation, he was in reality preoccupied with the overall basic, pivotal Arab concern. As he continued candidly in the same sentence, Israel was “a permanent threat to the Arab nation.”14 Later that year (May 1970), Nasser “formulated his rejection of a Jewish state in Palestine,” but once again he stressed the “occupation of our [Pan-Arab] lands,” while only secondarily noting: “And we reject its [Israel’s] insistence on denying the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in their country.”15 Subsequently the Arabs have increased their recounting of the difficulties and travail of Arab refugees in the “host” countries adjacent to Israel. Photographs and accounts of life in refugee camps, as well as demands for the “legitimate” but unlimited and undefined “rights” of the “Palestinians,” have flooded the communications media of the world in a subtle and adroit utilization of the art of professional public relations.16
A prominent Arab Palestinian strategist, AI-Haytham Al-Ayubi, analyzed the efficacy of Arab propaganda tactics in 1974, when he wrote:
The image of Israel as a weak nation surrounded by enemies seeking its annihilation evaporated [after 1967], to be replaced by the image of an aggressive nation challenging world opinion.* 17
[* As Rosemary Sayigh wrote in the Journal of Palestine Studies, “a strongly defined Palestinian identity did not emerge until 1968, two decades after expulsion.” It had taken twenty years to establish the “myth” prescribed by Musa Alami.18]
The high visibility of the sad plight of the homeless refugees — always tragic — has uniquely attracted the world’s compassion.19 In addition, the campaign has provided non-Arabs with moral rationalization for abiding by the Arabs’ anti-Israel rules, which are regarded as prerequisites to getting Arab oil and the financial benefits from Arab oil wealth. Millions of dollars have been spent to exploit the Arab refugees and their repatriation as “the heart of the matter,” as the primary human problem that must be resolved before any talk of overall peace with Israel.
Reflecting on the oil weapon’s influence in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Al-Ayubi shrewdly observed:
The nations of western Europe condemned Israel’s position despite their guarantee of her security and territorial integrity. They understood that European interests and their dependence upon sources of energy precluded their allowing themselves to incur Arab wrath.20
Thus Al-Ayubi recommended sham “peace-talks,” with the continuation, however, of the “state of ‘no peace,’” and he advocated the maintaining of “moral pressure together with carefully-balanced military tension...” for the “success of the new Arab strategy.” Because “loss of human life remains a sore point for the enemy,” continual “guerrilla” activities can erode Israel’s self-confidence and “the faith” of the world in the “Israeli policeman.”
Al-Ayubi cited, as an example, “the success of Arab foreign policy maneuvers” in 1973, which was
so total that.... With the exception of the United States and the racist African governments, the entire world took either a neutral or pro-Arab position on the question of legality of restoring the occupied territories through any means — including the use of military force.
As Al-Ayubi noted, “The basic Arab premise concerning ‘the elimination of the results of aggression’ remains accepted by the world.” Thus the “noose” will be placed around the neck of the “Zionist entity.”
But the Arabs’ creation of the “myth” of nationality did not create the advantageous situation for the Palestinian Arabs that Musa Alami had hoped for. Instead, the conditions he complained of bitterly were perpetuated: the Arabs “shut the door” of citizenship “in their faces and imprison them in camps.”21
Khaled Al-Azm, who was Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war, deplored the Arab tactics and the subsequent exploitation of the refugees, in his 1972 memoirs:
Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes .... 22
Propaganda has successfully veered attention away from the Arab world’s manipulation of its peoples among the refugee group on the one hand, and the number of those who now in fact possess Arab citizenship in many lands, on the other hand. The one notable exception is Jordan, where the majority of Arab refugees moved,* and where they are entitled to citizenship according to law, “unless they are Jews.”23
Palestinian leadership will not let the refugee problem be solved In 1958, former director of UNRWA Ralph Galloway declared angrily while in Jordan that
The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die.
Prittie, “Middle East Refugees,” in Michael Curtis et al., eds., The Palestinians:
People, History, Politics (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 71.
2. Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . .” Cited by Anderson et al., “The Arab Refugee Problem and How It Can Be Solved,” p. 22; for more regarding Arab responsibility, see Sir Alexander Cadogan, Ambassador of Great Britain to the United Nations, speech to the Security Council, S.C., O.R., 287th meeting, April 23, 1948; also see Harry Stebbens, British Port Officer stationed in Haifa, letter in Evening Standard (London), January 10, 1969.
3. April 28, 1948; according to the Economist (London), October 1, 1948, only “4000 to 6000” of the “62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa” remained there until the time of the war; also see Kenneth Bilby, New Star in the Near East (New York: Doubleday, 1950), pp. 30-31; Lt. Col. Moshe Pearlman, The Army of Israel (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), pp. 116-17; and Major E. O’Ballance, The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 (London, 1956), p. 52.
4. David Shipler, New York Times, October 23, 1979, p. A3. Shipler cites Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, 0 Jerusalem, and Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948.
5. New York Times, October 23, 1979.
6. Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown, 1979), p. 23, pp. 22-44.
7. Peter Dodd and Halim Barakat, River Without Bridges.- A Study of the Exodus of the 1967Arab Palestinian Refugees (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969), p. 43; on April 27, 1950, the Arab National Committee of Haifa stated in a memorandum to the Arab States: “The removal of the Arab inhabitants ... was voluntary and was carried out at our request ... The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighboring Arab countries.... We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their honour and traditions with pride and greatness.” Cited by J.B. Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), pp. 8-9; also see Al-Zaman, Baghdad journal, April 27, 1950.
8. Musa Alami, “The Lesson of Palestine,” The Middle East Journal, October 1949.
9. Lord Caradon, “Cyprus and Palestine,” lecture at the University of Chicago, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, February 17, 1976. Similar statement by Folke Bernadotte, To Jerusalem, p. 113.
10. P.J. Vatikiotis, Nasser and His Generation (London: Croom Heim, 1978), pp. 256-57.
11. Ibid. p. 234, quoting a speech by Nasser at Suez, July 26, 1956; in 1952, Sheikh Pierre Gemayel, then leader of the Lebanese National Youth Organization “Al Kataeb,” wrote: “Why should the refugees stay in Lebanon, and not in Egypt, Iraq and Jordan which claim that they are all Arab and beyond that, Moslem? ... Isn’t it for that alone that these so-called nationalist elements are demanding to resettle the refugees in Lebanon because they are themselves Arab and Moslems?” Al-Hoda, Lebanese journal, January 3, 1952, cited in Schechtman, Arab Refugee Problem, p. 84; also see Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, “Quest for an Arab Future,” in Arab Journal, 1966-67, vol. 4, nos. 2-4, pp. 23-29.
12. “Mohammed Hassanein Heykal Discusses War and Peace in the Middle East,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn 197 1. Heykal thus joined the Arab chorus heard after the 1967 war.
13. Vatikiotis, Nasser, p. 257; also see Mohamed Heikal, The Road to Ramadan (New York: Ballantine Books, 1975), p. 56.
14. Interview with Nasser, Le Monde (Paris: February 1970), cited in Vatikiotis, Nasser, p. 259.
15. Charles Foltz, interview with Nasser, U.S. News and World Report, May 1970, cited in Vatikiotis, Nasser, p. 259; see also Le Monde interview, February 1970.
16. contrary to the popular view ... in the West,” a “great many refugees” were living out of camps “in comfortable housing outside,” in the beginning of the 1960s according to Fawaz Turki, The Disinherited- Journal of a Palestinian Exile (New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1972), p. 41.
17. Al-Haytham A]-Ayubi, “Future Arab Strategy in the Light of the Fourth War,” Shuun Filastiniyya (Beirut), October 1974. AI-Ayubi, also called Abu-Hammam, has been military head of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Lieutenant Colonel in the Syrian army, and highly respected strategist on Israel. He perceived the “guerrilla” war against Israel as the ultimately successful one.
18. Rosemary Sayigh, “Sources of Palestinian Nationalism: A Study of a Palestinian Camp in Lebanon,” Journal of Palestinian Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, 1977, p. 2 1; see also Sayigh, “The Palestinian Identity Among Camp Residents,” Journal of Palestinian Studia vol. 6, no. 3, 1977, pp. 3-22.
19. In 1981, the Organization of African Unity’s executive secretary, Ambassador Oumarou Garba Youssoupou from Niger, reflected upon why the millions of displaced souls in Africa were not as visible: “We’re not getting the publicity because of our culture. No refugee is turned away from the host countries, so we’re not dramatic enough for television. We have no drownings, no piratings.... We don’t make the news ... .. Aiding Africa’s Refugees,” by Gertrude Samuels, The New Leader, May 4, 1981.
20. AI-Ayubi, “Future Arab Strategy in the Light of the Fourth War.”
21. Musa Alami, “The Lesson of Palestine,” The Middle East Journal, October 1949.
22. Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic), 3 vols. (AI-Dar al Muttahida Id-Nashr, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 386-87, cited by Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jewsfrom Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, preliminary edition (Jerusalem: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries [WOJAC], 1975), p. 61.
23. Jordanian National Law, Official Gazette, No. 1171, February 16, 1954, p. 105, Article 3(3). Between 1948 and 1967, 200,000 to 300,000 Arabs moved from the West Bank to the “East Bank,” according to Eliyahu Kanovsky, in Jordan, People and Politics in the Middle East, Michael Curtis, ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1971), p. 111.
This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
Brooklyn, New York
E-mail to a friend
Source: “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters, 1984
SPECIAL OFFER Purchase this national bestseller available at WorldNetDaily
IMO the origin of the name Palestinians is me-toosim based on jealousy of Israel by Arabs in the region, especially after seeing the flourishing of the Jewish state in stark contrast to the relative squalor among Palestinkians who have been too preoccupied with destroying Israel and committing acts of terrorism against it to work diligently to improve their lot. Of course the surest course to that improvement would be a fair and comprehensive peace settlement with Israel, with mutual assured security, which will never happen.
> With the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Jews, who had lived in various Arab lands for 2,500 years, were targeted by their own governments in their own lands and forced to migrate under the threat of death.
Just a reminder: the establishment of a Jewish State in 1948 was a British (who had been given authority over the region by the United Nations) decree, and in precise (to the date)fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.