The True History of Palestine: The Nation-State Fallacy By William John Hagan

The current debate on the inevitable future of the “Palestinian Nation” seems to lack one simple fact: Palestine has no past and was never a sovereign nation. The closest thing the Palestinian people have to a history is that there was once a British Colony from which they had stolen their modern name.

After the Allied victory in World War Two, it became clear to even the most anti-Semitic Westerners that the Jewish People deserved to have their nation restored. The Nation of Israel’s first record of historically existence is a mention in the Book of Exodus (3:16), however, even earlier references are made in Genesis to the tribes of Israel. It is both biblical and historical fact that Israel was founded by Moses after the Jewish expulsion from Egypt by Ramases II. This would place this event sometime between 1290 and 1224 BC. The reality that the Palestinians want to keep from you is that there has been a Jewish presence in Israel for almost 3300 years.

The history of the Palestinian People in far more recent than that of their Jewish neighbors. In fact, “Palestine” was created by the British Empire in the days after World War II. According to Rockwell Lazareth author of the essay “Who are the Palestinians?”, “There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as Palestine and the very notion of a Palestinian Arab nation having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct Palestinian culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed by Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964.”

The most disturbing reality is that the “Palestinians” are not even Arabs at all but Canaanites who have over the years adopted Arab culture and language. For all their history, the Canaanites have been a nomdic sea-faring people who traveled between such nations as Lebannon, Syria,and Turkey but making a premenant home in no land. The British allowed these modren Palastinian Canaanites to set up their tents in colonial Palestine so they could be used as a cheap source of labor for the citrus industry. This historical fact leaves the so-called Palestinians with a far more blundering claim to Israel than illegal Mexican immigrants would have to the United States.

In 1948, the British rewarded their fruit pickers by dividing the colony of Palestine into two states: one Jewish and the other Arab or should we say “Canaanite”. It was at this moment that the term Palestinain was first used to exclusivly refer to nomadic Canaanites. The Palestinains responded to the England’s generosity by invading the newly reborn Isreali state, with help from the armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. To the world’s amazement Israel emerged the victor. The Arabs further demonstrated military prowess by, again, invading Israel in 1967. This time they lost control of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.

In the years that followed, Yasser Arafat’s PLO murdered thousands of Israelis, in fact he made Bin Laden look like a piker. Today, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is fulfilling Arafat’s dying wish and taking land from the industrious Israeli’s so that a Palestinian Nation can be born. The Israelis had taken the deserts of Gaza and turned them into an oasis of prosperity, all while under the guns of PLO terrorists. These very settlers who sacrificed their own children for a greater Israel are today being sacrificed by Sharon to the False Idol of Appeasement.

Letters to the editor of The Houston Home Journal may be e-mail to: mailto: rgambill@evansnewspapers.com (Please Include Your Name and Location)

William John Hagan can be contacted directly by e-mail at: William_Hagan@excite.com

If you listen to the media describe events in Israel, and you know just a tiny bit of history, you easily find out that the entire Arab/Palestinian story is a lie.

How many times do you hear the phrase- "return the land to the Palestinians"? Maybe we need a new definition of "return". To me it means a possession you once had and lost.

My personal favorite was a FOX reporter interviewing "Palestinians" in Gaza who were now optimistic life would get back to normal - "like it was before the Intifadah" -. Uh? You mean Arabs were living normal lives, working in Israel, traveling unencumbered in Israel, before they decided to start butchering Jews again? Israel's fault.

"Jews waged a terrorist war for independence against British troops."

Huh?

What Israel waged was a true Insurgency -- they targeted the British Military not civilians. The US government, and most analysts, define terrorism as targeting civilians.

"The 1956 war, when the Israelis were the ones doing the attacking, in concert with France and Britain, is left out."

I guess by your definition the US was the one doing the attacking in Iraq. You appear to have forgiotten the numerous UN resolutions Egypt violated. Sound familiar?

"On August 9, 1949, the UN mixed armistice commission upheld Israel's complaint that egypt was illegally blocking the canal. un negotiator Ralph Bunche declared: "There should be free movement for legitimate shipping and no vestiges of the wartime blockade should be allowed to remain, as they are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the armistice agreements."

On September 1, 1951, the security council ordered egypt to open the canal to Israeli shipping. egypt refused to comply.

The egyptian foreign minister, muhammad salah al-din, said early in 1954:

The arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the middle east (Al-Misri, April 12, 1954)."

You also must be unaware of the numerous attacks on Israel from Egyptian Fedayeen prior to 1956 and the massing of armies on Israel's borders.

"Israeli Ambassador to the un, Abba Eban, explained the provocations to the security council on October 30:

During the six years, during which this belligerency has operated in violation of the armistice agreement, there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from egyptian controlled territory, and 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded."

http://amichai.com/war/process/56war.html

In your mind does only the US and the West have the right to self-preservation via self-defense?

They blew up hotels, civilians were killed, it was a terrorist war. They did not distinguish themselves as combatants, did not observe the laws of war, etc. Facts are stubborn things. I draw no greater conclusions from it, Israel is independent by right of conquest regardless of the crimes of some in the distant past. But there were such crimes at Israel's founding and before, and it is lying to maintain otherwise. Lying for which there is no need.

Yes the US attacked Iraq. No the UN doesn't have anything to do with any of it, being a toothless talking shop with no relevance to the control of territories or the safety of peoples. Israel, Britain, and France attack Egypt in 1956. Bare fact, nothing more to be read into it. Nowhere did I say or imply that attacking enemies is forbidden by anyone or anything. On the contrary, I explicitly said disputing the outcome of the last conquest is called waging war.

You appear rhetorically to buy into legalistic theories you don't not actually believe and that have no operative force in the real world. You also avoid, distort, or deny obvious historical facts for reasons apparently connected to apologetics about them. You impute inferences about rights of self preservation etc where none have been so much as hinted. To me, all are symptoms of the same underlying problem. A reluctance to live in the real world, taking facts as they are.

No doubt the legalistic fantasies involved weren't made by you, and you are kicking against them. Fine by me, but why live inside that straightjacket at all? Things are so much clearer out here. Where no man needs to ask for what he can defend with his own hands.

"They blew up hotels, civilians were killed, it was a terrorist war."

"Hotels?" Plural? One Hotel, The King David which happened to be MILITARY HEADQUARTERS for the British forces. It is you who are having trouble with historical facts and who are "lying" and or ignorant of such salient details. Further three separate advance warnings were given prior to the bombing but ignored by the British who were in denial about the threat from a bunch of Jews.

"You appear rhetorically to buy into legalistic theories you don't not actually believe and that have no operative force in the real world. You also avoid, distort, or deny obvious historical facts for reasons apparently connected to apologetics about them. You impute inferences about rights of self preservation etc where none have been so much as hinted. To me, all are symptoms of the same underlying problem. A reluctance to live in the real world, taking facts as they are. "

Uh, I'm not the subject here and spare me the psychobabble. Talk history and facts. Give references, but leave out the ad hominem signs that you have lost the debate.

"These very settlers who sacrificed their own children for a greater Israel are today being sacrificed by Sharon to the False Idol of Appeasement."

It is worse than appeasement. That word dealt with pre-existing nations, one appeasing the demands of another. In this case, no existing nation is presenting demands to a preexisting nation.

We do hear that the Gaza settlers have been ejected from land that "Palestinians want" as part of a future state however...we hear that, of course, from the MSM.

So, just what is the idol, false or otherwise? Israel? No. Hamas? No. Peace? No.

The idol is money. There is a bet, the same bet played w/ regards to Egypt and the Sadat deal (and recall, the precedent for leaving 'settlements' was set at that time.

Egypt didn't sign off on peace for free. Egypt gets cash, annually, that is as predictable as the Nile from the U.S.A.; 4 Billion US Dollars per year unless I am mistaken.

So, the formula now is the same as then: enough money, year after year, flowing into the pockets of corrupt islamic regimes (Abbas now, Hamas (maybe) later but whatever....

Enough money will provide the means by which Islamic nut cases will be quieted, regardless of the "national" soil of their origin. Enough money will be provided such that enough towel heads will in effect be paid for enduring the presence of Israel in their midst. It is a kind of reverse tax, or better, reverse 'protection money'.

(Of course, asking who the big winners are in the recent run up in oil prices does help this analysis any either, right?)

In effect, Israelies are paying rent. And, oh yes ... the land use chit that was enjoyed in the Gaza area has been recently revoked.

I hope I am wrong ... I hope this is a tactical retreat, with the idea of a future strategic victory in the hazy future. I have a hunch that year after year of bribing towel heads is not going to get the job done. Indeed, what is going on in Iraq is the only source of hope in this mess.

Then who are the Canaanite descendents?
If you are a Biblical literalist and read the Book of Joshua, then there are no descendants. If you are a Biblical Minimalist/Revisionist then Jews(13 million) and Samaritans(~735 left) are.
If you go by languages then one would look at the peoples associated with the Canaanite Branch of the Northwestern Semitic Family. Moav, Edom, and Ammon were in modern Jordan and Modern Jordanians are primarily of this stock. Ancient Hebrew was a Canaanite language although Masortic, Modern, and Samaritan Hebrew carry significant Aramaic elements. Hence, Jews and Samaritans are also Canaanites. Phonecians were Canaanites as well. Therefor so are modern Lebanese and at least some Libyans.

They blew up train lines, bridges, railway stations, they demolished government buildings with explosives, they killed security guards, they assassinate a minister, they fought each other, with kidnappings and with torture, they shot at Arab buses, they shot at army depots and blew up military aircraft on the ground, they attacked police stations and banks, shot at vehicles on the roads with machineguns and with mortars, planted mines, took hostages, blew up British police headquarters, blew up the British intel office, blew up an officers club, and blew up the King David hotel.

They were terrorists. In their practices they were more restrained than AQ or Hamas, on a par with the IRA and not around as long. But terrorists they were. It doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.

Terrorism targets civilians as do the IRA, AQ, Hezbollah and Hamas.

"International and Domestic Terrorism - FBI definitions

Terrorism is defined as violent or criminal acts against a civilian population for the purpose of coercion, and promoting a political cause or agenda. When those crimes occur within the United States, and are perpetrated by an individual or group associated with a domestic cause, they are defined as domestic terrorism. When they are perpetrated by an individual or group from outside the U.S., then it is defined as international terrorism. Also, beginning 1986 it has been a violation of federal law for any group or individual to commit an act of terrorism against U.S. interests or U.S. citizens even in a foreign country. "

http://c21.maxwell.af.mil/cts-fed.htm

"How do you define terrorism?

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html

Your laundry list indicates the targets of the Israeli insurgency were Military and Government.

Your view of history is upside down. You condemn people fighting for survival and side with the British who abrogated all responsibility, legal and moral, to side with the Arabs.

The British were an occupying force from a continent away acting in disregard of international commitments, a Mandate, and a responsibility imposed upon them and accepted by them by the victors of WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations.

The bad guys here were the British who violated both their word and their moral authority in failing to give Jews a country and in siding with the Arabs. They whittled away the land of Israel giving the lions share to Transjordan to placate the Hashemites for their loss of Mecca and Medina. They prohibited Jewish immigration to placate the local Arabs thus adding immeasurably to the number of Jews left in Hitler's Europe. They limited Jewish land purchases. Both limitations were in direct contravention to the Mandate they had accepted and were obligated to abide.

The British actively sided, supported and fought with the Arab countries who attacked Israel after the UN voted its creation and Israel was declared a country in 1948.

History has become so politicized that simple concepts have lost all meaning. In Iraq the left calls acts of terror perpetrated on civilians an insurgency. BBC, Reuters say one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter again disregarding the targets of even 9/11. The far left calls the acts of Western Governments terrorism. You rush to label acts of war against an occupying power terrorism focusing on the identity of the perpetrators and not on the acts or the intended victims.

Neither the left nor your approach are correct. There still exists the concept of insurgency outside of terrorism and outside of regular forces in uniform.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.