Interesting quote:
"Israel News: Title to the Land
Updated: 2003.10.17 In addition to our paper on the history of the term 'Palestine,' and another paper in our Israeli Archives ('Palestine,' Name and Where); the following quotation from a scholarly essay in the MERIA Journal clarifies the 'ancient' claim of local Arabs to be 'Palestinians':
"In fact, the only binding international document that has ever assigned sovereignty over this land is the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – which assigned the entirety of what is not the West Bank to the future Jewish state. Not a single binding document has ever assigned the land to the Palestinians.
"The 1947 Partition Resolution, though it did call for a Palestinian state in this area, was nonbinding on two counts: because it was a General Assembly rather than a Security Council resolution, and because the Palestinians themselves unequivocally rejected the partition polan, thereby making it null and void...
"As for Security Council Resolution 242, passed after Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967, this resolution did call for Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," but, notably, not "the territories" – a wording that, far from being accidental, was deliberately chosen by the sponsors (the US and Britain) to allow for the possibility of Israel keeping some of this land under a future peace agreement.
"Furthermore, the resolution made no mention of who should receive sovereignty over any portion of the West Bank from which Israel did withdraw. In fact, those lands had no recognized sovereign at the time, since prior to the Islaeli conquest, they had been occupied by Jordan – and only two countries in the world (Britain and Pakistan) ever recognized Jordan's occupation as legal.
"Thus the claim that this land has been recognized as Palestinian territory has no basis whatsoever under international law" (Evelyn Gordon, Wall Street Journal & Jerusalem Post, 2003.10.14).
"Arab rejection of partition in 1947 reflected a crisis of leadership in a community whose identity as 'Palestinians' was not yet fully crystallized. Indeed, at the start of the British mandate, the Arabs of 'Palestine' were profoundly ambivalent about the appropriate focus of their political loyalties – should they identify with the overall Arab nation, consider themselves Southern Syrians, or call themselves 'Palestinians' in conformity to boundaries artificially drawn by imperial powers?" (Naomi Weinberger, Role Reversal Over Partition: 1948 And 1998, MERIA Journal, 2:2, 98.05.29).
There is no justification for accepting British occupation of land historically belonging to an earlier people. That is well accepted. The identical argument applies to the occupation by the Ottomans before them, and the occupation by the Mamluks before them, and the occupation by the Crusaders before them... So why does the world suddenly turn into logical hypocrites and view the Arab occupation of land previously occupied by the Romans any differently? By the identical argument, the Romans occupied it from the earliest owners existing today – the Jews! There is no rational or logical basis for capriciously accepting one of the occupations in the middle of the chain. The earliest owners of the land in recorded history (Tôrâh, we see, is conveniently – but selectively – accepted here) were the Kenaanim (Canaanites), all surviving remnants of whom, history books document, were absorbed into the Israeli people, and ceased to be distinct from Jews. The 'Canaanites' are the Jews, and vice-versa! Therefore, the earliest title on this land is a book going back well more than a millennia before the Arab Muslims – the Tôrâh (be consistent!). Ah, there's the rub. Tôrâh exposes miso-Judaics like flipping on a light in a slum kitchen in the middle of the night exposes the roaches!
"Behold I will make Yerushâlayim a staggering-drunk's cup to all of the surrounding kindreds, and so it will be for Yehudâh in the siege against Yerushâlayim. And it shall become in that day that I will set Yerushâlayim to be a grievous stone of burden on [the necks of] all of the kindreds; all who have this burden shall be absolutely slashed up, even all of the gôyim [who] shall be gathered against her... And Yerushâlayim shall be resettled again where she belongs – in Yerushâlayim. Then ha-Sheim will first save the tents of Yehudâh... In that day, ha-Sheim shall shield the settlers of Yerushâlayim. In that day, even [the settler of Yerushâlayim who] stumbles shall be like Dâvid; and the House of Dâvid shall be like êlôhim, like a messenger [pop. "angel"] of ha-Sheim confronting [the kindreds]. In that day it shall become that I will request them to destroy all of the gôyim who have come against Yerushâlayim. But I will pour upon the House of Dâvid and upon the settlers of Yerushâlayim a Spirit of Graciousness and Supplication, and they shall gaze at Me whom they pierced, and they shall mourn bitterly over him as one mourns bitterly for an only son, for a firstborn... In that day there shall be a fountain opened for the House of Dâvid and for the settlers of Yerushâlayim, for a misstep [offering] and for the ash-waters of the clay-red cow." [Source ; Discussion archives]
0 kommentarer:
Post a Comment