shikra

The Question is, why "you" left the region? Is it that immediately all 'their' hearts fell for the people living there ).

Or the 'civilized brains' were relying on the fact that these foolish, rather stupid people will eventually fight with each other, and we will have a better cause to attack them later....for example....weapons of ar** destruction....democracy should be in middle east....afghanistan is threat to whole world....

to name few....

Norm, your reference to the 'civilized ancestors' reminds me of this....

shikra

Or may be a more bigger crime was to leave all the places and then, grab Palestine back from the so called uncivilized and inhuman people, forcefully Israel now...

shikra

and here we go again, the same story, different land this time...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view...hunt-bio-arms/

Cypselos

Isn't the thinking that the Israelis will do it in September or October? The Democratic convention is next week...

Norm_uk

We left the region because we lost the will to hold an Empire. We stopped believing that we had something to offer, an ideal to raise others up to. Then issues like money and will become excuses and it was given back...and it was given back. Few people fought the British and won to keep their lands.

Nice link but half the Scots were complicit in the Union with England. And it was a Scots King on the throne by the time of the Union...we haven't had English kings in a long time.

N.

Norm_uk

Palestine is the name of a region - it's had dozens of peoples living and ruling it for the last 2000 years.

There have never been a people called "Palestinian" though. The very name Palestine comes from the name Philistine - a non-Semitic sea people who invaded from the Aegean and were assimilated and/or defeated by the city states of the Kingdom of Israel (first mentioned in non-biblical records 3100 years ago - you can still see that mention in Egypt today on the Merneptah Stele). The name was stamped by Alexander's armies on Judea and Israel in a bid to quell Jewish nationalism against their rule, and later by the Romans. It is a no more a valid name for the region than called Yorkshire "Oslo" because the Vikings were once there but were defeated and assimilated...

...which is why Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said in an interview in 1977 that "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

I won't mention the millions of Israeli Arabs, or the tens of thousands in the IDF or the hundreds who participate in Israeli Democracy, etc...it all goes against the Narrative.

N.

shikra

We lost the will....we stopped believing....and it was given back.

Sounds like business to me, like when the classical employers shout in the office while convincing their faithful and honest employees, 'it is not about the money my dear love....'

shikra

So what were the people called who were living just before the creation of this new state of Israel?


So a name is not valid once the people get defeated and assimilated in that region. Fair enough, lets see how Iraq and Syria are named, although I would feel more for Iraq because its Babylonian history makes me really emotional.




So according to Mr. Zahir, the creation of Palestinian state is only a means for struggling against Zionist state. But wasn't the Palestinian state already there in its place when Zionist state started to emerge? Norm, kindly confirm Mr. Zahir is not backed by the intelligence like the Syrian rebels right now. And don't tell me that you heard his words on BBC UK

Quote:

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem."

Yes, but note that you are talking about after the Zionism regime has started. Then using the Palestine name can be thought as interpreted by Mr. Zahir above.

Politics, or religion? what has plagued this region that resulted in the mass execution and killings of children and adults?
Whatever it is, no doubt it shows a very sad and tragic part of human nature.

And the story goes on, Syria, after that, maybe another country in Middle East. It is said that War is a big business, means great deal of wealth and power to the invaders. But if it is not politics, then?

Anyways....time to sleep,

Norm_uk

Arabs, Jews, Druze and a few other minorities. A lot of Jews lived there and brought land legally for decades before Israel was declared. When the Arabs saw their numbers increase from immigration and purchasing land they responded by massacring them...then Jews responded in kind which came as a bit of a surprise to all. Charming situation. The Arabs have 700 times more land than Jews, over 60% of it all annexed centuries ago. It's not just a land conflict is it? The Arabs have their "breathing room" and then some. It's about preserving Arabian hegemony over the middle east.

The name isn't valid because it doesn't describe anyone living there since the 9th century BCE, and certainly not Arabs (who were no where near the area then. I imagine there is some Philistine DNA floating around though - but without culture, language and history to back it it's meaningless.

Syria - see the Assyrians...and their genocide by guess who.

I'll have to look up Iraq - but expect more of the same. No Mesopotamians called themselves Arabs I'm sure.

There was no Palestinian state ever. There was an administrative region in the area called variously, that and Transjordan. I haven't heard what Mr Zahir has said recently so can't confirm anything - perhaps you have a link I can look at? You can find similar comments about the Palestinian people and state from other Arab leaders all over the internet.

Zionism has been a movement since the 1800s - it's was simply a move to give Jews their own state again. Originally they thought somewhere in Africa might suit them actually. But their historical homeland became the place their dream was realised. It wasn't handled well. A population exchange went badly, they were invaded and won and even took land from the people who invaded them - some of which they gave back in exchange for recognition and peace.

No argument that it's sad and tragic - war is human as much as anything else though.

War has always been big business - but not all wars are over money and land. The worst wars have been ideological in their root. The Arab/Israeli conflict can be condensed down to Arabs not accepting a non-Arab ruled majority state in the middle east. Otherwise they would have absorbed the Palestinian Arabs decades ago and got down to making lots of money with the Jews. They'd all be a lot happier if that happened I'm sure.

I always find it odd how people become so polarised over this issue as if it's their conflict and/or that is a deadly conflict. For 70 years of fighting a body count of some 100,000 or so and massive population growth just doesn't make sense. Even the Algerian civil war had a count in the millions. All that oil money and banking money influencing the media seems to have gone far.

N.

Norm_uk

We did loose the will though. That had been clear for decades. World War Two brought war home to the people and that was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Money became a valid reason after that.

If money was an issue few wars would be fought, we would have surrendered to the Nazi's because it was expensive to fight them and we certainly would not have ended slavery - that was a fantastic way to save and make money. Even cheaper labour than the people they use in the GCC to build their architectural bling - our slaves were used in industry and agriculture at least.

N.