Friday, June 23, 2006

 

How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?

Here is an article dealing with the Arab links with Israel, by Lawrence Auster:

There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:

  • As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.
  • If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.
  • If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back.

So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:

  • The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:
  • The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
  • The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
  • The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
  • The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
  • The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from:
  • The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
  • The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
  • The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
  • The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
  • The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
  • The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
  • The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
  • The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
  • The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.
As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The territories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history. The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence.


FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE CLICK HERE

Comments:
Yo creo que la creación del estado de Israel y su generación del "cuerpo de voluntad" para convertirse en estado constituyente tiene muchas lagunas y ciertas irregularidades.
Pero también creo que las circunstancias históricas a las que se tuvo que enfrentar son de calibre tal que no se han dado iguales en la historia: ningún pueblo ha tenido que buscar un refugio donde poder estar ante la amenaza palpable, cercana y asesina de un genocidio total, completo.
Por lo tanto el hecho de que los árabes de palestina se quejaran es lógico pero también es interesante entender que podían, pueden y , sobre todo, podrán vivir en conjunto.
Olvidamos una gran circunstancia que hace esto posible y no al revés (un contingente humano árabe en una población judía). Los israelies provienen en gran medida de una cultura política y social europea con lo que los valores liberales de los derechos y libertades están muy incardinados. Por otro lado la formación y comprensión del problema facilitó su integración y la creación de riqueza (los kibbutz son un milagro de ese concepto por mucha ayuda económica que tuvieran: el dinero no hace crecer árboles; son las manos que los plantan).
En resumen Israel nació siendo un estado democrático y lo sigue siendo a pesar de su empecinamiento en actuar como terrorista de estado.
Los palestinos y, en general, los paises árabes y musulmanes no lo son y , por tanto, no entienden que las armas no son la solucion sino el convivir juntos.
Más valdría que Iran y Arabia Saudí se encargaran de mejorar la vida de los palestinos, si quieren ayudar, en vez de comprar armas (aunque en ese caso perderían esa baza mundial de ajedrez).
Es decir el pasado marca pero no es el todo en la historia.
No pueden los indígenas americanos reclamar las tierras que los españoles conquistaron, ni los romanos las que luego conquistaron los musulmanes en españa, ni lo iberos las de los romanos, nos llevaría a una locura sin límite.
Lo que es posible es lograr un buen entendimiento entre personas.
Esto es posible si ambos quieren hablar y si, además, los dos entienden las reglas democráticas.
Esta es la razón por la que yo apoyo al estado de israel: es un estado democrático (no perfecto pero democrático).

perdón por la longitud.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?