PALESTINE & NATIONAL ASSEMBLY : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

LET'S SHARPEN THE CONTRADICTIONS!!! RAISING STRUGGLE TO A CRESCENDO!!!! DEATH TO ALL FACADES

This weekend, many Palestine activists will be in Cleveland, Ohio for the National Assembly (http://www.natassembly.org), a meeting of hundreds anti-war activists of every stripe who are hoping to re-energize and reform the anti-war movement. We need your help to network with people in Cleveland and anyone who can come to this conference to support a principled stance that Palestine and the anti-war movement are one and the same.

In our view many activists fear of exposing Israeli connections to the so-called “War on Terror” out of fear or lack of information (rarely because of allegiance to racist ideologies like political Zionism). While oppression of Palestinians and colonization/occupation may be mentioned occasionally, the influence of Israel and its US supporters pushing for wars on Arab and Muslim countries is minimized or ignored. This is done out of: 1) a crude analysis which sees a US elite capitalist class as the sole malevolent engine in world affairs, 2) vague notions of what constitutes "anti-Semitism" and fear of Zionists attacking those who criticize them as "anti-Semitic" or "self-hating Jews", 3) fear of alienating Democratic Party or trade union officialdom with close tied to political Zionism. The result is the national anti-war coalitions talk about oil and talk about arms makers, but they don’t connect Palestinian oppression and Israeli militarism to the wars against Iraq and likely war on Iran. Americans see the Presidential candidates and Congress pledging allegiance to AIPAC and its demands to smash Iran, but some anti-war activists pretends this is all inconsequential.

A resolution that was adopted at the New England United conference about these issues and was then submitted to the National Assembly by the Middle East Crisis Committee (http://thestruggle.org) is appended below. We could use your support to pass this resolution at the National assembly. But first a couple of other items worth reading/acting on.

Action: Tell your representative to OPPOSE H. Cong. Res. 362, calling for a US naval blockade of Iran (an act of war):
http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951
CBS news acknowledges Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml
Background on Israel and the last and ongoing (Iraq) war
http://www.qumsiyeh.org/connectingthedotsiraqpalestine/

To understand what is happening in Palestine today, see this presentation by Dr. Mustafa Barghouti
http://www.adc.org/flash/palestine/files/eslides.swf

Tactics that ended apartheid in S. Africa can end it in Israel, by Bill Fletcher executive editor of http://www.blackcommentator.com and former president of the TransAfrica Forum, which led the U.S. movement to overthrow apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9681308?nclick_check=1

The above two items could help in you drafting letters to media, politicians, friends, colleagues, and others. In short No Justice = No Peace.

Palestine and the Anti-War Movement (resolutions submitted for the National Asembly)

The oppression of Palestinians is not just another cause to be occasionally mentioned by the anti-war movement. It is integral to what is causing the so-called “War Against Terror”, what is in reality a war to subdue and impoverish the Middle East and Islamic countries. It is intertwined because of Israeli designs on the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Islamist attempts to hijack the Palestinian cause, and the influence of the Zionist lobbies (Christian and Jewish) on US politics.

Because Israel is an apartheid state that oppresses Palestinians and because it has expelled most of the Palestinians of Palestine to neighboring countries and refuses to let them return, it finds itself necessarily in conflict with Middle Eastern countries whose populace sympathizes with Palestinians. If Israel can’t join with the US to bring collaborationist regimes to power in the Middle East it seeks to have independent minded countries invaded or rendered helpless or divided.

US Neo-cons politicians advocate a “War of Civilizations” against Arab and Muslim peoples as a way on enriching themselves and maintaining the military-industrial complex now that they can’t exploit Cold War fears and use sympathy for Israel to further their ends. While the lust for oil remains the bedrock of US interest in the Middle East the importance of Israel in US-European imperial motivations cannot be ignored.

In the run-up to the Iraq invasion AIPAC was a prime supporter of the murderous sanctions on Iraq. Israeli officials repeatedly urged a military attack on Iraq both to the Administration and in the U.S. media. Israel's paper of record, Haaretz, wrote on Nov. 14, 2002 that “Israel is the only country to absolutely support the American decision [to attack Iraq], and has urged it to act, and quickly.”

Considering that a peaceful and just resolution would advance security and economic interests of the US and people in Western Asia (The Middle East).

Resolved that the anti-war movement should

• Integrate the issue of Palestine in the broader anti-war struggle

• Build solidarity with Palestinian and Israeli human rights activists

• Actively support the call of the Palestine Civil Society Movement for boycotts, divestments and sanctions until Israel complies with international law and respects human rights.

-------------------

Mazin Qumsiyeh

Attend the August 8-10 Palestine Conference in Chicago http://palestineconference.org

http://qumsiyeh.org

Didn't the "Palestinians" invent terror?

Didn't the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto invent terror when they tossed molotov cokctails at the NAZI occupiers of Poland?

Sounds kind of stupid, doesn't it? Yet we still find Zionists and their enablers who try to scapegoat the Zionist's chosen victims for the hostilities that the Zionist's chosen war of conquest created.

If you can't distinguish between Terror and war, then you are both amoral and stupid.

Are you saying that NAZI occupation of Poland was not a state of war to the occupied Poles, in the same way Zionist occupation of Palestinian lands is a state of war to the Palestinians?

666 THE SON OF THE DEVIL (GEORGE WARMONGER BUSH) : "Sorry to Oil the BUSH AL CIADA (The CIA Duh) 9-11 Attacks, the BUSH AL CIADA (The CIA Duh) Preplanted Explosives in the WTC, the BUSH AL CIADA (The CIA Duh) Controlled Demolition of the WTC, the Post 9-11 BUSH AL CIADA (The CIA Duh) 2001 Anthrax Attacks, the Post 9-11 Framing of Islam by the BUSH OIL BOHEMIAN GROVE PSYOPS NEWS NETWORK CNN NBC ABC CBS FOX, the Post 9-11 Politics of Hate and Fear Aired by the BUSH OIL BOHEMIAN GROVE ISLAMOPHOBIA NEWS NETWORK CNN NBC ABC CBS FOX, the Post 9-11 Showing of a Palestinian Wedding and Claiming they were Celebrating 9-11 by the BUSH OIL BOHEMIAN GROVE MINISTRY OF PROPUGANDA CNN NBC ABC CBS FOX, the Post 9-11 Censoring of the Dancing Israeli Story by the BUSH OIL BOHEMIAN GROVE SHEEP DIP NEWS NETWORK CNN NBC ABC CBS FOX, the Post 9-11 BUSH OIL BOHEMIAN GROVE Increased Military Aid to IDF IAF SS Nazis / Likud Eichmans / AIPAC Mengeles / Irgun Zvai Leumi SS Nazi War Criminals in ISRAHEIL, the Post 9-11 Stock Portfolios in Defense Spending and Oil Industries by the BUSH OIL POODLES IN CONGRESS AND SENATE, and the Post 9-11 BUSH OIL BOHEMIAN GROVE War On the Palestinians by the BUSH OIL BOHEMIAN GROVE Proxy IDF IAF SS Nazis / Likud Mengeles / AIPAC Eichmans / Irgun Zvai Leumi Brownshirts but Oil comes First. FILL HER UP WITH SOME 'CHREAP' POST 9-11 WAR CRIMINAL SUPREME GASOLINE ?????????????"

Someone who doesn't recognize the Zionist's murderous theft of palestinian lands as war is what?

"Amoral and stupid" come to mind.

But "stupid" doesn't really fit. Anyone THAT stupid would not have the capacity to understand basic communication much less concepts such as one gang of murderous thieves MURDERING their chosen victims to STEAL their homeland. Nope, Amoral and prejudiced DOES fit.

But you don't even have the nerve to admit that the Zionist's MURDEROUS THEFT of Palestinian lands is even RUDE, much less a bloodsoaked WAR of conquest. DO YOU?????

Come on, JUST RUDE???? You can't do it, CAN YOU???? Not even RUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, you can TRY to change the subject now. We ALL understand.

Thats because you have a baseless fantasy that there ever existed anything called "Palestine" or "Palestinians" before Zionism. There just weren't. In 1911, over 50 languages were spoken there. It had become an impoverished, mis-managed, de-populated back water of the Ottoman Empire. "Palestinian", per UNRWA only required TWO YEARS of residence before 1948! They were migrant workers.

There is not now and has never been a "Palestine"

And Brittania is just the name Roman occupiers gave to the island. Who do these allegedly "Brittish" people think they are to be calling themselves a name Roman invadors gave the island? There is no such thing as a "Brittish" person by your "reasoning".

What the locals of palestine chose to call themselves and when is their own business. You are arguing lables, and it is a meaningless tactic you use to marginalize the palestinian people's basic human right NOT to be destroyed by the murderous thieving Zionist crusaders.

Thank you so much for being so vacant. yes people, that really is Zionist propaganda at its best. Lets all thank the dink for making that clear.

And, other than Zionist crusaders invading Palestinian lands under Brittish guns like the NAZI'S hungarian buddies invaded Slovakian lands under NAZI guns,very few people from outside of Palestine emigrated to Palestine to join the Palestinian's society. Such claims are not supported by anything other than the propaganda of the ZIonist invadors.

Uh PPY, you idiot, the Brythons, after whom the name "Britannica" is derived were a dominant tribe at the time of the Roman conquest. There were no "Phillistines" or "Palestinians" when the Romans imposed the name "Palestrina" on Eretz Yisroal.

The "Palestinian" claim is based solely on the arrogance of the recently arrived "Palestinians", as being of the same faith as the 7th century invaders, as Muslims, demanding any land ever owned, occupied or conquered by Muslims. By the way, that includes Spain.

"Eretz Yisroal"? What, that the sexualy transmitted disease that causes your pecker to riot off???

No, that is the name Hebrew invadors forced on the land when the Hebrew invadors became murderous thieves of Canaanite lands. And don't try to tell us that there were no Canaanites in the land when Jesus' boy Simon was a canaanite. Your lies only work on people who are prejudiced enough to want to believe them.

Ohhh Brythons were one of the Celtic (Celts being from central European lands) tribes in England. And??? So you respect the "Brittish" people's right to call themselves "Brittish".

But palestinians have no right to call themselves Palestinians. Well then tell us, what name must palestinians call themselves for you to respect their basic human right NOT to be destroyed to any extent by the murderous thieving ZIonist crusaders??? Oh, it is obvious that there is NO name Palestinians can call themselves that will not marginalize the Palestinian's basic human right NOT to be destroyed by the murderous thieving ZIonist crusaders, as Zionists were murderous thieves of Palestinian lands long before Palestinians ever came up with a name for thier society.

And to you, and all the others like you who think/feel that Hebrews slaughtering and enslaving the Canananite tribes gives ZIonist crusaders a birtheright of murderous theft of Palestinian lands, not having an independant national identity or an independant state, makes the Zionist's murderous theft of Palestinian lands somehow less of a bloodsoaked offense, which is BS top to bottom, side to side and front to back.

You are still just arguing lables. its a good thing people in Cleveland can think for themselves, andf that only those prejudiced enough to want to believe your crap propaganda will buy itno your rant.

And of corse you bare false witness against the Palestinians as being "recently arrived" when all evidence contradicts your wild assertion.

And the palestinian's right to self determination, which includes their basic human right not to be destroyed by the murderous thieving Zionist crusaders, is not dependant on thier sharing the religion of Arab Muslims who drove the East Roman Byzantine occupiers out. That makes NO sence and makes me wonder WHY you would push that as the reason Palestinians claim to have a right NOT to be destroyed by the ZIonist crusaders, who's ONLY claim to the land is that the Palestinian's Hebrew anscestors were ones murderous thieves of the land.

Yes, palestinians are descended from the Hebrew invadors as well as Canaanites, ROmans, Arabs, Turks, etc. Even "Brittish" people have added their DNA to the mix. and in another couple hundred years, the Brittish DNA will spread thoughout Palestinian society.

"It would seem to me that after 3,000 years the time has arrived to accept Israel's nationhood as a fact, for here is the only State in the international community which has the same territory, speaks the same language and upholds the same faith as it did 3,000 years ago."

-- Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban in a Statement to the U.N. Security Council, 6 June 1967

Yep, Zionists come up with all sorts of rationalizations for their murderous theft of someone else's homeland. The most pathetic being that Hebrews were ALSO murderous thieves of the land.

And Ashkinazim didn't even start converting to Judaism until 400 AD.

Daily we hear assertions that Israel is occupying Palestinian land.

This is, of course, propaganda of the first order, since there is no such thing as Palestinian land, and to use that phrase is to promote a blatantly political — anti-Israel — agenda.

The excellent article below, by Lawrence Auster, lays bare the historical facts of the matter: Israel has never taken land from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have no legal claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) or Gaza.

We urge you, whenever you see unquestioning reports of ”Palestinian land“, to write your editor with clarification. This article will supply you with all the facts you need.
---------------
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.

There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.

The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?

Back to the Arabs: I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?

To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted.

The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict. Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67).

The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.

http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2004/12/who-really-owns-palestine.html

And the soviets didn't occupy Czechoslovakian lands, they took it from the NAZI occupiers. And the NAZIs are no longer around to want it back.

Right, we got you, you define a land by which power occupies it. Ohhh, the Brittish flag was flying over Palestinian's h0meland, and before that the Turkish flag was flying over the Arabic speeking people's homeland.

Turkish flags flew over Greece too, and nobody finds it hard to understand that the land was Greek land.

"Whose homeland?" You ask. Then you focus on who's flag flew over the land. wow. Yawn. Let us know if you dig up some more meaningless Zionist propaganda. maybe it will have even less substance. Hoard to imagine, but it is possible.

This land has never been plaestinian land- the only claim they have is that once it was muslim- and Muslim manifest destiny says "Once land is Muslim, it stays Muslim".

Remember Jesus and the Christmas story? Jews, Romans, no Palestinians.
No Muslims at all.

Israel represents the Liberated Jewish Homeland. We have finally regained our land and our Holy Places from the various Imperialist Invaders.

As the heirs to the Imperialist Moslem Invaders, the "Palestinians" resent those uppity Jews that insist on their natural right to national self determination.

Right, because Hebrews were one of many foreign invadors to occupy that piece of land, that makes it a Jewish homeland. And the murderous thieving Zionist invadors are liberating the land. What, like mussolini liberated Libya?

And if the Zionist's natural right to national self determination includes a birthright of murderous theft of Palestinian lands, then lets hear it. Because that would be a first.

palestinians are not heirs of Moslum invadors. That is just another of the Zionist's many lies.

After the Arab Muslims drove the east roman Byzantine empire out of the land, the Arab Muslim left to drive the East Roman Byzantine empire out of Lebanon, Syria, etc. The Arabs left SOME people in the land to rule. And they offered the enslaved locals a choice, convert to Islam or remain a slave. After a milliseconds thought on that hard choice, the local slaves converted en mass. Christian and Jews did not convert because they were the slave owners. And the local ex-slaves supported the Arab rule because they worried the ROmans might return them to chains and slavery.

It took the locals 200 years to adopt Arabic as their own language. And the only Arabs who need to learn how to speek Arabic are babies.

It is really ignorant for anyone to believe Palestinians are heirs of Muslim invadors. Especialy since the locals share the geneticas of shepardic Jews in north africa and Europe. Which is something the Ashkinazim Zionists can NOT honestly claim, since their ansestors didn't even start to convert to judaism until after 400 AD.

Palestinians are descended form many foreign invadors, just as the "Brittish" people are descended from Celts, pre-celts, Romans, Jutes (Danes, vikings), Angles, Saxons, Normans (Vikings mixed with French of Normandy). And just like the Britts have a right NOT to be destroyed by Germans just because Saxons and Angles are in the Brittish mix, the Palestinians have the same right NOT to be destroyed by Zionists, even if the Palestinians share genetics of Judeans, who were a part of just one of the many foreign invadors of the land.

Zionists say that because hebrews once ruled the land and because there were a few Jews in the land that Zionists have a birthright of murderous theft of palestinian lands. Does that sound familiar to anyone??? It is the same BS rationalization that NAZIs used to invade Czechoslovakia. Ohhh, Germans once ruled Bohemia and Moravia in the Holy Roman Empire and there were germans in the Sudaten Mountains and dispersed throughout Czech lands. Yep, when the Zionists talk their trash, they only end up showcaseing that they share the moral ethics of NAZIS.

We've established that the Jews were there first, and you've admitted the Palestininas are descended from foreign invaders. So what is their legal claim to Israel?

Jewish claim to Israel:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/The_Jewish_Claim_To_The_Land_Of_Israel.html

A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.

The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.

The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century A.D., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.

The Twelve Tribes of Israel formed the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine about 1000 B.C. The second king, David, first made Jerusalem the nation's capital. Although eventually Palestine was split into two separate kingdoms, Jewish independence there lasted for 212 years. This is almost as long as Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.

Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.

Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.

When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called "the holy land" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.

Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/The_Jewish_Claim_To_The_Land_Of_Israel.html

And Arab Muslim drove the east Roman Byzantines out. Do their descendants in greece have a right to invade Palestine too?

Yes, Greece. the east roman empire adopted Greek and there are no records of greek speeking greek orthodox Romans returning to their anscestor's homeland in what is not call Italy.

And under the ottoman rule, the lowest the Palestinian population was 350000 in 1785. Which was a population denisty greater than all the newly created US states.

And yes, there were "Jews" in the land even after the romans kicked the Judeans out. And? How would that make the land "Jewish" land and give ZIonists a birthright of murderous theft of Palestinian lands any more than Germans living in Bohemia and Moravia even after the fall of the holy roman empire give NAZIs a right to invade Czechoslovakian lands???

Yep, your whole comment is a load of dung.

The "Palestinian" cause is simply an Arab demand to keep the land that was stolen from the Jews. By now, they've blown it so many times, that history has passed the "Palestinians" by, and moved on.

i asked

We've established that the Jews were there first, and you've admitted the Palestininas are descended from foreign invaders. So what is their legal claim to Israel?

I'm still waiting for an answer
"cause you hate jews" is not an acceptable answer

No, jews were NOT there first. Hebrews were just one of many foreign invadors. the canaanite tribes were there before Hebrew invadors arived.

And I have already pointed out how by pointing at how the "Brittish" people have a right NOT to be destroyed by Danes even though Danes were once invadors of that island and Brittish had Danish (Jute) anscestors in the "brittish" mix. Palestinians also have invador's bloodlines. One of which is from the hebrew invadors.

If you would appease murderous thieving Zionist crusaders just because those invadors call themselves "Jews" and use the same BS rationalization that NAZIs used to invade Czechoslovakian lands, then you are just showing us your own prejudices. And that seems perfectly acceptable to you.

Of course PrionParty, "Palestiians" have NO connection whatsoever to the Cannanites who vanished from history after being first conquered and then absorbed by the Hebrews.

Mentioning the "Canaanites" has nothing at all to do with the "Palestinians" who migrated to Israel only in historic times.

"absorbed by the Hebrews"? "Absorbed"??? Is that a fancy name for enslaved???

And Jesus' boy Simon was a Canaanite, so good luck convincing any real Christians that the Canaanites were not a distint portion of the population when Romans kicked the Judean occupation out of the Canaanite's hebrew occupied homeland.

What, did you mean the Canaanites adopted the Hebrew's religion, like so many native Americans adopted Christianity? Or did you mean Canaanites took Hebrew names, like native Americans and enslaved African Americans had???

But someone who says that Hebrews slaughtering and enslaving the Canaanite nations makes Palestine a jewish homeland will say / write just about any obtuse dung. Isn't that about right?

For instance, the Edomites, te last of the Canaanites, were converted to Judaism a few hudred years before the Common Era ,hence " Herod the Idumean"

AND you recognize them as being Canaanite. And not removed from history.

Ohhh, but they converted to Judaism like native Americans converted to Christianity.

Didn't you even read what I wrote above? it is like you are not even trying anymore.

And who are the edomites? Did they show up after Hebrews invaded the land?

Read a book idiot! After all the empty headed punditry that you've posted hee, you don't know who the Edomites were?

Amalektes? Hivites? Perizzites?

Amorites, Jebuzites, Hivites, Hittites, perizites, yes, 2 chronicles chapter 8, they were those who survived the Hebrew's slaughter, whom Solomon (King of the Hebrew occupation) put to work (enslaved) to build the temple of Solomon.

Now, who are the edomites again? And the Amelektes?

Arafat in 1970, with candid simplicity, told the reporter Arianna Palazzi:
"The question of borders doesn`t interest us... From the Arab standpoint, we mustn`t talk about borders. Palestine is nothing but a drop in an enormous ocean. Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it..... The P.L.O. is fighting Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism. What you call "Jordan" is nothing more than Palestine."

Screw Arafat. Sure, he was right about Jordan being eastern Palestine. But nothing Arafat says will ever denigrate the Palestinian's right to self determination in the least.

Don't Zionist enablers ever get tired of being void of substance?

Arafat was the sole leader and voice of the "Palestinians' from 1964 when the Arab League and Egypt's Nasser made up the name and ethnicity of "Palestinian", until his death.

Being void of substance is something you obviously feel compfortable with.

After Arafat was appointed the sole leader and voice of the "Palestinians" by Egypt's Nasser, Arafat and Fatah began kiling off any "Palestinian" that expressed interest in making peace with Israel (just like his uncle, the GrandMufti Al-Husseini). Muktars, West Bank mayors, etc, who thought that it might be an opportunity to improve the lives of their people, ended up dead. Thats what happened to the "moderate 'Palestinian' leadership."

Cleveland Indy Media Center