Who has rights to live on land?

[rachamim18]

ZAMB: Gush Etzion is being abandoned in about 11 months so your posts on it are meaningless. Perhaps instead you might want to focus on the Settlers being imprisoned for their refusing to adhere to this governmental program, including a 14 year old girl who has been loced up for months.


Yes, it is funny that Descartes made that ridiculous comment on a story reported in a mainstream Israeli source. Israel has a free press, as does most of the West. I am sure Descartes could, should he/she try, to find an appealing source.


Descartes: Instead of droll propaganda snippets, why not truly provide some facts that prove your version of events? Israel sucks. The West sucks. How innovative is that line of thinking?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I read something interesting the other day. Apparently the notion of 'palestine' as a geographic entity hadn't been used by muslims since medieval times. Prior to 1918, it didn't exist. What was there, was the Province of Damascus, the Province of Beirut, and the District of Jerusalem, all parts of the Ottoman Empire.

When the area fell under the British Mandate, 'palestine' was created, yet another example of british bureaucrats creating states by drawing lines on maps while sitting in meeting rooms in London.

Yes, people were displaced, but the relative displacement was much smaller than that occurring during the Partition of India, or the displacements of people post WW2, in Germany, Poland, etc. Those transitions and displacements, although rough at the time, are now matters of history. But not Palestine.

One of the problems, was that the islamic countries in the area, wouldn't accept and assimilate the palestinian refugees. Gaza was under Egyptian control from 1947 - 1967, but during that time, palestinians were not only denied Egyptian citizenship, they were denied mobility and work rights within Egypt. They were kept in a permanent refugee status.

Palestinians were denied citizenship in all neighboring islamic countries except one. It was either Lebanon or Jordan: frankly, I can't remember which it was.

The muslims living under israeli control, actually had greater mobility than they did living under the Egyptians.

 

[ZAMB]

I read something interesting the other day. Apparently the notion of 'palestine' as a geographic entity hadn't been used by muslims since medieval times. Prior to 1918, it didn't exist. What was there, was the Province of Damascus, the Province of Beirut, and the District of Jerusalem, all parts of the Ottoman Empire.

When the area fell under the British Mandate, 'palestine' was created, yet another example of british bureaucrats creating states by drawing lines on maps while sitting in meeting rooms in London.

Yes, people were displaced, but the relative displacement was much smaller than that occurring during the Partition of India, or the displacements of people post WW2, in Germany, Poland, etc. Those transitions and displacements, although rough at the time, are now matters of history. But not Palestine.

Are you suggesting that people's attachment to their homes is less because a few lines were drawn differently? You can't be serious!! It is the land that people have an attachment to, not the name. Whereas there was NO country called Israel there - it was artificially created. The UN recognises Palestinians right of return to their land - Israel and the US do not.

One of the problems, was that the islamic countries in the area, wouldn't accept and assimilate the palestinian refugees. Gaza was under Egyptian control from 1947 - 1967, but during that time, palestinians were not only denied Egyptian citizenship, they were denied mobility and work rights within Egypt. They were kept in a permanent refugee status.

Palestinians were denied citizenship in all neighboring islamic countries except one. It was either Lebanon or Jordan: frankly, I can't remember which it was.

The muslims living under israeli control, actually had greater mobility than they did living under the Egyptians.

Why should they have to be refugees from their own homes? Or be dependant on other countries giving them citizenship? Just listen to yourself - Under Israeli control??? .... CONTROL???

The dispossession of the Palestinians constitutes the largest and longest-lasting refugee crisis of our time. There are at least 4 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and scattered throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world.

It is incontestable that these millions of Palestinians have an absolute, inalienable, and individual human right to return to their original homes and country and to have their seized property restored to them. The entire body of international and human rights law is crystal clear on this matter.

The right of return is guaranteed to all displaced persons by the most basic documents of human rights law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Ironically, both of these fundamental documents came into existence at approximately the same time as the birth of the Palestinian refugee crisis in the late 1940s.

Moreover, these rights have been explicitly and specifically applied to the Palestinian refugees by UN Resolution 194 and countless other UN resolutions. For 50 years, in theory, at least, the international community has committed itself to the right of the Palestinians to go home; yet in their millions they remain stateless and dispossessed.

The idea that refugees have an absolute right to return to their homes ought to be familiar to Americans. After all, last year the United States and NATO fought a major war with Yugoslavia in the name of the right of Kosovo refugees to return to their land.

The Palestinian right of return has been ignored and denied because this is convenient for Israel. But human rights that are contingent on the convenience of others are not rights at all. Laws that are enforced only when it is convenient to do so are not laws but merely suggestions.

The denial of the Palestinian right of return calls into serious question the world's commitment to what it has long identified as fundamental human rights. It poses the question of whether we are intent on building a world community based on a single and equitable standard of justice for all people or whether we will dispense with the human rights of some when we find it easier to do so.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/040800-101.htm

 

[ZAMB]

The muslims living under israeli control, actually had greater mobility than they did living under the Egyptians.

Are these examples of your oh so wonderful "Israeli Control" from yesterday's news stories?

Report: Israel Used Dangerous Experimental Weapon in Gaza Attacks
Meanwhile, the Israeli military is facing accusations its used an experimental weapon during recent attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. The Italian television station RAI reports the weapons have led to abnormally serious physical injuries, including amputated limbs and severe burns. The report was produced by the same journalists that exposed the US used phosphorous as an offensive weapon during attacks on Fallujah. The weapon is believed to be similar to the US-made Dense Inert Metal Explosive, or DIME. In addition to inflicting major shrapnel wounds, the weapon is believed to be highly carcinogenic and harmful to the environment.

UN: Israeli Checkpoints Increase 40% in West Bank
Meanwhile in the West Bank, a UN aid agency is reporting Israeli military checkpoints around Palestinian towns have grown by nearly forty percent over the past year. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says there are now more than five hundred and twenty checkpoints and obstacles around the West Bank, causing severe disruption to Palestinian life. The news comes on the heels of recent developments showing Israel is also expanding its settlements. Last month, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert authorized the construction of nearly 700 new homes in settlements on the West Bank.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/145208

 

[nino_savatte]

I read something interesting the other day. Apparently the notion of 'palestine' as a geographic entity hadn't been used by muslims since medieval times. Prior to 1918, it didn't exist. What was there, was the Province of Damascus, the Province of Beirut, and the District of Jerusalem, all parts of the Ottoman Empire.

When the area fell under the British Mandate, 'palestine' was created, yet another example of british bureaucrats creating states by drawing lines on maps while sitting in meeting rooms in London.

Yes, people were displaced, but the relative displacement was much smaller than that occurring during the Partition of India, or the displacements of people post WW2, in Germany, Poland, etc. Those transitions and displacements, although rough at the time, are now matters of history. But not Palestine.

One of the problems, was that the islamic countries in the area, wouldn't accept and assimilate the palestinian refugees. Gaza was under Egyptian control from 1947 - 1967, but during that time, palestinians were not only denied Egyptian citizenship, they were denied mobility and work rights within Egypt. They were kept in a permanent refugee status.

Palestinians were denied citizenship in all neighboring islamic countries except one. It was either Lebanon or Jordan: frankly, I can't remember which it was.

The muslims living under israeli control, actually had greater mobility than they did living under the Egyptians.

Anything to help prop up the racist Zionist position. Which pro-Israeli group are you working for now?

Palestine existed as a province before WWI and would like to see the 'evidence' you have used to create this wonderful bit of revisionist narrative. Btw, Israel didn't exist before 1947, what's your point?

It's odd, that in your wee excursion, you never once mentioned the Crusader states; none of which existed before the invasion of the Levant by God's own thugs.

 

[rhys gethin]

We Crusaders were granted the Land by God, and therefore have an Eternal Right to Return! What is more, we - in our modern form - have more nuclear weapons. Move over, Semitic anti-semites!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Whereas there was NO country called Israel there - it was artificially created. /url]

That's my point: so was Palestine - by the British.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why should they have to be refugees from their own homes? Or be dependant on other countries giving them citizenship? Just listen to yourself - Under Israeli control??? .... CONTROL???


]

Yeah; the territory that Israel controls.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Palestine existed as a province before WWI .

No it didn't.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's odd, that in your wee excursion, you never once mentioned the Crusader states; none of which existed before the invasion of the Levant by God's own thugs.

If I did that, I'd have to mention the preceding invasion by Mohammed's islamic armies into the original Christian states, like Syria.

 

[ZAMB]

That's my point: so was Palestine - by the British.

The lines may have been drawn by the British, but the people who lived there were still the same people. So your "point" seems to indicate that you think the act of drawing boundaries is what makes a country - not the people who have a relationship with the land and whose families have centuries of real history there. A country is made by the generations of people and their shared history, not by drawing arbitrary lines.

 

[Descartes]

Descartes: Instead of droll propaganda snippets, why not truly provide some facts that prove your version of events? Israel sucks. The West sucks. How innovative is that line of thinking?

What for, for you to say Oh No! that's not true, I was there, Anti western press.

There are none so blind, The killing of innocent people and I repeat innocent by Israeli troops, western reporters shot by snipers.. but to you Oh that's not true, BBC oh there are anti israeli.

But a history lesson: The UK abstained from voting on the plans of partition and creation of the Israeli state

and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine was placed under British mandate by the League of Nations for the purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Balfour Declaration and increased anti-Semitism in Europe, which had been on the rise since the late 19th century, led to a greater Jewish influx following the war. In 1922, Transjordan (77% of Palestine) was separated from the British mandate by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill in order to establish an Arab state. This was viewed as a great injustice and huge division of the territory designated for the Jewish National Home by the Balfour Declaration according to the Jewish leaders [1]. The British proposed a division of the remaining 23% of the territory between a Jewish and an Arab State, but in time changed their opinion (see: 1939 White Paper) and sought to prevent Jewish immigration from Europe. This was seen as betrayal and was met with a popular uprising and guerrilla war from Jewish militant groups that finally forced the British to leave Palestine and hand the problem over to the United Nations.

The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented. After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. A minority (India, Iran, Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.

On November 29, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the United States and Soviet Union agreed on the resolution. In addition, pressure was exerted on some small countries by Zionist sympathizers in the United States.


The 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukraine, United States, USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The 13 countries that voted against UN Resolution 181: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

The ten countries that abstained: Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

One state was absent: Thailand.

Following the adoption of the plan, Arab countries proposed to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants (it would place 36% of the Arabs inside the Jewish state). This was narrowly defeated.

Meeting in Cairo in November and December of 1947, the Arab League then adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the conflict.

 

[Descartes]

The majority of the Jews and Jewish groups accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation. A minority of extreme nationalist Jewish groups like Menachem Begin's Irgun Tsvai Leumi and Yitzhak Shamir's Lehi, (known as the Stern Gang) which had been fighting the British, rejected it. Begin warned that the partition won't bring peace because the Arabs will also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future". Numerous records indicate the joy of Palestine's Jewish inhabitants as they attended to the U.N. session voting for the division proposal. Up to this day, Israeli history books mention November 29th (the date of this session) as the most important date in Israel's acquisition of independence, and many Israeli cities commemerate the date in their streets' names. However, Jews did criticise the lack of territorial continuity for the Jewish state.

The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). Arab leaders also argued a large number of Arabs would be trapped in the Jewish State as a minority. While some Arab leaders opposed the right of the Jews for self-determination in the region, others criticised the amount and quality of land given to Israel.

The United Kingdom refused to implement the plan arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. It also refused to share with the UN Palestine Commission the administration of Palestine during the transitional period, and decided to terminate the British mandate of Palestine on May 15th, 1948.

Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved, beginning with the Arab Jerusalem Riots of 1947. The fighting would have an effect on the Arab population of Palestine, as well the Jewish populations of neighboring Arab countries

 

[Descartes]

More?

Now, what can we gather from that.. The UK was against the manner and form of the creation of the state of Israeli. Fact.

The vote gathering within the UN was greatly influenced by the USA Fact

The state was created without referendum of the population of the contested areas. Fact.

The Brits refused to implement the UN treaty. Fact

The reason for the UK withdrawel from Palestine was a result of Israeli terrorist action. Fact.

Unless you wish to re write history, Any land siezure since the original allocation is against International Law.

Israeli Terrorists were instrumental in the formation of the state of Israeli Fact

The Israeli Terrorists are now considered Heros, Fact.

Israel even re writes history or at least tried to about the bombing of the King david hotel and the number killed. Fact

Israel attempted to rewrite hisotry over the hanging of British soldiers by the Israeli terrorists Fact.


What goes round, comes round,

As thy shall sow , so shall thy reap.

He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.

How ever you word it, the state of Israel was a modern example of land grabbing, from the original allocation, greatly influenced by US and terrorists, opps, the Americans backing a Terrorist group, what ever next?

bit, I suppose there is an Israeli version that ignores the facts. Again.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The lines may have been drawn by the British, but the people who lived there were still the same people. So your "point" seems to indicate that you think the act of drawing boundaries is what makes a country - not the people who have a relationship with the land and whose families have centuries of real history there. A country is made by the generations of people and their shared history, not by drawing arbitrary lines.

A home is made by those things, not a country. I agree that that area was home to the people who lived there, but 'Palestine' is, as you've said, an arbitrary creation.

They were removed from their home, as were the Indian muslims who had to move to Pakistan, or the displaced Germans who had to relocate, or the millions of others uprooted around the time of the end of WW2.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Descartes: Instead of droll propaganda snippets, why not truly provide some facts that prove your version of events? Israel sucks. The West sucks. How innovative is that line of thinking?

What for, for you to say Oh No! that's not true, I was there, Anti western press.

There are none so blind, The killing of innocent people and I repeat innocent by Israeli troops, western reporters shot by snipers.. but to you Oh that's not true, BBC oh there are anti israeli.

But a history lesson: The UK abstained from voting on the plans of partition and creation of the Israeli state

and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine was placed under British mandate by the League of Nations for the purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Balfour Declaration and increased anti-Semitism in Europe, which had been on the rise since the late 19th century, led to a greater Jewish influx following the war. In 1922, Transjordan (77% of Palestine) was separated from the British mandate by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill in order to establish an Arab state. This was viewed as a great injustice and huge division of the territory designated for the Jewish National Home by the Balfour Declaration according to the Jewish leaders [1]. The British proposed a division of the remaining 23% of the territory between a Jewish and an Arab State, but in time changed their opinion (see: 1939 White Paper) and sought to prevent Jewish immigration from Europe. This was seen as betrayal and was met with a popular uprising and guerrilla war from Jewish militant groups that finally forced the British to leave Palestine and hand the problem over to the United Nations.

The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented. After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. A minority (India, Iran, Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.

On November 29, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the United States and Soviet Union agreed on the resolution. In addition, pressure was exerted on some small countries by Zionist sympathizers in the United States.


The 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukraine, United States, USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The 13 countries that voted against UN Resolution 181: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

The ten countries that abstained: Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

One state was absent: Thailand.

Following the adoption of the plan, Arab countries proposed to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants (it would place 36% of the Arabs inside the Jewish state). This was narrowly defeated.

Meeting in Cairo in November and December of 1947, the Arab League then adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the conflict.

How about naming your source?

 

[Descartes]

Hey, Johnny,.. it's public record... try the history books .. because if you doubt those .. there's no hope for you

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Those are specific quotes. Are you afraid to reveal the source?

 

[nino_savatte]

If I did that, I'd have to mention the preceding invasion by Mohammed's islamic armies into the original Christian states, like Syria.

Oh really? You're a little selective with your history, if you don't mind me saying; and I suppose you see the Crusaders as fine, upstanding people who wouldn't harm anyone but those horrible Muslims (whom you hate so much)?

This post reveals more than just a selective attitude to history; it reveals a tendency to create narratives for the purpose of demonising Muslims. The Crusaders made no distinction between Muslims, Jews or Orthodox Xtians - they killed them all.

 

[nino_savatte]

Those are specific quotes. Are you afraid to reveal the source?

And what are you afraid of, Johnny?

 

[nino_savatte]

No it didn't.

Er, yes it did. Where the hell do you think the word "Philistine" comes from?

The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

Even the Byzantines referred to the region as "Palestine".

Who could ever accuse you of revisionism?

Nice try, Canuck.

 

[nino_savatte]

I expect you to nitpick over this bit

After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation.

But I'm ready for you.

 

[FruitandNut]

Descartes: Instead of droll propaganda snippets, why not truly provide some facts that prove your version of events? Israel sucks. The West sucks. How innovative is that line of thinking?

What for, for you to say Oh No! that's not true, I was there, Anti western press.

There are none so blind, The killing of innocent people and I repeat innocent by Israeli troops, western reporters shot by snipers.. but to you Oh that's not true, BBC oh there are anti israeli.

But a history lesson: The UK abstained from voting on the plans of partition and creation of the Israeli state



How about naming your source?

Yeh, my profs were always a bit hot on that one!

I did a quick 'Google' using the last sentence and came up with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

 

[FruitandNut]

Er, yes it did. Where the hell do you think the word "Philistine" comes from?



Even the Byzantines referred to the region as "Palestine".

Who could ever accuse you of revisionism?

Nice try, Canuck.

It was never seen as a 'country', it was just a geopractical convention. A country is more that just land; it is an entity with internal, local, political and administrative cohesiveness.

It seems that the term Palestine was rarely used in the OT, and that it referred to the southwestern coastal area of Israel that was occupied by the Philistines. So Palestine had its origins around the area we now know as Gaza. Philistine is a translation from the word 'Pelesheth'.

The Philistines originated from the area of the Ardiatic abutting modern day Greece. They were of European and not Arab stock, and have pretty much vanished or become extinct from the gene pool.

It may have pleased Hadrian to utilise the Hellenistic term, but it did not cover Arab tribes or Arab people.

http://levitt.com/essays/palestine.html

 

[nino_savatte]

It was never seen as a 'country', it was just a geopractical convention. A country is more that just land; it is an entity with internal, local, political and administrative cohesiveness.

It seems that the term Palestine was rarely used in the OT, and that it referred to the southwestern coastal area of Israel that was occupied by the Philistines. So Palestine had its origins around the area we now know as Gaza. Philistine is a translation from the word 'Pelesheth'.

The Philistines originated from the area of the Ardiatic abutting modern day Greece. They were of European and not Arab stock, and have pretty much vanished or become extinct from the gene pool.

It may have pleased Hadrian to utilise the Hellenistic term, but it did not cover Arab tribes or Arab people.

http://levitt.com/essays/palestine.html

The OT may not refer to it as such but that does not mean that the land of Palestine is or was a fiction.

Still, you seem to be disputing this
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ear...ame_origin.php

Who says there isn't an ideology at work in the denial of Palestine or the identity of the Palestinian people? By claiming that there is no such place as Palestine is nothing less than a form of dehumanisation. Indeed this argument has been constructed by Zionists who wish to see the total elimination of the Palestinian people. The link you posted is from an article by someone whose views are not too dissimilar to those of the state of Israel. When one relies on the Bible as a source of unbiased and definitive information, one opens oneself to charge of ideological bias.

This is from your link, the author uses language typical of Xtian Zionists.

Do we want to use terms invented by those who hate Christ, the Bible and Israel? Do we want to utilize terms used by the enemies of Israel who desire to accomplish nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish people? I think not.

Don't many Xtains think that the Jews "killed Christ"? Funny how they changed their minds when they think that the "end is near".

As we draw closer to the Second Coming of Christ, we should understand that Satan’s fury against the Church and Israel will grow exponentially. Satan hates the Gospel of the crucified and risen Messiah, and he hates the reality of the restoration of Israel as the nation that will ultimately receive Jesus as the Messiah at His return, and the nation that will be Christ’s earthly headquarters. The only term we should use for the Land is Israel, or its subdivisions of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. We should make every effort to remove the term Palestine from our Bible maps and textbooks, and use only biblical terms with reference to the Holy Land of Israel.

"Second Coming of Christ"? That sounds suspiciously like Rapturist nonsense.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Er, yes it did. Where the hell do you think the word "Philistine" comes from?



Even the Byzantines referred to the region as "Palestine".

Who could ever accuse you of revisionism?

Nice try, Canuck.

As my original post stated, 'Palestine' was used by islamics in the middle ages, but not since.

 

[newharper]

It was never seen as a 'country', it was just a geopractical convention. A country is more that just land; it is an entity with internal, local, political and administrative cohesiveness.

l[/url]

Is a country a nation state?

States are a modern phenomena that have no meaning in large parts of the world.

The origins and early history of nation-states are disputed. A major theoretical issue is: "which came first — the nation or the nation-state?" For nationalists themselves, the answer is that the nation existed first, nationalist movements arose to present its legitimate demand for sovereignty, and the nation-state met that demand. Some "modernisation theories" of nationalism see the national identity largely as a product of government policy, to unify and modernise an already existing state. Most theories see the nation-state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as mass literacy and the early mass media. However, historians also note the early emergence of a relatively unified state, and a sense of common identity, in England, Portugal and the Dutch Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_states

Most English would put their infection with the disease down to the reign of Elizabeth I, though internationally you'd have to go with,

Peace of Westphalia

The peace as a whole is often used by historians to mark the beginning of the modern era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westphalia

The random drawing of lines on maps by western governments throughout the first half of the 20th century has had, to say the least, mixed results.

 

[nino_savatte]

As my original post stated, 'Palestine' was used by islamics in the middle ages, but not since.

No, it wasn't; you obviously ignored the contents of my post to further your narrative,

 

[Luther Blissett]

I've just realised this (post I've just removed) is in the wrong thread. Why are there so many 'who belongs in the region formerly known as Palestine' threads? Wouldn't one be enough? (I've just done a search).

 

[Luther Blissett]

As my original post stated, 'Palestine' was used by islamics in the middle ages, but not since.

What are you basing your claim on, I want to see your proof. I'm sure other posters would like to see it too.
Someone already posted some USA tourist adverts saying 'Come to Palestine!' produced between WWI and WWII in this forum. If it didn't exist, how come there are adverts with Biblical scenes on it? http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/usa13.htm