Who Stole the Land of Israel? R2 - Draiman

Who Stole the Land of Israel? R2

Why do the anti-Zionists feel that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs who were never ruled by Arab/Palestinians has legitimacy, while a 1,900-year continuous claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd?

So let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists claim that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was re-constituted in 1920 and declared its sovereignty in 1948. Israel re-assumed its sovereignty on May 15, 1948, but it was reconstituted in 1920 under international law and treaties, including the 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement; with the British as trustee for the Jews to promote Jewish immigration, until the Jews comprise a majority and take over full control. It had been almost 1,900 years since the last time that the Jewish people exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1,900 years ago. They forget to mention that Jews were always residing in Israel and in varying population census.
And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim to the over 5 million sq. mi. of land they were allocated in 1920; these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the various Arab-Muslims rulers last exercised sovereignty as an occupier over that land 1,000 years ago.

Are you all with me? 1,900 year-old-claims by the Jews are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old of numerous rulers, that the Arab-Muslim claims trump them and are indisputable, what a delusion.
Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the same thing as a claim on behalf of Arab/Palestinian [sic] . After all, the last time that Arab/Palestinian held sovereignty or control over the lands of “Palestine” was … never. There has never been an Arab/Palestinian state in Palestine. Ever.

It is true that various Arab rulers once exercised its occupation and control over parts or all of historic Palestine aka The Land of Israel, including the Crusaders, the Romans, the Greeks, Persia and others. There were small Nomadic kingdoms in the south of “Palestine” already in late Biblical days, and they were important military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty for over 1,000 years back then in the Land of Israel, which extended all the way to Mesopotamia. After the rise of Islam, historic “Palestine” was for a time indeed an occupied territory as part of a larger numerous ruling Arab-Muslim kingdoms or caliphate. But that ended in 1071 CE, when Palestine came under the rule of the Seljuk Turks and shortly afterwards by the Crusaders for about 200 years.

That was the last time occupied Palestine had an Arab-Muslim ruler. After that, it was always ruled by a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British as trustee for the Jews, and — briefly — French. And in any case, why does the fact that Palestine once was occupied by a larger Arab-Muslim empire make it any more “Arab” than the fact that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish, or British empires? Now it is true that historic Palestine probably once had a population majority who were Arab Muslims and Christians, but today it has a population majority who are Jews. Additionally possession is nine tenths of the law.

So if population majorities are what determine legitimacy of sovereignty, Israel is at least as legitimate as any other country.
So why exactly do the anti-Zionists claim that a thousand-year old claim by various Arab-Muslims who were never ruled by Arab/Palestinian has any legitimacy whatsoever, while a 1,900-year legitimate claim by indigenous Jews to its own historical ancestral land should be rejected as absurd, even though the Supreme Allied Powers after WWI had signed a treaty that guaranteed Palestine as the land for the Jewish National Home (The British in violation of international law and treaties reallocated about 80% of Jewish land east of the Jordan River to the new Arab state of Transjordan, which received its independence in 1946). These terms were confirmed by the 1920 treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, including the 1919 Faisal Weitzman Agreement. (The Supreme Allied Powers also allocated over 5 million square miles to the Arabs). These treaties were incorporated by the 52 members of the League of Nations, which set-up the Mandate for Palestine to reconstitute the Jewish sovereignty in the land. After the British abused its authority and abandoned its duty and obligation to the Mandate for Palestine. The United Nations recognized that the terms of the treaty of 1920 which was waiting for a Jewish majority that has been reached and adhered to the terms, thereby, Israel declared its sovereignty in 1947?

The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab deceptive claim is more recent than the older legitimate Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the remaining indigenous Jews of Israel they have absolute right to the lands of Israel, also because it is the most recent!

The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved there from some other places. Now never mind that there was actually always a Jewish habitation living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Mamluks, Turks, French or British.

Does the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there? The claim would be absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact; that most “Palestinian Arabs” also moved to Palestine illegally from neighboring countries, starting in the late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that peoples that move from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to its legitimate sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?

If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British Isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian Peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celt Iberians. (The Muslims occupied Spain for about 700 years, through the late 1400’s, how come they are not demanding Spain as their land). Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanian’s. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Got land. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arab imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian Peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields, which is a major assets and economic source.

Oh, and the Arab/Palestinians infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which would of course be the Jews, who are the only remaining indigenous people!

We also must remember that the Arab countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families (which have been living in those Arab countries for over 2,500 years) The Arabs confiscated all their assets; businesses, homes and 75,000 sq. mi. of Jewish owned land (which is 6 times the size of Israel and is valued in the trillions of dollars.

YJ Draiman