1
TheLastLazyGun, on 22 November 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:
One of your silly posts on that thread reads:
A few on this forum have tried to claim that the Arab migration to Palestine was so significant, that most of the Palestinians in Palestine during the mandate were not actually Palestinians at all! This myth was given credit, largely due to a book called Time Immemorial written by Joan Peters.
But lets look at the FACTS which, despite the overwhelmingly huge amount of evidence which show that the "Palestinians" are recent newcomers to the area, you choose to ignore.
By debunking the WELL-RESEARCHED claims by Joan Peters you have put yourself amongst nasty people such as Norman G. Finkelstein, The: 1) 'Holocaust denier' or at least trivialize-r, 2) openly praying for defeat at the hands of the Islamic terror group Hezbollah and praising those terrorists as "heroes." 3) demonized an author who exposed Anti-Semitism in Germany pre-Holocaust era. 4) He was even (first) on the damned list of "personalities" (joining neo-Nazis) to be attending the Holocaust so called "revisionists" or open deniers, under the dictator leader of the totalitarian Islamic Republic of Iran, the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Tehran 2006.
The supporters of the "Palestinians" love to bang on about how the Israelis are outsiders who moved from other countries and flooded into Palestine (a geographical area, remember, never a nation state).
What they fail to mention - either through igorance or because it's an inconvenient truth - is that the same can be said of the "Palestinians".
Way back in 1939, testimony given to the US Congress said that 150,000 Arabs moved to the British Mandate for Palestine in just a 17 year period.
Immigrants include: Arab - Egyptians (mainly in the early 1800s), Syrian, Algerian, Sudanese, S. Arabians. Other Muslims from: Bosnia during the 1800s and fascist Nazi Slavic-Muslims after WW2 [this Slavic mix might explain the phenomenon of lighter skinned small group among those calling themselves "Palestinians"].
Basically, today's so called "Palestinians", who, up to the 1960s were referred to as either South Syrians prior to the 1920s, or plain Arabs, or more specifically Palestine Arabs, after the French removed Emir Faisal, from Damascus in 1920 since the late 1960s have adopted this title to be theirs exclusively, comprise a salad mixture of: Syrian Arabs, Saudi Arabs, Sudanese [Afro-]Arabs, Egyptian, Turkish, Kurdish, Bosnian, Algerian and others. Yet, this 'mixture' was never cohesive, nor did it ever before "see" itself as a "nation."
Research shows again and again that the British, whether by pressure of the violent Arabs or due to their own biased tendency, willfully ignored huge Arab immigration.
http://www.freerepub...s/2670895/posts
The fact of the matter is that Palestinians are NOT the Indigenous people of the Holy Land.
The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.
The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.
Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516 – 1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918 – 1948).
Arab penetration into the land of Israel (the ancient name for Palestine) came in four waves. The most recent - and the largest - occurred from 1832 to 1948.
The second part of this most recent wave - from 1917 to 1948, during the last years of being part of Ottoman Syria and then the British Mandate - saw Arabs and Muslims from Arabic and Muslim countries entering ILLEGALLY the country under the Turks and latter the British mandate from the eastern, northern and southern borders looking for jobs created by the Zionist movement and latter by the British Mandate (1918 – 1948).
The Arab population of the south (between Jaffa and the Egyptian border) grew by more than 200% between 1917 – 1940s. About 35,000 Arabs from the Haurain, South Syria came looking for work.
From 1870 to 1948 the Arabic population grew by 270%. Even in Egypt, the Arab country with the highest birth rate, the rate was only 105%, which proves that a significant part of the Arabic population growth came from immigration. By 1921when the British government performed its first census the number of Arabs and Muslims amounted to about 500,000. The 1931 British Census included about 30 different languages spoken by the Muslim population in Palestine. They were illegal immigrant workers from Arabic and Muslim countries. The high rate of children's deaths, law life expectancy and the lack of health services in the country made it impossible to reach 270% as a result of birth rate.
In Short, from about 250,000 around the end of the 19th century, many of them bedouins, the Arabic population grew to about 1,250,000 in 1948. The Palestinian claim that they are the ancient population of the so called Palestine has no ground.
Winston ChurchilL, said in May 22, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine during the British Mandate was so large that their numbers grew in such proportion that even if all Jews immigrated to Palestine they could not reach that number.
Franklin D.Roosevelt, said in May 17, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine since 1921 was much greater that Jewish immigration.
A significant part of the 1948 Palestinian refugees were first or second generation illegal immigrant workers.
http://rslissak.com/...ka-shpak-lissak
The final nail in your coffin that the "Palestinians" are the "native Indians" of that land comes in the fact that a huge amount of Palestinians have surnames which actually are a description of the place where the family came from.
Common Palestinians names include:
al-Iraqi - the Iraqi
al-Massri - the Egyptian
al-Lubani - the Lebanese
al-Mughrabi - the Moroccan
al-Djazair - the Algerian
al-Yamani - the Yemeni
al-Afghani - the Afghan
al-Turki - the Turk
al-Hindi - the Indian
al-Hourani - the Hauranite (from southern Syria)
al-Kurdi - the Kurd
al-Ajami - the Iranian
al-Shami- the Syrian
Khamis - Bahrain
al-Araj- part of Morocco
Halabi - Aleppo, Syria
But. try as I might, I have yet been able to find any "Palestinian" with the surname of al-Filastini (the Palestinian).
So it makes you think: If these Arabs are the native peoples of the area, then why do they have names like "the Iraqi" or "the Egyptian"?
The answer, of course, is simple. The Arabs in Palestine are NOT the native peoples of the area.
Still, the supporters of the "Palestinian" cause will go on denying it till hell freezes over, in face of the huge amount of evidence which shows they are WRONG.
A few on this forum have tried to claim that the Arab migration to Palestine was so significant, that most of the Palestinians in Palestine during the mandate were not actually Palestinians at all! This myth was given credit, largely due to a book called Time Immemorial written by Joan Peters.
But lets look at the FACTS which, despite the overwhelmingly huge amount of evidence which show that the "Palestinians" are recent newcomers to the area, you choose to ignore.
By debunking the WELL-RESEARCHED claims by Joan Peters you have put yourself amongst nasty people such as Norman G. Finkelstein, The: 1) 'Holocaust denier' or at least trivialize-r, 2) openly praying for defeat at the hands of the Islamic terror group Hezbollah and praising those terrorists as "heroes." 3) demonized an author who exposed Anti-Semitism in Germany pre-Holocaust era. 4) He was even (first) on the damned list of "personalities" (joining neo-Nazis) to be attending the Holocaust so called "revisionists" or open deniers, under the dictator leader of the totalitarian Islamic Republic of Iran, the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Tehran 2006.
The supporters of the "Palestinians" love to bang on about how the Israelis are outsiders who moved from other countries and flooded into Palestine (a geographical area, remember, never a nation state).
What they fail to mention - either through igorance or because it's an inconvenient truth - is that the same can be said of the "Palestinians".
Way back in 1939, testimony given to the US Congress said that 150,000 Arabs moved to the British Mandate for Palestine in just a 17 year period.
Immigrants include: Arab - Egyptians (mainly in the early 1800s), Syrian, Algerian, Sudanese, S. Arabians. Other Muslims from: Bosnia during the 1800s and fascist Nazi Slavic-Muslims after WW2 [this Slavic mix might explain the phenomenon of lighter skinned small group among those calling themselves "Palestinians"].
Basically, today's so called "Palestinians", who, up to the 1960s were referred to as either South Syrians prior to the 1920s, or plain Arabs, or more specifically Palestine Arabs, after the French removed Emir Faisal, from Damascus in 1920 since the late 1960s have adopted this title to be theirs exclusively, comprise a salad mixture of: Syrian Arabs, Saudi Arabs, Sudanese [Afro-]Arabs, Egyptian, Turkish, Kurdish, Bosnian, Algerian and others. Yet, this 'mixture' was never cohesive, nor did it ever before "see" itself as a "nation."
Research shows again and again that the British, whether by pressure of the violent Arabs or due to their own biased tendency, willfully ignored huge Arab immigration.
http://www.freerepub...s/2670895/posts
The fact of the matter is that Palestinians are NOT the Indigenous people of the Holy Land.
The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.
The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.
Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516 – 1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918 – 1948).
Arab penetration into the land of Israel (the ancient name for Palestine) came in four waves. The most recent - and the largest - occurred from 1832 to 1948.
The second part of this most recent wave - from 1917 to 1948, during the last years of being part of Ottoman Syria and then the British Mandate - saw Arabs and Muslims from Arabic and Muslim countries entering ILLEGALLY the country under the Turks and latter the British mandate from the eastern, northern and southern borders looking for jobs created by the Zionist movement and latter by the British Mandate (1918 – 1948).
The Arab population of the south (between Jaffa and the Egyptian border) grew by more than 200% between 1917 – 1940s. About 35,000 Arabs from the Haurain, South Syria came looking for work.
From 1870 to 1948 the Arabic population grew by 270%. Even in Egypt, the Arab country with the highest birth rate, the rate was only 105%, which proves that a significant part of the Arabic population growth came from immigration. By 1921when the British government performed its first census the number of Arabs and Muslims amounted to about 500,000. The 1931 British Census included about 30 different languages spoken by the Muslim population in Palestine. They were illegal immigrant workers from Arabic and Muslim countries. The high rate of children's deaths, law life expectancy and the lack of health services in the country made it impossible to reach 270% as a result of birth rate.
In Short, from about 250,000 around the end of the 19th century, many of them bedouins, the Arabic population grew to about 1,250,000 in 1948. The Palestinian claim that they are the ancient population of the so called Palestine has no ground.
Winston ChurchilL, said in May 22, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine during the British Mandate was so large that their numbers grew in such proportion that even if all Jews immigrated to Palestine they could not reach that number.
Franklin D.Roosevelt, said in May 17, 1939 that the Arab immigration to Palestine since 1921 was much greater that Jewish immigration.
A significant part of the 1948 Palestinian refugees were first or second generation illegal immigrant workers.
http://rslissak.com/...ka-shpak-lissak
The final nail in your coffin that the "Palestinians" are the "native Indians" of that land comes in the fact that a huge amount of Palestinians have surnames which actually are a description of the place where the family came from.
Common Palestinians names include:
al-Iraqi - the Iraqi
al-Massri - the Egyptian
al-Lubani - the Lebanese
al-Mughrabi - the Moroccan
al-Djazair - the Algerian
al-Yamani - the Yemeni
al-Afghani - the Afghan
al-Turki - the Turk
al-Hindi - the Indian
al-Hourani - the Hauranite (from southern Syria)
al-Kurdi - the Kurd
al-Ajami - the Iranian
al-Shami- the Syrian
Khamis - Bahrain
al-Araj- part of Morocco
Halabi - Aleppo, Syria
But. try as I might, I have yet been able to find any "Palestinian" with the surname of al-Filastini (the Palestinian).
So it makes you think: If these Arabs are the native peoples of the area, then why do they have names like "the Iraqi" or "the Egyptian"?
The answer, of course, is simple. The Arabs in Palestine are NOT the native peoples of the area.
Still, the supporters of the "Palestinian" cause will go on denying it till hell freezes over, in face of the huge amount of evidence which shows they are WRONG.
The book on which this false information is based, is, literally, a fraud.
Note the bold:
Quote
Noam Chomsky defended and promoted Finkelstein's critique, commenting: [As] soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein's work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East—and they were ready. As soon as the book [From Time Immemorial] appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein's work without any acknowledgment, I should say—but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was "ludicrous," or "preposterous."[11]
As Chomsky recounts, on its UK release the book was subject to a number of scathing reviews. David and Ian Gilmour in The London Review of Books (February 7, 1985)[12] heavily criticized Peters for ignoring Arab sources and "censorship of Zionist sources that do not suit her case". They also present examples that in their view show that Peters misuses the sources which she does include in her work. They accuse Peters of basic errors in scholarship, such as the citation of Makrizi, who died in 1442, to support her statements about mid-nineteenth century population movements.[12] Oxford University historian, Albert Hourani, reviewing the book in the Observer (March 3, 1985) stated: The whole book is written like this: facts are selected or misunderstood, tortuous and flimsy arguments are expressed in violent and repetitive language. This is a ludicrous and worthless book, and the only mildly interesting question it raises is why it comes with praise from two well-known American writers.[13]
Following the book's negative reception in the UK, more critical reviews appeared in the United States. Columbia University professor Edward Said wrote unfavorably in The Nation (October 19, 1985),[14] while Robert Olson dismissed the book in the American Historical Review (April 1985), concluding: This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author's professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. ...The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977.[15]
Reviewing the book for the November 28, 1985 issue of The New York Times, Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath described the book as a "sheer forgery," stating that "n Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon."[16] In 1986, Porath repeated his views in [i]The New York Review of Books, and published a negative review that cites many inaccuracies.[14]
As Chomsky recounts, on its UK release the book was subject to a number of scathing reviews. David and Ian Gilmour in The London Review of Books (February 7, 1985)[12] heavily criticized Peters for ignoring Arab sources and "censorship of Zionist sources that do not suit her case". They also present examples that in their view show that Peters misuses the sources which she does include in her work. They accuse Peters of basic errors in scholarship, such as the citation of Makrizi, who died in 1442, to support her statements about mid-nineteenth century population movements.[12] Oxford University historian, Albert Hourani, reviewing the book in the Observer (March 3, 1985) stated: The whole book is written like this: facts are selected or misunderstood, tortuous and flimsy arguments are expressed in violent and repetitive language. This is a ludicrous and worthless book, and the only mildly interesting question it raises is why it comes with praise from two well-known American writers.[13]
Following the book's negative reception in the UK, more critical reviews appeared in the United States. Columbia University professor Edward Said wrote unfavorably in The Nation (October 19, 1985),[14] while Robert Olson dismissed the book in the American Historical Review (April 1985), concluding: This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author's professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. ...The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977.[15]
Reviewing the book for the November 28, 1985 issue of The New York Times, Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath described the book as a "sheer forgery," stating that "n Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon."[16] In 1986, Porath repeated his views in [i]The New York Review of Books, and published a negative review that cites many inaccuracies.[14]
http://en.wikipedia....Time_Immemorial
The novel she wrote was dismissed inside Israel itself, 'almost universally'.
Writing that book literally ended Joan Peters career.
