Israel

The history of the Land of Israel

Conceptwizzard's Nutshell Too

This presentation isn't intended to be a comprehensive history of the Middle East, or to deal with all the aspects of the Israel-Arab conflict. The goal of this presentation is to provide a brief summary for those who don't have the time to go into the deeper details of the conflict, and also for those who see Israel as the warmonger of the Middle East and a cruel aggressor.

This presentation was created on a volunteer basis to promote a better understanding of the current situation in the Middle East.

Conceptwizzard.com Info Page

 

MAPS DON'T LIE

Israel: The Most Disputed strip of Real Estate on Planet Earth!

 

=============================================================

Slowly, but surely, the history of Israel is being rewritten by Muslims,
Leftists, and self-hating, delusional Jews (actually, they don't hate
themselves. They love themselves. They just hate other Jews.) who
simply choose to believe lies. Thanks Joseph Farrah for
another great reminder of the truth.

Naomi Ragen
=============================================================

The Jews took no one's land
By Joseph Farrah

WorldNet Daily - November 19, 2002

As the most visible Arab-American critic of Yasser Arafat and the
phony " Palestinian" agenda, I get a lot of hate mail. I've even received
more than my share of death threats. Most of those who attack me at
least those who bother to get beyond the four-letter words and insults
say I just don't understand or have sympathy for these poor Arabs who
were displaced, chased out of their homes and turned into refugees by
the Israelis.

Let me state this plainly and clearly: The Jews in Israel took no one's
land.

When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was
greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a
vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.
By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from
all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland the
Promised Land Moses and Joshua had conquered millennia earlier,
Christians and Jews believe, on the direct orders of God. That's not to
say there wasn't always a strong Jewish presence in the land
particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in
the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of
that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on
assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was
Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl
Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman
Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal.
The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom
7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews. "The
number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of
the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed
property," the book states. Even though the Jews were persecuted, still
they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the
population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim
Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under
Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom,
something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame
them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for
prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

Winston Churchill observed in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the
Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population
has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish
population." Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations
proposed the creation of two states in the region one Jewish, one
Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a
vengeance and declared war.

Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught
in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told,
after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that
way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by
this war not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate
grab, not by Israeli expansionism. In fact, there are many historical
records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in
peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and
granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in
refugee camps not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they
are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.
Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil
states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they
are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and
armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time
did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were
title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When
there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live
without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone one of a
series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing
yet another great injustice to the Jews.


=======================================
Unwinnable war of words
By Barry Rubin April 06, 2003


The first weeks of the Iraq war should give us an unforgettable lesson in how
the world works in terms of information battles, elite opinion, and media
behavior. The experience should shatter some decades-old assumptions.

Simply put: Things thought to apply only to Israel have now been shown to work
almost equally against the United States. Problems attributed to an Israeli
hasbara weakness also hold true for the mighty and competent American public
relations system. Attitudes attributable to anti-Semitism are paralleled by the
effects of anti-Americanism.

In short, Israel's situation is by no means unique. Deeper, systemic, problems
about how governments, media, and intellectuals function and how they view the
world can work against anyone, or at least anyone who deals with the Middle
East.

Here are some key aspects:

Being a democracy battling a dictatorship earns you little or no special credit,
and can be an outright disadvantage. The assumption of the dominant sector in
the intellectual class which runs much of academia, the media, and all verbal,
opinion-forming sectors of society is that democracies lie about as much as
dictatorships, especially if the dictatorship claims "progressive" credentials.

Forcing its own intellectuals and media to voice a single line makes the
dictatorship sound popular abroad. Since all Iraqis or Palestinians say the same
thing, it must be true. In contrast, a democracy's dissenting voices about its
real or imagined shortcomings can be used to undermine its assertions.

To make matters worse, you have the claims of a "people" versus those of a
"government." (You can imagine which one the opinion-making class is more likely
to believe.)

In addition, since no critical information comes out of a dictatorship, the only
way we know it does anything wrong is from its enemies' assertions. All the
data, no matter how well-documented, from Israel on Yasser Arafat's backing of
terrorism, or from the US on Saddam Hussein's repression and concealment of
weapons can be dismissed as partisan.

Then there is the fair-minded "neutrality" of those who shape opinion in the
media, academia, and elsewhere. "Patriotism" is identified as a right-wing
belief and replaced by its opposite. To doubt, criticize, slander, or at least
avoid agreeing with your country's position seems politically courageous and
morally noble.

"Why should we assume the US is telling the truth? Let's give equal weight to
Saddam Hussein's version."

As a result, if soldiers of a democratic state make a mistake an Israeli or US
attack that inadvertently kills civilians they are denounced as something close
to war criminals. But if their adversaries torture people to death, employ
terrorism or do a dozen other heinous things, the response is, "How do we know
it really happened?"
The democratic states must meet a higher standard. Their mistakes matter, and
they are held accountable for each and every one.

Now consider some parallels:

Both the US and Israel are headed by internationally unpopular leaders against
whom virtually any slander can be launched.

In both cases the bystanders ridicule the existence of very real threats. Thus
the defensive actions can be judged as unnecessary and aggressive.

Their enemies are judged with excessive apologetics. Even if the individual
leaders of these parties are judged harshly, their actions are excused and those
of the US and Israel held in contempt because of what is seen as sympathy for
their peoples. Yet it is precisely their own leadership that so impoverishes and
endangers those peoples.

In talking about either the US and British armies or about the IDF, many people
will not hesitate to tell any lie or make any exaggeration. And they will find
more innocent, but quite willing, ears to hear them.

The fact that their adversaries lose every battle is taken to prove that the US
and Israel are bullies. The differences between the two sides' casualty figures
are viewed not as showing the foolhardiness of the provocations offered by the
weaker side, but as proof of its victimization.

In the Arab world, though, the losers are simultaneously victims and heroes,
whose victory is proclaimed up to the moment of total, undeniable defeat.

In Europe there are many who wrongly believe that hating the US and Israel will
make the Arabs love them and pay them, and not kill them.

The information/hasbara battle is unwinnable not because of ineptness but
because Arab and many European governments, all of the Arab and much of the
European media, and a large part of the world's intellectual class will not give
you a fair chance. They will quickly declare your intentions bad, your leaders
dishonorable, your plans unworkable, and your efforts unsuccessful.

It is dreadful that the world's fortunes in the 21st century must still be
determined by war. But given this sad fact, it is fortunate that its outcome
will be determined not by the war of words but on the battlefield, or at least
in the material sphere of achievement.

(Reprinted with permission from the author and The Jerusalem Post).

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International
Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of
International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

=======================================
Occupied Land
by Mark Wildes, Esq. April 27, 2003

With the phrase "Israeli occupation" on many people's lips, it would seem
sensible to look into the background of how the land the Palestinians call their
own became "occupied." Was the "occupation" just greed on Israel's part; it just
wanted more land? Was it oil that Israel was after? Or, could it have been the
result of a battle Israel was forced into?

Well, judge for yourself:

In May of 1967, before the "Israeli occupation" of land the Palestinians call
their own, Egyptian forces mobilized along Israel's southern border and Syrian
forces prepared for battle along Israel's Northern border, the Golan Heights.
Nasser, President of Egypt, ordered the UN Emergency forces that were stationed
there to withdraw. On May 18, 1967 the "Voice of the Arabs" proclaimed on the
airways: "The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war which will
result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

The Syrian Defense Minister, Hafez Assad, announced: "The time has come to enter
into a battle of annihilation."

On May 30th, King Hussein of Jordan entered into a defense pact with Egypt,
whereupon Nasser announced that, "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon
are poised on the border of Israel -- while standing behind us are the armies of
Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation."

On June 4th, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and
the President of Iraq declared: "Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the
map."

465,000 troops, 2,800 tanks and 800 aircraft encircled the tiny, infant State of
Israel. But rather than wait to be attacked, Israel struck preemptively.

On June 5, 1967 the entire Israeli air-force (with the exception of 12 fighters
assigned to protect Israeli air space) took off at 7:14 am, while the Egyptians
were eating breakfast. In less than 2 hours, 300 Egyptian aircraft were
destroyed.

Israeli fighters were then sent to attack the Jordanian and Syrian air forces as
well as one airfield in Iraq. By the end of the first day, almost the entire
Egyptian and Jordanian and half the Syrian air forces had been destroyed on the
ground.

While most of the Israeli Defense Forces were fighting the Egyptians and
Jordanians, a small heroic group of soldiers were left to defend the northern
border against the Syrians. And it wasn't until the Jordanians and the Egyptians
were defeated that the Israeli army was able to send reinforcements to the Golan
Heights, where Syrian gunners had control of the strategic high ground.

On June 9, after 2 days of heavy air bombardment, Israeli forces succeeded in
breaking through Syrian lines.

It took only 3 days for Israeli forces to then defeat the Jordanian legions. On
the morning of June 7, 1967, Israeli paratroopers stormed the Old City of
Jerusalem and secured it before Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived with Chief
of Staff Yitzchak Rabin to formally mark the Jewish people's return to their
historic capital and their most holiest site.

In just 6 days, Israel defended herself from complete annihilation, reunified
Jerusalem, captured the Sinai, the Golan heights, the Gaza Strip and the West
Bank. In light of Israel's near-annihilation, most of the land it captured was
strictly as a security measure.

Israeli troops marched to the Kotel, the Western Wall, the last remaining wall
that encircled the ancient Jewish Temple, and celebrated the return of the
people of Israel to the heart of the Holy Land -- Jerusalem.

And this is the story of how Israel got to "occupy" the land the Palestinians
call their own. Please keep in mind that the above account of how the
"occupation" came about is not opinion or conjecture -- it's recorded history.

Faced with the prospect of annihilation, Israel was forced into a war it did not
provoke and it had no incentive in waging. In the process, it took land that it
considered vital to its security. And this is what some people call
"occupation." To call this "occupation" is a phenomenal stretch of the
imagination, not to mention a dishonest assessment of historical facts.

by Mark Wildes, Esq.
Columbia University
- Graduate of Cardozo Law School
- Masters in International Affairs,



Naomi Ragen

Please visit my Web page at:
http://www.NaomiRagen.com
and subscribe to my mailing list
by sending an empty email to:
naomiragen-on@mail-list.com
email: Naomi@NaomiRagen.com

 

 

Return To Homepage

Bob August bobaugust@cox.net