What the Arabs intend for Israel

Ok.. What more proof is needed then this? In an interview with the Dutch newspaper Truow, former PLO executive committee member Zuheir Mohsen candidly stated:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Link

key word, former. a traitorous sell out, who sold his own people for a nice house in europe and some attention from western media.

i don't put stock into anything this traitor says.

reply to post by randomname



Hes a traitor cause he told the truth. Probably why he was assassinated 2 years later.

reply to post by dontreally


Not even a link to see what credible site you've listed this time??

Oh, but here's one showing Israel's intentions have always been nothing but perpetual war as an excuse to STEAL more land..

In 1976, Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria, although historians have voiced skepticism regarding the truthfulness of this informal comment.[72] Jan Mühren, a former UN observer in the area at the time, told a Dutch current affairs programme that Israel provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land.[73]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by randomname

 

Hes a traitor cause he told the truth. Probably why he was assassinated 2 years later.

Yeah, from your added Linky..!!!

Mohsen was assassinated on July 25 in 1979 in Cannes, France. The assassination is commonly attributed to the Israeli Mossad,

Now why would Mossad assassinate him??

reply to post by backinblack


Wouldnt make much sense since he made those above comments, now would it?

If, on the other hand, his making these comments to a dutch newspaper put his life in jeoaprdy, then, he would need to move from Palestine to Europe (france) as the above poster got all upset about, to avoid being murdered by enraged Palestinians whose secret agenda was revealed.

What he said was truth (an obvious and factual one at that), and as per usual, you ignore the content of the thread and continue with your mindlesss Israel bashing.

Now. I question your sanity and logic all around, so i doubt you'll be able to deduce what that above information means. Why would MOSSAD kill him if what he revealed was politically good for Israel? doesnt make sense. What DOES make sense is that he was killed by some PLO assassin and then blamed the murder - as is common - on the MOSSAD.

reply to post by dontreally

What he said was truth (an obvious and factual one at that), and as per usual, you ignore the content of the thread and continue with your mindlesss Israel bashing.

Why, because YOU say so??

Your threads are getting more BS every day..
You expect everyone to believe everything you say yet you ignore anything that goes against your view..

You are pure 100% Israeli propaganda...

reply to post by dontreally


So what does that mean? Absolutely nothing in my eyes...

Mohsen believes strongly in Pan-Arabism, that would explain the quote. That's merely HIS political view. Definitely not 'the truth'.

reply to post by BiGGz


He didnt merely state a political view, but articulated a historical FACT - which is, "Palestinians" are no more a real ethnic division then "Jordanian" or "Lebanese" or "Syrian". Do you know WHY THAT IS!?

This is the problem with you people. You dont appreciate subjects like anthropology, or history, and even if you do, you refuse to allow it to influence your understanding of the Palestinian/Israel conflict.

Does a separate Palestinian identity exist today? Yes. How old is it? No older then 70 years. Before 1967, it wasnt even considered to be strong enough to bring "Palestinians" together as a real national movement. Hence, another important quote made by another major Arab official, Musa Alami "The [Palestinian] people are in great need of a "myth" to fill their consciousness and imagination.. The myth he refers to is that of nationhood. Hence, the statement of Zuheir Mohsen. The Palestinians - ethnically - are absolutely no different from Syrians, or Lebanese or Jordanians (and while were at it, hardly that much different from Egyptians, or the rest of the Arab world) - they share the same culture, language, religion and history with them. As a matter of fact, the region called "Palestine" - which included Jordan and Israel - was only the southern portion of a greater region during Ottoman Rule called "Syria". All people who lived in this province like in the case of other provinces and regions on earth, had more or less in common then with people from other provinces. Only when the ottomans lost after WW1 and the British and League of Nations decided to break apart and establish individual states was an individual "Syrian", "Lebanese" and "Jordanian" identity created. It didnt exist 100 years ago. And in fact, to further the injustice to Israel, when the British promised to create a Jewish state in Palestine - the Palestine spoken about was the region of modern day Jordan and Israel. ALL of this area was to be a home for the Jewish people. What did the British - headed by Winston Churchhill - end up doing? They went behind the backs of the Jews and gave 80% of Palestine - 80% 4/5th - to the Hashemite Arab, members of the house of Saud. Were they from this area? No. They werent. Yet why were they given such a large clump of land, and yet no one complains? Because there is a mistaken perception that the entire middleast is Arab territory. When no, as a matter of fact, there are Kurds, Berbers, Copts, aswell. The kurds especially have been scorned by British diplomacy (and subsequently American diplomacy/betrayal) when they promised to create an independant Kurdistan - for the now 35 million stateless Kurds in the northern iraq, western iran, and southern-eastern turkey region - and created Iraq - a state for another Arab and member of the hashemite dynasty (and brother of Abdullah, king of Jordan....yes. only the zionists are conniving. not the British or Arabs) King Faisal.

So, there is no "Palestinian people" in the sense that there is a Jewish people Jews share 4 criteria that anthroplogists use to classify various peoples.

Language
Religion
Culture
History

The Jews speak Hebrew, and have been regarded by many as the Hebrews (in addition to Yehudim). They follow Judaism - a distinct religion. They share a similar culture, which includes customs that are conditioned by the dictates of the Religion. For instance, Jews follow the Talmud, which both Sephardim - Arab/North African Jewry and Ashkenazi - European Jewry integrate into their day to day lives. Yes, there exist minor differences in customs and culture between Ashkenazi and Sephardi, but theyre minor, and even then they identify with "Jew" and all Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews recognize the underlying sameness between them. And finally, Jewish history, which is ancient, and rich, and up until the separation 2000 years ago was homogenous.

Is there a separate culture, language, religion or history for palestinians? If you say history - its no older then 70 years, and even then hasnt taken on any real content until 1948. And as for the first 3 criteria. Nope. They are identical to Arabs in morocco, or Arabs in UAE.

reply to post by backinblack


The fact that you are considered a 'gold level contributor' shows how utterly anti-intellectual ATS is - or has become (i wouldnt know. Just been posting here for a few years).

Whats BS about my post? Use your brain power and help me understand.

Address the above post and try to SANELY - and by sane i mean OBJECTIVE REALITY - tell me where i was wrong. The above is book knowledge, which you get from reading. I study history. I study political philosophy. You are not right because you say you are right - people who think so are by definition, insane, unable to bend their mind from their usual subjective understanding to objective, factual - and by factual i mean logically indisputable proof, or evidence which carries greater weight - realities.

If you cannot understand what i am talking about, then i must conclude you are a crazy person. Either that, or a liar. Are you Arab, by any chance?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by backinblack

 

The fact that you are considered a 'gold level contributor' shows how utterly anti-intellectual ATS is - or has become (i wouldnt know. Just been posting here for a few years).
Whats BS about my post? Use your brain power and help me understand.
Address the above post and try to SANELY - and by sane i mean OBJECTIVE REALITY - tell me where i was wrong. The above is book knowledge, which you get from reading. I study history. I study political philosophy. You are not right because you say you are right - people who think so are by definition, insane, unable to bend their mind from their usual subjective understanding to objective, factual - and by factual i mean logically indisputable proof, or evidence which carries greater weight - realities.
If you cannot understand what i am talking about, then i must conclude you are a crazy person. Either that, or a liar. Are you Arab, by any chance?

edit on 6-6-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Your entire post deserves NO reasonable response..
You continually preach one side yet ignore the other..

Notably your threads are receiving less and less support and instead more criticism..

If you believe ATS is "anti-intellectual" then perhaps you should look to an alternative site that suits your agenda better...

reply to post by backinblack


What the hell do you mean "one sided". So I should distort facts and reality, like you? I should give voice to liars even though BRITISH DOCUMENTS AND LEAGUE OF NATIONS DOCUMENTS, as documented in the book "from time immemorial" show that Arabs from other countries snuck into Israel?

If people star you, and consider you smart, then yes this site is incredibly anti-illectual, because logic should govern. Emotions, and preconceptions, like "israel and zionists are evil" an emotional tune all us keep hearing, and you yourtself feel pride in (you realize that is no different from Hitlers rise to power ,which likewise saw changes in belief and perception with regard to the Jews) should NOT discount facts of reality. Now, i posted alot of information. This thread itself is about a quote made by an inner-level, excutive member of the PLO, who had a clear understanding of Palestinian history. What he said was FACT, because it is backed up by history. By what is shown through British, Ottoman and league of nations documents, through the evidence in books like Mark Twains "the innocents abroad" - published in 1869, or an even more ancient book, Hadriani Relandis "Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata" written in 1696, which gives the SAME information (both books describe palestine as being in very poor condition, desolate, and barren, and sparsely populated) by the criteria of the science of anthroplogy, by Arab/Muslim history, Jewish history... I should ignore all of the above, because someone else says differently? Unless they can bring forth evidence, proof, from documents, or history that says differently, i say youre a liar. I say youre the one guilty and responsible for an injustice, and so you lie, and ignore facts and logic, essentially do as you do - to avoid facing the simple facts and evidence of the situation.

reply to post by dontreally


Actually, he's not a traitor, and he was simply expressing his own political opinions. Mohsen was a dedicated believer in baathist Pan-Arabism; that is, he believed there were no legitimate Arab states, but rather that the entire area from Iraq west to Morocco should be unified as a single Arab nation.

Of course to him there were not really any Palestinians, just like how to some Americans, there are no "hyphenated-Americans." This isn't because he agrees with your standpoint, that the Palestinians never ever existed at all, but rather his belief that Arabs are Arabs first, wherever they are.

the two main theories for his assassins are either Israel's Mossad, or the Iraqi baathists.

Try reading the articles you post

reply to post by dontreally

I say youre the one guilty and responsible for an injustice, and so you lie, and ignore facts and logic, essentially do as you do - to avoid facing the simple facts and evidence of the situation.

Let me get it through your thick skull once and for all..
I am NOT anti-Israel..
I wish there could be peace and settled borders..
I don't ask Israel to break every law so they can perpetuate the land grab that has continued since they were given their patch..
You ignore when I post a past Israel Defense minister clearly stating Israel's intentions but expect all to believe everything YOU post..

I also don't believe they were "promised" that land by God..
Those books were written by men, not God and even so, the history and ownership of that land far predates any book written..

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Try reading the articles you post

But parts don't suit their agenda, like this bit..

As such, he stated that there were "no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese", though Palestinian identity would be emphasised for political reasons.

As you state, he considered them as one but actually DOES mention Palestinians..

Originally posted by dontreally
Why would MOSSAD kill him if what he revealed was politically good for Israel? doesnt make sense. What DOES make sense is that he was killed by some PLO assassin and then blamed the murder - as is common - on the MOSSAD.

edit on 6-6-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Because at the time Israel was scared poopless of pan-Arabism, as during this time frame it was a pretty powerful political movement. This is why Israel funneled money and arms to Hamas back in the day, in the hopes of creating an Islamist counter-movement to the secular pan-Arabism of the Palestinian Liberation organization.

Though hey, I'm just as willing to accept that it might have been the Iraqi Baath that did him in; that's a crazy sibling rivalry they had going for awhile.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


OK. Now, what are your opinions on the historicity of the Palestinian people?

You are aware, that the term didnt exist before 1920, correct?

And that the biblical philistines (whom they try to claim ancestry to) were Ageans - from Crete. That is, non Semites.

And infact, if were to stick to biblical definitions, Canaanites, arent Semites either, but Hamites (Canaan being Hams son). According to the bible, only Africa was given the Hamites, whereas the middleeast was given to the Shemites - Israel in particular, given to the chosen sons of Shem (like Eber - from where we get the word Hebrew). The Canaanites conquered that land from the Shemites. So, infact, when the biblical Israelites, sons of Abraham, who of course was a direct descendant of Shem, conquered "canaan" they actually reclaimed what was rightfully theirs.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Are you pro-pan Arabism? Even though such a farce denies Jews, Kurds, Berbers, Copts their own piece of the pie?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

OK. Now, what are your opinions on the historicity of the Palestinian people?

You are aware, that the term didnt exist before 1920, correct?

And that the biblical philistines (whom they try to claim ancestry to) were Ageans - from Crete. That is, non Semites.

And infact, if were to stick to biblical definitions, Canaanites, arent Semites either, but Hamites (Canaan being Hams son). According to the bible, only Africa was given the Hamites, whereas the middleeast was given to the Shemites - Israel in particular, given to the chosen sons of Shem (like Eber - from where we get the word Hebrew). The Canaanites conquered that land from the Shemites. So, infact, when the biblical Israelites, sons of Abraham, who of course was a direct descendant of Shem, conquered "canaan" they actually reclaimed what was rightfully theirs.

edit on 6-6-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Historical fact and political fact are mutually exclusive. Right now Israel is the bad guy and "Palestinians" are being picked on. People habitually root for the underdog. It's human nature to feel bad for someone. The fact that Philistines were Myceneans, Canaanites were non-Semitic, and both were either absorbed, bred, or killed out of existence is washed away by politically charged propaganda.

I've posted the same things above many times and some people either refuse to believe it, or just don't care because it's not part of their agenda. I've personally given up on anyone on ATS accepting historical, archeological, and anthropological fact when it comes to Israel. Emotions win, thought loses. Every time.

/TOA

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

OK. Now, what are your opinions on the historicity of the Palestinian people?

You are aware, that the term didnt exist before 1920, correct?

Sort of like how "Italian" didn't exist until roughly 1880, or how "Indian" (As in south Asia) didn't exist until the 1930's? or how "Russian" once meant the people under the Kiev princes, then came to encompass the whole of Northern Eurasia, and now is again reduced to a west Eurasian nation that doesn't even contain the principalities of the Kievan Rus? "Saudi" only came into being in 1917. "German" is another new one, as well. There were no Tanzanians until the 1960's. There were no Timorese until the 90's.

And that the biblical philistines (whom they try to claim ancestry to) were Ageans - from Crete. That is, non Semites.

And that you are almost undoubtedly some variety of Celtic / German hybrid from Europe. Yet here you are, in the Western Hemisphere.

And infact, if were to stick to biblical definitions,

then the rabbit chews its cud, otters are a kind of fish, bats are bird, and women turn into seasonings. Referring to the bible for your history of the Middle East is no different than using Lord of the rings as a source document for historical western Europe.

Canaanites, arent Semites either, but Hamites (Canaan being Hams son). According to the bible, only Africa was given the Hamites, whereas the middleeast was given to the Shemites - Israel in particular, given to the chosen sons of Shem (like Eber - from where we get the word Hebrew).

"According to the Bible" is, again, the problem here. Even omitting the glaring problems of taking mythology as fact, we end up with a highly, highly biased source. it's basically the Israelite epic; of course it's going to lie and misrepresent everyone else the Israelites knew. You see the same thing everywhere, from the Greeks dismissing everyone else as "barbarians" to the Vikings telling tales of the Finns being primitive bear-people, to the Spanish insisting that they taught those ignorant savages in the new world everything they knew, all the way up to the Germans writing books about how the Roma and Jews were rats and vermin.

Semites - that is, speakers of semitic languages - are not "native" to the near East. Ancient Hebrew,what we can tell of it, was basically just a dialect of Egyptian, while Arabic is most similar to some languages in Somalia and central Ethiopia. The majority of Semitic languages are found in north-central Africa. This indicates that their point of origin is somewhere near the Niger river.

The Canaanites conquered that land from the Shemites. So, infact, when the biblical Israelites, sons of Abraham, who of course was a direct descendant of Shem, conquered "canaan" they actually reclaimed what was rightfully theirs.

edit on 6-6-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Actually they didn't conquer diddly-squat. I've explained this to you dozens of times now. The Israelites never actually had the huge kingdoms that are talked about in the Bible. Just like they never actually killed millions and millions of people, like it says in the Bible. These accounts are falsified for posterity; must has how the Romans were strangely able to kill millions upon millions of barbarians without suffering any losses, to hear them tell it, just as the Chinese had the highest culture anywhere and have never ever been conquered by anyone, to hear them tell it, so too did the Israelites have a mighty and large kingdom, wrested from unrightful squatters who hated god - to hear the Israelites tell it.

Originally posted by dontreally
Are you pro-pan Arabism? Even though such a farce denies Jews, Kurds, Berbers, Copts their own piece of the pie?

I'm against ethnic nationalism, period. it'd be pretty hypocritical to be for Arabism but against Zionism, don't you think? Nah, a modern nation cannot operate on the notion of "only OUR ethnic group are rightful members of this state!"

From another angle though, would I support the notion of the various "Arab" states erasing their own borders and forming some sort of conglomerate federation? Truth is, I wouldn't really care if they do or not, so long as they do so without the ethnocentrism.