Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the strange nationality of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi:
“Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the terror group led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi…” — from this articleThe whole matter of "Palestinian" Jordanians and "Jordanian" Palestinians and why Al-Zarqawi is forever to be known among his pals as a "Palestinian" but the Western media, automatically performing its task of public relations for the "Palestinians," now deliberately chooses to call him "Jordanian-born," can be found in such authorities as the famous 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In it, "Palestine" is defined as follows:
We may describe Palestine as the strip of land extending along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea from the mouth of the Litany or Kasimiya River (33 22' N.) southward to the mouth of the Wadi Ghuzza; the later joins the sea and runs thence in a south-easterly direction so as to include on its northern side the site of Beersheva....Eastward there is no such definite border. The River Jordan, it is true, marks a line of delimitation between Western and Eastern Palestine; but it is practically impossible to say where the latter ends and the Arabian desert begins.So Jordan, in its populated parts (not the Syrian Desert) comprises Eastern Palestine, and Israel Western Palestine.
What does this mean? It means that in Jordan both Eastern Palestinians (Jordanians) and Western Palestinians (from the territory now held by Israel) live. A person born in Jordan to "Western Palestinian" parents would call himself Jordanian. A person born in Jordan to parents who were born in Jordan, to grandparents who were born in Mandatory Palestine, would call himself whatever is most advantageous to him, depending on where he travels, to whom he speaks, and who harbors what suspicions. It is best, in Arab countries, to be a "Jordanian," not a "Palestinian," despite all the support for "Palestinians" as the shock troops of the Jihad against Infidel Israel. On the other hand, at least until recently, one might garner more sympathy from the unwary Westerner by calling oneself a "Palestinian" who lives in Jordan. It is fascinating to see how al-Zarqawi, a name given to him because he was born in a "refugee village" in Zarqa, would ordinarily call himself a "Palestinian," but everyone has been quick to label him as "Jordanian-born" without going into detail. Why? Because Arabs think calling him a "Palestinian" might damage the "Palestinian" (i.e. Arab Muslim) cause, and the Western press, without even considering the matter for a moment, has obligingly gone along.
But what if al-Zarqawi if not a "Palestinian" Jordanian, which is to say, if we can draw this accordion out still further, a "Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinian"? And what of those who were born in, say, the West Bank in 1953, and were therefore Jordanian at birth, and now live in Amman? Such people would be Jordanian, but no ordinary Jordanians. Rather, from 1948 to 1967, those people born under Jordan's rule in the West Bank were Jordanian citizens (no one talked then of "Palestinians" or of a "Palestinian people" -- that came sometime after the defeat of June 1967) from birth. In order to distinguish such people from those "Palestinians" born in Eastern Palestine, i.e. east of the Jordan River, it would be best to speak of Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinians (born in Israel and the West Bank, and now living in Jordan) and Eastern-Palestinian Eastern Palestinians (born in Jordan of parents or grandparents who were from "Eastern Palestine" and still living there) and the final group, those people who were born in Jordan, as were their parents and grandparents. These would be the Jordanians, or rather the plain-vanilla unadjectivized Eastern Palestinians, mostly of Bedouin extraction.Al-Zarqawi, as noted, was born after 1967 in Zarqa, in what is present-day Jordan (i.e. present-day Eastern Palestine) and therefore should be most accurately described most accurately as a "Palestinian-never-not-even-between-1948-and 1967-a-Jordanian Jordanian" which is to say, a "Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinian" -- using the guidelines of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, as well as the last two thousand years of Western history. Of course, I haven't bothered to go into the fact that a great many of the Muslim Arabs who claim to be descended from "Western Palestinians" and now live either in Israel and its territories or in Jordan, are in fact people whose presence in the area does not go back further than the 1920s and 1930s, when the Arab Muslim migration into Mandatory Palestine was far larger, though illegal, than any Jewish migration allowed by Great Britain -- the Mandatory authority that was supposed to, but did not, "facilitate Jewish immigration" and "encourage close Jewish settlement on the land" by the express terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
Does that make it all clear?
I thought it would.
The moral of all this is:
What a tangled toponymic web Muslim Arabs weave, when e'er they practice to deceive, first by making up the "Palestinian people," and then by pretending that no matter when some Muslim Arab ventures into “Palestine” (or, not an Arab, but even Kurds, Berbers, Turks, Muslims from Bulgaria, the latter plunked down by the Ottomans in the 1880s -- all of them more-or-less Arabized by now, though many know exactly, or have a good idea, as to their ancestors' origins outside of "Palestine"), this necessarily makes all of his descendants into "Palestinians," with all the claimed rights thereto appertaining -- and apparently forever. This is true both backwards and forwards, and no matter how tangential or short-lived a particular Muslim Arab's connection to "Palestine" has been, as long as there was one, at some point, who set foot there. At least, that is what "Palestinians" wherever they live claim.
Except of course, when they do something particularly awful, that the Western world really will not stand. Then, presto-magico, they are not "Palestinians" but "Jordanians." Sirhan Sirhan was carefully called a "Jordanian." And Al-Zarqawi is carefully called "Jordanian-born."
Q.E.D.
Kind of like a short-tall-double latte-grande with a twist.
Another eye-opener, Hugh.
Hugh asked "Does that make it all clear?"
Actually, it can be made quite a bit more clear. There is no such thing as "Palestinians", let alone "Western Palestinians" or "Eastern Palestinians" or "Fribberty Jibberty Palestinians". There has never been a nation named "Palestine", there has never been a distinct language or culture or money or government that distinguishes the "Palestinians" from other nomadic Arabs in the region.
To quote Zuhair Muhsin, the former military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council:
"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity....yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."
See http://sf.indymedia.org/print.php?id=137425.
Of course, the Bush administration is pushing Sharon to cede more Israeli land to create the 22nd Arab state at the expense of the only Jewish state in the world. So we may not be able to say that the fictitious "Palestine" does not exist for much longer.
The Western media zealously seek out positively spin Arab and Muslim 'grievances' against the West, as if Western audiences simply cannot stomach in any way facing the depressing realization that they are hated simply because of who they are, and that there is nothing they can do about it. They are Infidels and the story ends there. But, that will just not do. There must be some 'reason' for it all: bombings, lies, hateful protestations, defiance, deceptive attempts to undermine governments, the economy, Western ways of life, Western symbols, values. What a 'mystery'? What a 'shock'? It simply must be our fault. Or, better yet, the Jew's fault, a 'Jewish problem' that requires a 'solution'. This way to canvass the problem seems to always fly well in Europe of all places.
And if blaming the Jews does not satisfy there are others things one can try: optimism. We do not face an irrational enemy that will hate us no matter what we do or say. We can make friends, integrate, form alliances, spread democracy, or whatever: the 'problem' is localized, isolated, extreme, having to do with just Israel, the bad Jews who deserve this kind of abuse, and so-called al Qeada, the extremists, the fringe.
In this context Al-Zarqawi is one of those anomolous monsters, an 'al Qaeda' guy, but not a 'Palestinian', not a mujahediin; and this is not jihad he wages, an ideological war that appeals to core Islamic beliefs, this is an insurgency carried out by extremists. Why do they blow themselves up and kill innocents by the hundreds? How shocking. What a mystery. But, whatver the reason, it has to do with the maniacal leadership of this monster, this 'Jordanian-born' leader of 'al Qaeda'. An oddball. Not an Arab mujahediin fighting Infidels in a global jihad.
Consider the latest odd BBC piece about the 'mystery' behind one of the 7/11 bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4354858.stm
A good kid, a regular English 'lad', Sid. How could this happen? Maybe it wasn't him? But it was. There are pictures. What a shock. And yet many Muslims in Britain say that they still do not believe he did it. The Muslim writer of this piece, in the face of this irrationality, this paranoia, dances lightly to the conclusion that in this respectful, decent community there is indeed an 'enemy within'. But it is a mystery. What it is? Where did it come from? Not one word about jihadist ideology and core, non-extremist teaching in Islam, like the obligation for da'wa, the spread of Islam, the moral and political inferiority of Infidels, the obligation of Muslims to fight, to struggle against Infidels who oppose Islam in any way, the goal of the Caliphate, the political ideology of Islam, the obligation to institute Islamic rule, Islamic law, not just here or there, but everywhere in accordance with divine destiny, and the obligation to strive, to fight vigorously against any encroachment of Muslim land.
Not one word about any of this. What motivated Sid is a mystery. And what motivates the 'Jordanian-born' monster as well lurks in the darkness, something shocking, not to be discussed.
And yet Infidels and Muslims themselves, shocked, wary, wondering cannot escape the fact that Sid might be any Muslim kid, just as Al-Zarqawi might be any mujahid in 'Palestine'.
Indeed, the differences between the 9/11 hijackers and 'Palestinian' suicide bombers, mujhadiin united in jihad, seem to be a visa, a few bucks in the bank, and a pilot's license.
This was a damn good piece Hugh.
Ah, Palestine, the real kicker is that it is a Jewish name. Always has been and always will be.
Palestine is a Jewish name? IIRC it was the Romans who named Canaan-Judeah Palestine, to seperate it from it's Jewish population. In fact the word is Latin for Philistines, who were not Jews, but probably Phoenicians.
Taking the argument further. If I have my facts and logic correct, the current inhabitants of "Palestine" are the sons and daughters and grandchildren of Egyptian immigrants who migrated to the area lured by the job opportunities and economic prosperity that the Jews were providing (and that Islam cannot provide0.
Thus in 1948, when the inhabitants of the region chose to flee (in what they thought would be a temporary Exodus) to Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia (taking the keys to their homes with them), they essentially abandoned their homes and properties (finder keepers).
("Palestinians have no claim to any part of "Palestine", for the simple reason that they lost any land claim when Arabdom rose up and tried to extinquish the Jews and the Jewish nation. Since all Arabs (muslims) identify as a single polity (ummah or moslemah) then they stand together and and "suffer" together. With Muslims it is a winner take all proposition, thus the corollary is also operative.. losers lose all.
No obfuscation, no begging off, and blaming the aggression and loss on Egyptians, Saudis, Syrians or Iraqi's. We aren't dealing with European style polities and nation states, but a nation that transcends geopolitical boundaries. If attacked by one Muslim, (and that Muslims is not disciplined and punished by the Islamici polity) then the accurate assessment is that one is attacked by all Muslims.
The point here is that if the denizens of the "refugee camps" in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria etc are "Palestinians" because their parents or grandparents came from "Palestine", then by the same logic there are no "Palestinians" in the so called "Palestinian Territories" as all of those folk are Egyptian (or whatever other "Arab" country, that their parents migrated in from).
And I tire of calling people Arab, merely because they speak Arab as a mother tongue, might as well call most North Americans English, Mexicans Spaniards, Brazilians Portugese.
I watch TV News shots of the various Arab conferences, and the only thing most have in common is their mother tongue. Is a blue eyed Lieutenant in the Saudi Air Force an Arab, this man who obviously has flowing in his blood the genes of Circassians, Serbs, Irish, English or French slaves.
Are Egyptian Copts Arabs? I don't think they so self identify, and I doubt that a Marionite Lebanonese would appreciate being called an Arab.
Although I could be wrong. Would a Melkite Christian self identify as an Arab, do Assyrian Christians so identify? Yet what is the difference between a Syrian Muslim and a Syrian Christian other than religion and self identity.
Well there are obviously Syrian Arabs, after all the first dynasties of Islam and their slaves on Camels (ghazi raiders) seated themselves in Damascus, and from there spread out their genes.
Vital information in this fight Hugh.
Many thanks.
Thanks to you Hugh:
Googled Zarqawi onto Wikipedia:
"born of Palestinean refugees in a refugee camp in Zarqa, Jordan"
He is as "palestinean" as those in Gazastan, from the same multi ethnic mix who were there or Johny come latelies who ended up there, because of the opportunities afforded by new Jewish enterprise at the start of the 20th century.
He's a "palestinian" rat - despite the disinformation by the NYTimes, the Beeb, the mainstream media.
Knowledge - another quiver for the bow (William Blake)
Nariz:
The answers to your questions about how Christian minorities identify would probably vary depending on who the audience is and who the interlocutor is.
I think Hugh once responded to a similar question from me affirming my suspicion that the "native tongues" of the non-Muslims of the region was Aramaic, but Arabic overtook Aramaic as Arabs conquered them politically and their populations grew in those lands.
From the time of Alexander the Great's conquest through the heyday of the Roman Empire the common Greek and Latin name for Israel was Judea [in Greek Ioudaia, in Latin Iudaea]. This name derives from the Aramaic word Yehudaya which means "the Jews." This is the conclusion of Felix Abel of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, one of the foremost historians of the Land of Israel [Histoire de la Palestine; Geographie de la Palestine], a conclusion which I find eminently reasonable. The name "Palestine" was used by merchants and sailors coming from the West who landed at ports on the coast, such as the Philistine ports. As used by Herodotos, Palaistina is an adjective applied to part of Syria. That is, people saw Philistia and Israel as parts of Syria. Syria is a Greek name derived from Tyre [the T changed into an S-like sound; this was a linguistic shift], and originally referred to the area around Tyre, later expanding to the all of the east coast of the Mediterranean, in Greek usage. It did NOT originate as a native name for that region, also called the Levant [a name referring to the rising sun].
After the Romans under Hadrian had defeated the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kokhba [131 CE - 135 CE], they changed the name of Provincia Iudaea to Provincia Syria Palaestina. Note that the Romans now considered "Palestine" [ex Judea] part of Syria. The name change was meant as another punishment for the Jews signifying their defeat.