Yes, If there are internationally guaranteed and enforcement of Assyrian national rights and autonomy. However, the record of the Kurds in their treatment of Assyrians and Armenians a century ago, does not give one much hope. A better plan would be the full independence of Assyria.

This will mean providing for a population transfer of Christians from Baghdad and southern Iraq to the new Assyrian state and the transfer of Muslims out of Mosul. The oil around Mosul should be jointly held by Kurdistan and Assyria to guarantee continues peace between the two nations.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 1, 2006 9:40 AM

Right on Hugh! An independent Assyria couldn't hurt, although I'd worry about them being an island in a sea of sewage threatening to swamp them (sort of like Israel). As for Christians leaving altogether why not have them go to Europe? With people leaving there they could use some reinforcements. At least these immigrants won't be rioting.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 1, 2006 9:52 AM

Well said Hugh. More concerning this issue here:

Peter BetBasoo: It Is Time to Arm Iraq's Christians

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 1, 2006 10:14 AM

Hugh,

An Assyrian state is a necessity and the US administration and legislators should understand this.

But, the Assyrians should not be put under another dhimmi protection by the Kurds. Rather, the Assyrians should be trained to defend themselves and should be given efficient means to do so. The Assyrian state should be flooded with arms and fundings.

Since the Kurds seem to be necessary against Iran, a balance should be created between the Kurds and the Assyrians. To rephrase it, a balance should be created in the US administration between those who favour the Assyrians and those who favour the Kurds. Some people in the administration might think themselves smart to assume that the Assyrians are useless. Such behaviour is a deja-vu (e.g. concerning Lebanese Christians).

Most important of all, the Assyrians have to be given means to defend themselves.

Heraclius

Posted by: Berytius_Libanicus at November 1, 2006 11:52 AM

I would much rather see all Christians in the region transplanted to Europe where they are needed.

The Kurd issue is a tough one, the Turks would never comply with a Kurdish border as it does threaten her power base. A large percentage of Turks are of Kurdish decent and Turkey fears them leaving more than anything else.

As far as a guaranteed border by the US, that's a dream. Turkey never complies with international pressure or treaties, she would invade first chance she gets. Let's not forget the no fly zone in Northern Iraq after 1992 became the Turk fly zone, where they systematically went in and killed thousands of Kurds with no one saying anything.

These atrocities were reported regularly in Greece, and other Balkan based news agencies but no other western reports surfaced. That was until Turkey refused to allow US troops to Invade Iraq a few years ago, all of the sudden all sorts of reports were out in the western media about these atrocities over a decade ago. Of course these stories disappeared just as fast, once Colin Powell was dispatched to Turkey to smooth things out.

I unfortunately have no faith that the US would defend Kurdistan in favor of its old and disgusting ally Turkey.

Niv

Posted by: niv at November 1, 2006 1:32 PM

Niv said: "I would much rather see all Christians in the region transplanted to Europe where they are needed."

That is the greatest strategic and moral error that anybody in the West can make.

After all, there is enough of these Christians in Europe and America and most of them are melting in the society quickly and loosing their origins.

My ancestors are resisted jihad in the Mountains of Lebanon for 1400 years. Our mountains are the reason for our survival. The events of the 1975 war of Lebanon show that if the Christians have means of defence besides their strategic and protected location in the mountains, they can survive despite the most hostile of all environments. The Assyrians can do this.

That is why, we and the Assyrians need means of survival.

Heraclius

Posted by: Berytius_Libanicus at November 1, 2006 2:17 PM

The U.S. should create an Assyrian Autonomous Region.Then train and arm the Assyrians.Giving the Assyrians assured protection to come to their aid if attacked like the protection we give to Japan,Tiawan and Korea.The U.S. Arm Forces can use that state to base troops and forts.Our troops wouldn't have to watch their backs. We know the help we give them won't come back on us and stab us in the back.They will be true allies and I'm willing to bet that that State would be wealthy and successful.An Christian Israel.

Posted by: RED at November 1, 2006 2:25 PM

I have frequently seen posts on this site that call for evacuating minorities from Moslem dominated regions. I sympathize with the their plight and yet I wonder: What next? What new region will have to be evacuated next? And the one after that? And when will it stop?

While freely admitting that I do not live in a territory currently under Moslem domination and I don't have to endure (as yet) the type of persecution these other people must endure, I feel that we must start the process of providing back-pressure to Moslem demands and expectations. Autonomous regions are clearly one such approach, an idea that in fact mirrors one of the pages in the Moslem play book: bite, chew and swallow. One need only look to Moslem-fomented violence in Mindanao, Thailand, Israel and the attendant demands to see how it works in the present day. One need only look at the gradual erosion of the Byzantine Empire for an historical example.

Complete withdrawal from Iraq may not be as easy and as beneficial to Western interests as has been expressed from time to time on this site. It would be nice if the West's enemies would play rough with each other, but it might be good to be nearby, to make sure that they don't make any alliance of convenience that would surely be to Western disadvantage. I'm thinking particularly of rapid interdiction of ground transport when WMDs eventually do reappear in the region. Friendly, autonomous regions would then prove to be very useful, providing relatively secure forward bases of operation for intelligence gathering and for light infantry/special forces deployment. They would also get Western forces out of the dangerous, expensive and ultimately fruitless job of nationbuilding. Last and most importantly, they would provide safe homelands for friendly, grateful populations, populations that have a chance of understanding and building prosperous democracies. A boundary would be drawn. An example would be set. A victory would be won. Such eventualities, separately or together, would constitute a blow against jihad, along the lines of Psalm 23: "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies."

Posted by: Chatillon at November 1, 2006 2:27 PM

Perfect timing, Hugh. I've been trying to find some way to agree with your assessment of the situation over there without the negative unintended consequences which result from a complete pullout from "Iraq." The only thing which makes sense to me is moving our military into the Kurdish areas and allowing the Arab Muslims to settle this in their traditional way. The other is so-called "federalism," which over there would mean three nations with hostile borders. We may end up there anyway. The Sunnis might glom onto Syria and the Shia Iran. Who knows?

Nice job, Great Britain!

Posted by: Beagle at November 1, 2006 4:42 PM

Berytius_Libanicus, it's not that I disagree with what you are saying, I just don't see it as possible if you're relying on the US to support you.

All you need to do is look anywhere the US, and Britain had a chance to do the right thing for Christians, they backed the wrong side. Yugoslavia and Bosnia as very key points.

I would prefer to see a huge shift in policy and have an independent Assyria that will be defended by the US. However that won't happen the partition of Kosovo from Yugoslavia is still on the books and will happen.

If the US stomps on Turkey over the Kurd issue and they make some clear concise moves on where they're going in the mid east, I'd be all for it.

Niv

Posted by: niv at November 1, 2006 5:45 PM

"Pipe dreams Hugh."
-- from a posting above

Possibly. Certainly the Armenians whom I know -- mostly from Syria -- become greatly agitated at the mention of the "Kurds" as worthy of trust. But I am not speaking of trust. While some Kurds may choose emphasize their Islamic identity (such as Mullah Krekar of Ansar al-Sunnah), others may in fact have changed, slowly, under American protection and continued Arab persecution.

I am suggesting that if the Christians in Iraq are to have the chance or option of remaining in that area, then they are most likely to receive it from those who, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but only because they are completely dependent on American support, may offer such protection. The alternative is for the Christians to leave for such places as Syria, and Lebanon. Since the Assad regime is busy permitting Shi'a missionaries to convert even Alawites, it appears that that regime can no longer be counted on to protect Christians. The arrival of hundreds of thousands of Christians into Lebanon, swelling the depleted ranks of Christians -- especially of the Maronites who have been most vigorous in the deense of Christian interests -- would be good, and so would Christian groups helping some of these refugees from Islam in Iraq resettle in villages in the "West Bank" that would first have to be emptied of Muslim Arabs who might be induced to leave, if only to make a living that can be made difficult in the "West Bank" as in Gaza if all the Jizyah from abroad is permanently turned off, as it should be.

I do not wish to join in the general celebration about the wonderfulness of the Kurds -- a wonderfulness that is relative (in comparison to the Arabs of Iraq) and not absolute. But how can an independent Kurdistan be assured indispensable military and diplomatic support except by doing in this case what is asked of it by the American government? Why should the Kurds not, if only out of clear self-interest, recognize the benefits to themselves (all over the Western world) if they were to undertake to protect from the Arabs and other Muslims a Chaldo-Assyrian enclave?

Posted by: Hugh at November 1, 2006 11:04 PM

Any thoughts here on partitioning Lebanon so that the Christians have their own state ?

Found a map of the religions of Lebanon and a continuous Christian state can be carved out, provided it included the Druze areas of central Lebanon.

Posted by: PAS at November 2, 2006 12:03 AM

"Why should the Kurds not, if only out of clear self-interest, recognize the benefits to themselves (all over the Western world) if they were to undertake to protect from the Arabs and other Muslims a Chaldo-Assyrian enclave?"

As the US administration does not seem to be in favour of any Assyrian state, this would be a first good step.

The problem again is in gaining the minds of the administration and of the legislators as well. The Lebanese in America succeeded in doing this although the US administration still inclines to Hariri (Sunni) and Junblat (Druze) more than Geagea (Maronite). Anything that is not Christian (or Jew) is still considerd more secure to deal with.

The problem of the Assyrians is that the are not able to influence the administration, not only because their number is less than the number of Lebanese Christians in America but because they don't have this long political which the Maronites enjoyed over past years.

The same applies for the Copts.

For anything to succeed, all these peoples who have common cause (Maronites, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Syriacs and Copts), have to gather and plan for a unified strategy.

Besides this, defective elements have to be neutralized. I mean by these defective elements: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.

Heraclius

Posted by: Berytius_Libanicus at November 2, 2006 3:47 AM

Does anybody know what provisions were made in the post-WW One peace settlements, at San Remo, and in the Sevres and Lausanne treaties, in regard to the Assyrians? I know that different things were promised to the Kurds, but these promises were not fulfilled by the British in their Iraq mandate.

The British recruited Assyrians into a militia to help them govern Iraq in the 1920s. But then the UK left the Assyrians in the lurch in favor of the true love of the Foreign and Colonial Offices, the Sunni Arabs. The Iraqi army, for which the UK was directly or indirectly responsible, massacred Assyrians in 1933. I'm sure some posters here are aware of that, but not others. Despite the British betrayal, Assyrian auxiliary troops defended the British Habbaniya air base in Iraq from pro-Nazi Iraqi government troops in 1941. See links:

http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/before-iraqi-massacre-of-jews.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/father-of-arab-nationalist-fake.html

George Antonius, tendentious Arab nationalist inventor of Arab nationalist fables [i.e., the Arab Awakening], blamed the Assyrians for the massacre in 1933. See link above.

berytus libanicus identifies Western policy as a major problem. Indeed, it is, and we in Israel are now feeling Western treachery, although a moron like olmert doesn't know how to deal with it.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 2, 2006 5:25 AM

"George Antonius, tendentious Arab nationalist inventor of Arab nationalist fables [i.e., the Arab Awakening], blamed the Assyrians for the massacre in 1933."
-- from a posting by Eliyahu above

Antonious was Christian (Greek Orthodox), or rather, islamochristian. Michel Aflaq was another islamochristian -- he found his solution to the plight of Christian Arabs in Ba'athism, of which he was one of or perhaps the main, founder. Still another way to be an islamochristian is represeented by those agents of "Palestinianism" Naim Ateek and Hanan Ashrawi. The first works the Christian-church circuit in the U.S., the second simply circulates picking up honorary degrees, becoming the great and good friend of the not-to-be-missed Peter Jennings, as she offers up the Lesser Jihad as merely a "nationalist struggle" by one of the "two peoples" (not the Arabs and Jews, but the Jews and the "Palestinians") who must "share the land" of "Palestine."

Antonious's widow became the mistress of Sir Evelyn Barker, and a cache of his letters to her were found in eastern Jerusalem after the Six-Day War by the Israelis. They make for interesting reading. Especially interesting was Sir Evelyn Barker's expressed wish -- and he was the British Military Commander in Jerusalem at the time (c. 1946) to help the Arab side (the word "Palestinian" for Arab was still 20 years away from being discovered) "exterminate the Jews."

That, by the way, is the only information of value in the sappy-sentimental book by Segev, "One Palestine, Undivided" or "Whole" or something.

Posted by: Hugh at November 2, 2006 10:51 AM

"the word "Palestinian" for Arab was still 20 years away from being discovered"

posted by Hugh (in parenthesis above).

Actually, Hugh, the word "Palestinian" had been in use for hundreds of years. It meant exclusively Christians, Jews, and Samaritans who were living in the Holy Land.

Muslims were never called Palestinians until the Mufti's nazi advisors convinced him that nationalism might be a winning strategy against the British. Before that, local Muslims were simply called "Arabs" or "Turks".

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 2, 2006 2:33 PM

The word "Palestinian" as far as I know began to be used in modern times, in the Western world, only as applied to Jews. It was not applied to Jews, or Christians, or Samaritans, at least not in any of the books I have read by Western travelles to that region, beginning in the late 18th century, and only came into use at the beginning of the 20th, and then largely among Jews who would refer, affectionately or besumedly, to those ferkockt (crazy, nutty -- see Leo Rosten on "the Joys of Yiddish"( people who had "returned to Zion." The Jerusalem paper was "the Palestine Post" and the word "Palestine" was hardly used by the Arabs, but Jews in Warsaw and New York might have relatives whom they described or referred to, half-jokingly, as "Palestinians." I'll bet if you go to that place in Western Massachusetts that collects old Yiddishiana, books and sheet music and other artifacts of a nearly-vanished civilization, you would find something like "My Palestinisher Cousin" or even, perhpas, "My Palestiniser Mamma." I can hear that klezerish sound right now, in my mind's ear, but with an artful American retouching by Irving Berlin.

Jeez, I wish there were still Tin Pan Alley. And gosh, Mr. Dillingham, I think New York is swell.

Posted by: Hugh at November 2, 2006 4:06 PM

Hugh,

Do you have the reference on the widow of Antonius and on the letter of Barker.

Concerning the Muslims of Palestine, during the 18th century the Europeans usually called them Turks or Moors while the name Arabs was given to nomadic Arabs only. At the end of the 18th century and during the 19th century, the term 'Moors' was replaced with the term 'Arabs', 'Turks' was applied on soldiers and state officials, and 'Bedouins' was now applied on nomadic Arabs instead of 'Arabs'.

During the 18th century, Palestinian Muslims were never called Palestinians or Syrians. By the 19th century, they were usually called Syrians or Palestinians only from a geographic point of view. But Europeans did not conceive any Palestinian ethnicity per se.

Although the terms Filastin 'Palestine' and Filastini 'Palestinian' were used in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods, their use was lost after the 11th century. The use of the term 'Palestine' was revived in Arabic litterature in the late 19th century by Christians.

I think it is better to refer to the Muslims of Palestine as Palestinian Muslims, surely from a geographical point of view. It is better even than the simplistic term 'Arabs' because these are a mixture of Arabs, Turkmen, Kurds, Bosnians, Chechens and Cherkess. In the Mamluk period, Muslim Mongols coming from the east were settled in the region of 'Atlit.

Posted by: Berytius_Libanicus at November 2, 2006 4:41 PM

The business about Evelyn Barker and Antonious's widow can be found in the Segev book.

The book itself is largely sentimentalism of the let's-follow-the-histories-of-one-Arab-and-one Jew and thereby-come-to-undertand-this-tragic-conflict-between-two-peoples-each-struggling-for-its-homeland.

How Charles Malik would have laughed. And Antoine Fattal (Maronite author of "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam"). And so many others in Lebanon, including the Maronite Bishop of Beirut in 1947, Moubarac (see, for more on what he had to say about Israel, Bat Ye'or's documents appended to "Islam and Dhimmitude")

Posted by: Hugh at November 2, 2006 5:43 PM

George Antonius died, I believe, in 1942, while widow Katy continued to live in the house in Jerusalem. That's where she conducted her famous salon, patronized by Arab notables and intellectuals and by high British officials. That's probably where she met General Evelyn Barker.

I would like to elaborate on what Berytius says about the complex subject of geographic names and historical-political geography. When the Arab armies conquered Israel, Syria, Egypt, etc. about 640 CE, they generally maintained Byzantine administrative divisions, and names. The province called Judea [IVDAEA] --essentially, the Land of Israel-- in the heyday of the Roman empire had its name changed to "Provincia Syria Palaestina" after suppression of the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. This was an anti-Jewish political act, as Felix Abel recognized. He was a Dominican priest stationed at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem who became one of the foremost experts in the historical geography of the Land of Israel, in two books, Geographie de la Palestine, & Histoire de la Palestine, plus many many articles in the Revue Biblique, published by the Ecole Biblique. Under the late Romans/Byzantines, the administrative borders of "palestine" were changed from time. Before the Arab conquest, it was divided into three parts, Palaestina Prima, Secunda & Tertia. Palaestina Prima consisted of most of Samaria, part of the coastal plain, the Jerusalem area and south [called in the Bible "the Land of Judah" or Erets Yehudah], northern Negev. This district was named by the Arab conquerors Jund Filastin, whereas Palaestina Secunda was named Jund Urdunn. Jund here means military district. Some believe that Palaestina Secunda [northern Samaria, the Galilee, part of Transjordan] had been renamed Iordania by the Byzantines before the Arab conquest by inferring from the Arab name, Jund Urdunn. Filastin was used up to the Crusades by Arab and other Muslim rulers, but was not used after the Crusades. I agree with Berytius up to this point. However, settled Arabs as well as nomadic Bedouin were called Arabs as early as Chateaubriand's trip to the country in 1806 [see his travel account]. Chateaubriand usually calls the country Terre Sainte [Holy Land], as I recall, not "palestine." The Catholic church too usually called the country Terra Sancta, or variants in other tongues. "Palestine" was sometimes used as a name along with Holy Land, Zion, Judea, Levant, etc. But I do not believe that "palestinian" was used as a name representing the population of the country.

The

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 3, 2006 7:57 AM

"I agree with Berytius up to this point. However, settled Arabs as well as nomadic Bedouin were called Arabs as early as Chateaubriand's trip to the country in 1806 [see his travel account]."

True, but before Chateaubriand and before the French revolution, the common name for sedentary Muslims of Palestine was Moors or Turks. Arabs was rather used for nomadic Arabs. However, 'Arabs' replaced 'Moors' after the French revolution, when the French and the Europeans started conceiving an Arab identity based not only on descent but also on language. The Europeans in the 19th century carried the term 'Arabs' further and applied it to the Christians and Jews too. For this you have to reed the report of Boislecomte (in Georges Douin, "La mission du baron de Boislecomte", Cairo: 1927). However, later in the 19th century, the Europeans separated native Jews from those whom they called 'Arabs'.

The matter of identities is complicated because there are different point of views to be taken into consideration.

Maybe it would be usefull to point to how the Muslims of Palestine identified themselves.

During the Mamluk period, the name 'Arabs' was given exclusively to nomadic Arabs and this custom is still maintained now (and I am speaking here of my own personal use of the term 'Arabs'). Although these Muslims were mainly of Arab origins, they were also mixed. The usual name for those who lived in rural areas was 'peasents' or 'clans'. Druzes were called by their own name and are never refered to as Arabs although of Arab origin. Besides these, there were Turkmen, Kurd and Mongol nomads in Palestine in this period.

By the Ottoman period, the name 'Arabs' was used exclusively for Bedouin Arabs. However, a new term was introduced in this period to refer to sedentary Muslims: Awlad 'Arab = sons of Arabs. There is no space here to explain the origins of this name, but it was used to differentiate the sedentaries from the nomads and to indicate that the nomads were pure Arabs while the sedentaries were partially of Arab origins. Thus from the 16th to the 19th century the Muslims of Palestine used to divide themselves into: Awlad 'Arab, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. But by the end of the 19th century, under the influence of the new Arab nationalistic trend, the difference between the terms Awlad 'Arab and 'Arabs' became unclear and the former was replaced by the latter. This happened in all Syria too and this is the reason why the Muslims of Syria and Palestine started identifying as 'Arabs' although they were of mixed origins.

Note: the term 'Bedouin' (from Arabic badawi 'nomad') does not refer to Arab nomads exclusively but refers to all sorts of nomads. Westerners of the end of the 18th century thought that it was used for Arab nomads exclusively hence they started using it as an ethnic term. In fact Turkmen and Kurdish nomads are Bedouins too.

Posted by: Berytius_Libanicus at November 3, 2006 1:02 PM

"The word "Palestinian" as far as I know began to be used in modern times, in the Western world, only as applied to Jews. It was not applied to Jews, or Christians, or Samaritans..."

Hugh,

The 1919 Encyclopedia Britannica under its entry for Palestine uses "Palestinian" for any indigenous inhabitant of Palestine "predominately Jews and Christians with a tiny group of Samaritans living..."

The term is also used in Byzantine writings in Greek. In the First Century CE, Rabbi Yohanan Ben-Zakki received Vespasian's permission to withdraw to the town of Yibna (also seen as Jabneh). There an academy was set up and became the central religious authority; its jurisdiction was recognized by Jews in Palestine and beyond.

These Rabbis declared the new sect of Jewish Christians to "be unto us as Philistines". After that these Jewish Christians began to call themselves "filistin" as a badge of honour. Their Palestinian Christian descendants in Nazareth, Bethlehem, etc. still do. Beyond this, the Romans and later Byzantines gave that name to the provine calling it Syria-Palestina,, so the term stuck.

It is also used in the plural (for multiple non-Jewish communities) in the Balfour Declaration.

So I stand by my point. Palestinian is a national term rightly used only by Jews, Christians and Samaritans and it is time we take it back from the Muslims who stole it.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 3, 2006 3:05 PM

Judea [IVDAEA] was the Roman-Greek term for the Jewish province making up most of the Land of Israel. It derives from the Aramaic word Yehudaya meaning "the Jews." Judea is not the same as Judah or Land of Judah [Erets Yehudah] which was the Kingdom of Judah, the southern kingdom, in the Biblical First Temple period. The name Judea was retained until 135 CE according to most authorities, when it was changed to Syria Palaestina, as an obvious affront to the Jews. It represented an "anti-Jewish policy" according to Felix-Marie Abel. "Palestine" was not used in the time of Rabbi ben Zakkai, who was allowed to set up a Yeshivah [academy of Jewish religious studies] in Yabneh. This was allowed to him after destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, some 65 years before the country's name was changed from Judea to Syria Palaestina [after suppression of the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt].
The Jews did not ordinarily use the name "palestine" in Jewish writings even after the name change. They preferred Land of Israel. See link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-did-jews-call-land-of-israel.html

Berytius is right about the diverse origins of those Arabs now called "palestinians."
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/07/palestinian-arabs-are-also-bosnians.html
However, I would explain the term Awlad al-`Arab differently. The word `arab in Arabic means simply desert, as I understand it [compare `arabah in Hebrew]. Hence, Awlad al-`Arab would mean children of the desert [or sons of the desert] and would refer specifically to the Badawin. Anyhow, some people say that the Arabs are not sons of the desert but fathers of the desert, since they have expanded and created deserts throughout their history.
Part of the problem with discussing the use of the term "Arab" is just who used it and where and when. So Chateaubriand, a French writer, used it in the early 19th century, while the settled/sedentary Arabic-speaking population may have identified themselves according to religion first of all, while applying the name Arab to the Badawin [as well as Awlad al-`Arab, I believe]. Karl Marx, writing in 1854, describes the Muslims in Jerusalem as: "Turks, Arabs, and Moors." He probably took this from the book of Cesar Famin.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html
Famin was the source of most of Marx's info on Jerusalem.
Ironically, the German philosopher Kant [who was hostile to Jews] called the German Jews "the palestinians who live among us." Furthermore, the official Palestinian Arab leadership, testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry as late as 1946, denied that there was such a place as "Palestine" at all. It went without saying that therefore, there was no "palestinian" people. Anyhow, I will try to look at what the 11th ed. of the EB says about the term "palestine."

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 6, 2006 2:46 PM

Thanks Eliyahu,

The facts that you added to mine show even more how confused the terminolgy about "Palestine" has been. One thing I could have added was that until just a couple of centuries ago, the home language of the Christians in Bethlehem, Nazareth ect. was Aramaic. Arabic was the language of the markets while in the homes and churches Aramaic continued to be used. It was called Syriac and several older Palestinian Christians (one is 92) told me their parents still understood "Syrian".

It would be interesting to see the reaction if the Israeli press began to refer to all the Christians who have fled Bethlehem and other cities in Judea and Samaria as "Palestinian refugees from Arab oppression seeking protection in Israel." The Muslims won't like it but it would be more accurate. It is not uncommon to hear Christians from Ramallah say things like "he's not a real Palestinian, he's a Muslim."

Despite all this confusion, one fact is clear: the Muslims have no right to call themselves "Palestinian". I don't usually agree with Marx but "Turks, Arabs, and Moors" seems the correct terms for the Muslim invaders.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 6, 2006 8:49 PM

Pravo, what you say about the home, spoken language of Christian inhabitants in Nazareth, Bethlehem, etc., being Aramaic up to recent centuries or even more recently, is very interesting. I once heard the Lebanese nationalist Etienne Sakr [Abu Arz] say that his grandparents spoke Aramaic. The problem is how the standard mainstream journalists and academics gloss over these facts. About Ramallah, it stands to reason that the Christians living there or descendants of Christians from there would see Muslims as outsiders. One hundred years ago, Ramallah was totally Christian in population. Today it is reported to be 70% to 90% Muslim.

As to Marx, he probably got this from the book by Cesar Famin. Almost everything in Marx's article on Jerusalem comes from Cesar Famin's book.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/karl-marx-on-treatment-of-jewish_16.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/karl-marx-on-ottomanmuslim.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/muslim-oppression-of-non-muslims-in.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/barbary-pirates-were-warriors-for.html

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 7, 2006 9:02 AM