THE HISTORY OF ROMAN's PALESTINE Thousands of years before the Romans invented "Palastina" the land had been known as "Canaan". The Canaanites had many tiny city-states, each one at times independent and at times a vassal of an Egyptian or Hittite king. The Canaanites never united into a state. After the Exodus from Egypt probably in the Thirteenth Century BCE but perhaps earlier -- , the Children of Israel settled in the land of Canaan. There they formed first a tribal confederation, and then the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the post-biblical kingdom of Judea. From the beginning of history to this day, Israel-Judah-Judea has the only united, independent, sovereign nation-state that ever existed in "Palestine" west of the Jordan River. (In biblical times, Ammon, Moab and Edom as well as Israel had land east of the Jordan, but they disappeared in antiquity and no other nation took their place until the British invented Trans-Jordan in the 1920s.) After the Roman conquest of Judea, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 CE, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin". In that period, much of the mixed population of Palastina was forced to convert to Islam and adopted the Arabic language. They were subjects of a distant Caliph who ruled them from his capital, that was first in Damascus and later in Baghdad. They did not become a nation or an independent state, or develop a distinct society or culture. In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestina-Falastin. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom was politically independent, but never developed a national identity. It remained a military outpost of Christian Europe, and lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Mameluks, ethnically mixed slave-warriors whose center was in Egypt, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul. During the First World War, the British took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. At the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and among its subject provinces "Palestine" was assigned to the British, to govern temporarily as a mandate from the League of Nations.

WHO IS A PALESTINIAN? During the period of the Mandate, it was the Jewish population that was known as "Palestinians" including those who served in the British Army in World War II. by 1947 the number of Arabs west of the Jordan River was approximately triple of what it had been in 1900. The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in Palestine, until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into Palestine "displaced" the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in Palestine for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugees". Casual use of population statistics for Jews and Arabs in Palestine rarely consider how the proportions came to be. For one example: The Jewish connection with Hebron goes back to Abraham, and there has been an Israelite/Jewish community there since Joshua long before it was King David's first capital. In 1929, Arab rioters with the passive consent of the British -- killed or drove out virtually the entire Jewish community. "There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 By 1948, the Arabs had still not yet discovered their ancient nation of Falastin. When they were offered half of Palestine west of the Jordan River for a state, the offer was violently rejected. Six Arab states launched a war of annihilation against the nascent State of Israel. Their purpose was not to establish an independent Falastin. Their aim was to partition western Palestine amongst themselves. Hevron Massacre of our Jews in 1929 http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/2004/jun/09_07.html Here's an english video on this massacre: http://www.hebron.org.il/tarpat.ram If you want to report on Israel and the Jewish Homeland - don't distort factual truth to your liking ....... You are shameful - in accusing Jews - by distorting Historical Facts Facts that were give to you - and you twist them into none factual propaganda

Israeli presence in Yesha does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 is a "recommendation" and not obligatory. "Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control." in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and administrative ties to Judea and Samaria. "According to international law," "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920. At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'" "Even the White Paper of 1922," emphasized the Jewish Nation's rights to the national home in the Land of Israel - while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate's area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah." There is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, voids the recommendation of any legal basis. Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for negotiations and a "withdrawal from territories" (not "withdrawal from THE territories") captured in 1967, are similarly "recommendations." These resolutions were drawn up under the UN Charter's Clause VI, which deals with non-mandatory recommendations - as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, "which are mandatory, and which deal with a threat to world peace, such as those taken against Iraq." If by chance you don't understand Intl. Law - you should take a lawyer and file for arbitration and explanations with the T.M.C. Asser Institute on Intl. Law in the Hague. http://www.asser.nl/index.htm Good Luck

(1) you don't deny the figures of the british census which proves the obvious, the existence of a overwhelming arab majority in the ottoman province of Palestine at the end of the WWI (2) the palestinian territories are occupied because (a) they are held by military means against the will of their population and (b) the international community including the US recognizes this fact (3) so called ''historical rights'' don't matter against the will of the population because history can prove everything including that Geneva should be french (through Savoie) or italian (through Rome)

The Palestinians could have had a country back in 1947, which would have amounted to the West Bank of today. The original UN plan was a three-way split of the land. The Palestinians turned it down and their land went to Jordan. The Palestinians could have had their country, if they really wanted to. But, they wanted all of the land, and this poor choice, along with the Arab military failure in 1948, left them with nothing.

You intentionally ignore legal facts: You also sound very young and not experienced in history of that reagion your figures have no value Israeli presence in Yesha does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 is a "recommendation" and not obligatory. "Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control." in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and administrative ties to Judea and Samaria. "According to international law," "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920. At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'" "Even the White Paper of 1922," emphasized the Jewish Nation's rights to the national home in the Land of Israel - while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate's area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah." There is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, voids the recommendation of any legal basis. Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for negotiations and a "withdrawal from territories" (not "withdrawal from THE territories") captured in 1967, are similarly "recommendations." These resolutions were drawn up under the UN Charter's Clause VI, which deals with non-mandatory recommendations - as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, "which are mandatory, and which deal with a threat to world peace, such as those taken against Iraq." If by chance you don't understand Intl. Law - you should take a lawyer and file for arbitration and explanations with the T.M.C. Asser Institute on Intl. Law in the Hague. http://www.asser.nl/index.htm Good Luck

all this history is fine but for one thing ,what religion in this world today has its own country this is the seppertist attitude that is harmfull ,as the true torah jews feel this claimming of lands has put the world in total unrest thanks joed

There is no such a thing, this was an 'Armistice Line'... THE STATUS OF JUDEA & SAMARIA ~by Hbendor Under the norm of International Law, the status of Judea & Samaria could only be considered "occupied" by Israel, if, in fact they had previously belonged to another sovereign state… Jordan, as everyone knows, never existed prior to 1946, it gained control over the West Bank of the river Jordan and East Jerusalem in 1948, by an act of naked aggression against the newly RECONSTITUTED State of Israel. No country in the world apart from Great Britain (which created Jordan by fiat in the first place), and Pakistan recognized this annexation. This invasion did not give it legal title under International Law. In 1967, following Jordan's second all out renewed and failed try for a new invasion of Israel and its consequent loss of Control over Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in that attempt... The juridical situation returned to what it had been previously since the League of Nations Mandate… Israel is therefore not occupying these areas, as they never belonged to Jordan or any other Arab country historically IN THE FIRST PLACE. The question is… If Judea, Samaria are not "occupied territory,” what then are they? One of the foremost International Legal Scholars, former Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, describes these lands as the " unallocated parts of the British Mandate still governed by the original provisions contained in THE ORIGINAL MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that was sanctioned by the League of Nations in 1922. One of these provisions, Article 6, of the Mandate for Palestine allowed " close settlement...." of all western Palestine by the Jewish People, as Eastern Palestine was by then wrested away ignominiously from the Mandate by the then British Colonial Secretary Mr. Winston Churchill for the creation of the ARTIFICIAL Palestinian/Arab Emirate named Trans-Jordan now called Jordan. The Jewish settlements in these areas are the physical link of the People of Israel, with the Land of Israel from " Time Immemorial," a link that stretches back to the Bible, the Balfour Declaration, and its International recognition in the PREAMBLE of the Mandate for Palestine, that was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922. Quote:- Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine.... Etc. Unquote. No one can dispute Israel's right to return and redeem this part of its MOTHERLAND, be it Judea, Samaria or any other part of the Mandate, for this right is firmly implanted in International Law, Archeology, Historical Association, Security and Political Justice. P.S. ARTICLE 6 The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other section of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

the religion is Judaism Israel is a secular State and has Jews - Arabs - Druze - Americans - Britsh - Bedouins etc... as citizens There are many different religions Therefore You fail: Jewish Homeland : Is only based on the Jewish State - as Israel Israeli presence in Yesha does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 is a "recommendation" and not obligatory. "Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control." in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and administrative ties to Judea and Samaria. "According to international law," "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920. At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'" "Even the White Paper of 1922," emphasized the Jewish Nation's rights to the national home in the Land of Israel - while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate's area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah." There is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, voids the recommendation of any legal basis. Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for negotiations and a "withdrawal from territories" (not "withdrawal from THE territories") captured in 1967, are similarly "recommendations." These resolutions were drawn up under the UN Charter's Clause VI, which deals with non-mandatory recommendations - as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, "which are mandatory, and which deal with a threat to world peace, such as those taken against Iraq." If by chance you don't understand Intl. Law - you should take a lawyer and file for arbitration and explanations with the T.M.C. Asser Institute on Intl. Law in the Hague. http://www.asser.nl/index.htm Good Luck

I do mean with some changes to accommodate the present situation. East Jerusalem should probably be shared, and there should be modifications so that Israel is not indefensible.

Maybe this will help vacate the cobwebs... Hague Professor: This Is No "Occupation" 19:15 May. 29, '03 / 27 Iyar 5763 ~Prof. Talia Einhorn writes that the Israeli presence in Yesha does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 is a "recommendation" and not obligatory. Prof. Talia Einhorn, of the T.M.C. Asser Institute, an institute for international law in The Hague, writes that the Israeli presence in Yesha does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 that mentions a "new Arab state" is of the "recommendation" type and not the "mandatory" type. In light of Prime Minister Sharon's recent use of the word "occupation" in reference to Israel's presence in Yesha, and despite his subsequent retraction, Arutz-7's Ruti Avraham quotes Prof. Einhorn's explanation as to why Israel is not an "occupying force" in Yesha: "Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, and only Britain and Pakistan recognized it - and Britain did not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem. In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control." Einhorn adds that in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and administrative ties to Judea and Samaria. "According to international law," Einhorn writes, "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920. At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'" "Even the White Paper of 1922," she continues, "which restricted Jewish immigration to the land, emphasized the Jewish Nation's rights to the national home in the Land of Israel - while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate's area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah." Prof. Einhorn says that there is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. That resolution states that "independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" shall come into existence in Palestine. However, Prof. Einhorn notes the widely-overlooked fact that the introduction to the resolution states specifically that it is merely a "recommendation" and nothing more: "[The General Assembly] recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below." The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, explains Prof. Einhorn, voids the recommendation of any legal basis.

you are a young student - with little factual issues to talk about You have NO clue about reality on the ground Keep out of the internal affairs of the State of Government. It is very questionable if you are even Jewish

Please don't throw your false history around you don't even know and blabber crap about Geneva now: Geneva was always settled by the Genevoise - OK - that's what one calls it's original inhabitants. An important centre until the end of the Middle Ages when its fairs, reaching their peak in the 15th century, first gave it an international reputation. Its INDEPENDENCE, however, was threatened by Savoy, whose princes strove UNSECCESSFULLY (<<<) from the 13th to the 17th century to force the town into submission. At its time of gravest danger, during the first third of the 16th century, the city' autonomy, The Genevoise, were saved by the intervention or the Swiss cantons of Fribourg and Bern. When the Reformation triumphed in 1535, the city became a REPUBLIC on it's own - with it's Genevoise Now still the City being an independent Republic was always settled by it's own people - the Genevoise In 1602, the Duke of Savoy, Charles Emmanuel, launched an abortive nighttime attack against Geneva, which has come to be known as the "Escalade" (literally, "scaling the walls"). The festival commemorating it on December 11-12 is Geneva's main patriotic celebration. The Geneva revolution of 1792 brought down the aristocratic government of the Ancien Régime and proclaimed political equality. Geneva was wrongfully annexed by France in 1798 and made the administrative centre of the Department of Léman Still the Genevoise were the citizens of Geneva. ITS FREEDOM WAS AGAIN RESTORED on December 31, 1813, following the defeat of Napoleon's armies. Still the city of the Genevoise - it's own people. The Republic's magistrates then applied for its entry into the Swiss Confederation. This was granted in 1815 The city to this day is still The Republic Of Geneva - and the Republic of Geneva and Canton of Geneva in the Helvetic Confederation Now still to this day has it's citizens being called Genevoise - but at the same time as it is a city of International Organizations that settled here - has many different nationals living here - over 80 different nationalities are on permits living here - or as diplomats Now next time you want to throw history into the scale first LEARN facts. You are obviously very young and very poorly on History - and know only bits and pieces