The earliest documented use of the word “Arab” as defining a group of people dates from the 9th century BCE. (Wikipedia: Arab People).
Many scholars derive the entire population of the Mesopotamia from population movements out of Jazirat al-Arab (“island of the Arabs”) – an area between the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf, with Hadramawt its southern perimeter, extending northward up to the area just east of the Dead Sea Jordan). Early Semitic peoples from the Ancient Near East, such as the Arameans, Akkadians and Canaanites, built civilizations in Mesopotamia and the Levant; genetically, they often interlapped and mixed. Slowly, however, they lost their political domination of the Near East due to internal turmoil and attacks by non-Semitic peoples. Although the Semites eventually lost political control of Western Asia to the Persian Empire, the Aramaic language (Aramaic is a Semitic language belonging to the Afroasiatic language family. Within this family, Aramaic belongs to the Semitic subfamily, and more specifically, is a part of the Northwest Semitic group of languages, which also includes Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages and is ancestral to both the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets) remained the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and the Levant. Aramaic itself was replaced by Greek as Western Asia’s prestige language following the conquest of Alexander III of Macedon.
The first written attestation of the ethnonym “Arab” occurs in an Assyrian inscription of 853 BCE, where Shalmaneser III lists a King Gindibu of mâtu arbâi (Arab land) as among the people he defeated at the Battle of Karkar. Some of the names given in these texts are Aramaic, while others are the first attestations of Proto-Arabic dialects. In fact several different ethnonyms are found in Assyrian texts that are conventionally translated “Arab”: Arabi, Arubu, Aribi and Urbi. Many of the Qedarite queens were also described as queens of the aribi. The Hebrew Bible occasionally refers to Arvi peoples (or variants thereof), translated as “Arab” or “Arabian.”
Zionists insist that Palestine did not exist. Historic maps prove them wrong. They falsely claim that the land was desolate and no one lived in Palestine (notice that they would refer to it by its name) and that they (Zionist and European Jews) were a People without Land who occupied a Land without People. Palestine was always there and under the earliest of “Arabs” rule. It would not have been of interest had it been as barren as they want us to believe!
In 1852 the American writer Bayard Taylor traveled across the Jezreel Valley, which he described in his 1854 book The Lands of the Saracen; or, Pictures of Palestine, Asia Minor, Sicily and Spain as: “one of the richest districts in the world.”, while Lawrence Oliphant, who visited Palestine in 1887, wrote that Palestine’s Valley of Esdraelon was “a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive.”
According to Paul Masson, a French economic historian, “wheat shipments from the Palestinian port of Acre had helped to save southern France from famine on numerous occasions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.“
See also: Ancient Arabic inscription found in Jerusalem; 1,100-year-old plaque offers insight into city’s history under Muslim rule.
Palestine: The stealing of Arab Land
The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was signed on January 3, 1919, by Emir Feisal (son of the King of Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 settling disputes stemming from World War I. It was a short-lived agreement for “Arab-Jewish cooperation” on the development of a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine and an “Arab nation” in a large part of the Middle East.
One or more of the Allies may have suggested that a representative of the Zionist Organization secure the agreement. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement had called for an ‘Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States’… …’under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.’ The French and British also proposed ‘an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.
Weizmann had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did “not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab”
Weizmann first met Faisal in June 1918, during the British advance from the South against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. As leader of an impromptu “Zionist Commission”, Weizmann traveled to southern Transjordan for the meeting. The intended purpose was to forge an agreement between Faisal and the Zionist movement to support an Arab Kingdom and Jewish settlement in Palestine, respectively. The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored, and, indeed, both men seem to have held the Palestinian Arabs in considerable disdain. Weizmann had called them “treacherous”, “arrogant”, “uneducated”, and “greedy” and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did “not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab”. After his meeting with Faisal, Weizmann reported that Faisal was “contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t even regard as Arabs.”
Weizmann had assured Faisal that “the Jews did not propose to set up a government of their own but wished to work under British protection, to colonize and develop Palestine without encroaching on any legitimate interests”
In preparation for the meeting, British diplomat Mark Sykes had written to Faisal about the Jewish people “…this race, despised and weak, is universal and all powerful and cannot be put down.” Under such circumstances, the secret British communication contended, Faisal was well advised to cultivate the Zionist movement as a powerful ally rather than to oppose it. In the event, Weizmann and Faisal established an informal agreement under which Faisal would support dense Jewish settlement in Palestine while the Zionist movement would assist in the development of the vast Arab nation that Faisal hoped to establish.
Weizmann and Faisal met again later in 1918 in London and soon afterwards at the Paris Peace Conference. In their first meeting in June 1918 Weizmann had assured Faisal that “the Jews did not propose to set up a government of their own but wished to work under British protection, to colonize and develop Palestine without encroaching on any legitimate interests”.
They signed the written agreement, which bears their names, on January 3, 1919. The next day, Weizmann arrived in Paris to head the Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference. It was a triumphal moment for Weizmann; it was an accord that climaxed years of negotiations and ceaseless shuttles between the Middle East and the capitals of Western Europe and that promised to usher in an era of peace and cooperation between the two principal ethnic groups of Palestine: Arabs and Jews.
The events immediately after the Paris conference confirmed that it was the Zionists who were treacherous, arrogant and greedy.
Main points of the agreement:
- The agreement committed both parties to conducting all relations between the groups by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, to work together to encourage immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers, and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control.
- The Zionist movement undertook to assist the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy.
- The boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference. [Below is Weizmann’s proposed country – totally indifferent from stated Agreement]
- The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for a Jewish national home in Palestine.
- Disputes were to be submitted to the British Government for arbitration.
Weizmann signed the agreement on behalf of the Zionist Organization, while Faisal signed on behalf of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Hejaz.
Two weeks prior to signing the agreement, Faisal stated:
The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realization of its aspirations. Arabs are not jealous of Zionist Jews, and intend to give them fair play and the Zionist Jews have assured the Nationalist Arabs of their intention to see that they too have fair play in their respective areas. Turkish intrigue in Palestine has raised jealousy between the Jewish colonists and the local peasants, but the mutual understanding of the aims of Arabs and Jews will at once clear away the last trace of this former bitterness, which, indeed, had already practically disappeared before the war by the work of the Arab Secret Revolutionary Committee, which in Syria and elsewhere laid the foundation of the Arab military successes of the past two years.
The areas discussed were detailed in a letter to Felix Frankfurter, President of the Zionist Organization of America, on March 3, 1919, when Faisal wrote :
The proposals submitted by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference were:
“The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below: Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity South of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr el Karaon, thence to El Bire following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El Korn and the Wadi Et Teim thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity West of Beit Jenn, thence Eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway. In the East a line close to and West of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba. In the South a frontier to be agreed upon with the Egyptian Government. In the West the Mediterranean Sea. The details of the delimitations, or any necessary adjustments of detail, shall be settled by a Special Commission on which there shall be Jewish representation
The Zionists wanted it all – from the Mediterranean to beyond the River Jordan. Let the Arabs die of thirst – who cared!
Faisal conditioned his acceptance on the fulfillment of British wartime promises to the Arabs, who had hoped for independence in a vast part of the Ottoman Empire. He appended to the typed document a hand-written statement:
“Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my [forthcoming] Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [regarding our demands], I shall not be then bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever.”
He must have suspected that the Zionist Jews were liars!
The Faisal-Weizmann agreement survived only a few months. The outcome of the peace conference itself did not provide the vast Arab state that Faisal desired mainly because the British and French had struck their own secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 dividing the Middle East between their own spheres of influence, and soon Faisal began to express doubts about cooperation with the Zionist movement. After Faisal was expelled from Syria and given the Kingdom of Iraq, he contended that the conditions he appended were not fulfilled and the treaty therefore moot.
Adding Insult to Injury
St. John Philby, a British representative in Palestine, later stated that Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, on whose behalf Faisal was acting, had refused to recognize the agreement as soon as it was brought to his notice. However, Sharif Hussein formally endorsed the Balfour Declaration in the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August, 1920, along with the other Allied Powers, as King of Hejaz.
The United Nations Special Committee On Palestine did not regard the agreement as ever being valid, while Weizmann continued to maintain that the treaty was still binding. In 1947 Weizmann explained:
“A postscript was also included in this treaty. This postscript relates to a reservation by King Faisal that he would carry out all the promises in this treaty if and when he would obtain his demands, namely, independence for the Arab countries. I submit that these requirements of King Faisal have at present been realized. The Arab countries are all independent, and therefore the condition on which depended the fulfillment of this treaty, has come into effect. Therefore, this treaty, to all intents and purposes, should today be a valid document”.
One Can Quickly Conclude
One can quickly conclude – and find it quite obvious then, that the current Arab-Israeli conflict is not as the Zionists had always wished the world to believe! It was not about the UN Partition Plan (later) or the refusal of Arabs to recognize Israel! Although earlier Arab leaders (as well as current ones) were simply traitors, and sold Palestine for a fistful of dollars, Israel was in essence recognized as evident in this agreement and subsequent agreements. But the agreement clearly aspired to something beyond the words and text of the treacherous Zionist agenda and their Nazi-like aspirations.
The Zionist Organization submitted their draft resolutions for consideration by the Peace Conference on February 3, 1919 [one month after the Faisal-Weizmann agreement]! This shortly followed the Conference’s decision that the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire should be separated from it and the newly conceived mandate-system applied to them. [In other words, an opportunity to deceive presented itself while the Zionists could claim total innocence of any intended mischief].
The statement included five main points:
- Recognition of the Jewish people’s “historic title” to Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home in Palestine.
- The boundaries of Palestine were to be declared as set out in an attached Schedule. [see MAP Above]
- The sovereign possession of Palestine would be vested in the League of Nations and the Government entrusted to Great Britain as Mandatory of the League.
- Other provisions to be inserted by the High Contracting Parties relating to the application of any general conditions attached to mandates, which are suitable to the case in Palestine.
- The mandate shall be subject also to several noted special conditions, including the provision relating to the control of the Holy Places.
Earlier History: Zionist Attempts
Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire
British map showing secret agreements between the Great Powers regarding the disposition of the Ottoman Empire (1915). Palestine is clearly marked. No mention of “Israel.”
The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire led to the rise in the “Middle East” of Western powers, such as Britain and France. The earliest resistance to the influence of these powers came from the Turkish national movement, and became more widespread in the post-Ottoman Middle East after World War II. The partition was planned by Western powers in several agreements concerning the Ottoman Empire made during the war by the Allies. The British and French partitioned the eastern part of the Middle East (also called “Greater Syria”) between them with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Other secret agreements were concluded with Italy and Russia (see map). The Balfour Declaration Zionist movement to push for a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, encouraged the international Zionist movement to push for a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, which was the site of the ancient “Kingdom of Israel” and at the time had a *significant* Jewish minority population with respect to a majority of Arab-Muslim population. The tsarist regime also had wartime agreements with the Triple Entente on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire but after the Russian Revolutions, Russia did not participate in the actual partitioning.
Note the source states that there was a significant Jewish minority. The Zionists want to hide the truth behind such words since the fact is, there were only 83,790 Jews in Palestine in 1922 compared to approximately 660,000 Palestinians (Muslims and Christians). I would say the number was more like negligible!
According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews
The “Kingdom of Israel” refers to an era of about 90 years (1030 BC to 930 BC). Although not “Jewish, ” this 90 year period is used by Zionists as a claim to Palestine! Interesting.
|Capital||Geba (1030–1010 BC), Hebron (1010–1003 BC), Jerusalem|
|– 1030 BC – 1010 BC||King Saul|
|– 1010 BC – 1008 BC||King Ishbaal|
|– 1008 BC – 970 BC||King David|
|– 970 BC – 931 BC||King Solomon|
|– 931 BC – 930 BC||Rehoboam|
Historic facts: Judeo-Christianity!
Reading the biblical accounts of the House of Saul, one is overwhelmed with deceit, treachery and violence throughout these periods. This era, which Jews so proudly refer to, is an era of terror and corruption. If they wish to adopt this part of history as theirs, then “the rest is history.” Literally! For the treacherous and deceptive ways continue to this day.
Biblical and Qur’anic accounts of the Israelites differ. According to the Bible, everyone is either Jewish or Christian! Strangely, Judaism only appeared after Moses death and by the followers who later went astray. Again. David and Solomon for example, are considered great Prophets in Islam and are revered as Prophets who delivered a message of submission to God Almighty: which is what Islam is all about.
Judeo-Christianity is less than 200 years old. The Jewish Zionism movement has played the key part in assuring its growth. We see the result in the creation of a new “Christianity” which in its extreme form is known as Christian Zionism. It was first fed by Oxford University Press’s Scofield Reference Bible published in New York in 1908 and updated several times. Bible editors, including Oxford, have failed to correct obvious changes in common usage of words, such as “Jew” and “Israel” that provide misleading, Zionist friendly inferences.
Apostle Paul’s Book of Romans provides an inspiring account of the struggle to convert spiritually empty Israelites and agnostic Greeks to Jesus’ Way in the First Century. Christian Zionism teaches that Paul was talking about, not his own generation, but the State of Israel created 1900 years after his death. They argue that Political Israel is uniquely blessed by God, and that Christians must also revere, honor, and love it else they will suffer God’s punishment.
Several words are still found in our Bibles that did not exist at the time of Jesus and his followers, and could not have been words they used, but words that were placed there in the Sixteenth Century versions. Examples are:
Jesus: there was no “J” in the Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew languages. I know Arabs named Issa, after Jesus. However Jesus’ name is not an issue because it has only one meaning.
“Jew”: there was no such word in the First Century. Not only was there no “J” but it is used in improper historical contexts in the New Testament; The continued misuse of “Jew” in the bibles since 1947 implies that Jews today might be expected to have some of the same gene pool and beliefs as an Israelite of 3000 years ago. Most do not.
“Judean”: a place that began with the Greek letter Iota (I) and is used in scripture as both a place and a people. This may be the actual word from which the mistranslation of the word Jew is derived. In many instances the popular translations still use “Jew” where the original Greek text clearly read Ioudaia, or in our vernacular, one who lived in Judea.
“Israel”: does appear in the original Greek New Testament texts, but only as a people, never as a place. Paul used Israel in several contexts: first as an ancient tribe named after the man, Israel; as the specific belief system or religion of that tribe, as an example, Paul used “Israelite” to describe himself and a few faithful followers of the Abrahamic code; finally, “Israel” means all those of all races who follow the Messiah, Jesus in the New Covenant under God. Paul does not use Israel as a place or country.
Using Religion as Claim: The story of Solomon; Qur’an vs. The Bible
In the Qur’an, Sulayman is a son of the Prophet Dawud (King David in Bible). He is told to have learned much from his father, and subsequently made a prophet by Allah and given power over all creatures. Ruling a large kingdom that extended south into Yemen, he was known throughout the lands for his wisdom and fair judgements.
… We raise in rank anyone We will. Your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing. We gave him [Abraham] Isaac and Jacob, each of whom We guided. And before him We had guided Noah. And among his descendants were David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, and Moses and Aaron. That is how We recompense the good-doers. And Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias-all of them were among the righteous. And Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot-all of them We favored over all beings. And some of their forebears, descendants, and brothers-We chose them and guided them to a straight path. (Qur’an, 6:83-87)
The story of Solomon, as told by Biblical verses
The Bible credits Solomon as the builder of the First Temple in Jerusalem, and portrays him as great in wisdom, wealth, and power, but ultimately as a king whose sin, including idolatry and turning away from God, leads to the kingdom being torn in two during the reign of his son Rehoboam. Solomon is the subject of many other later references and legends.
Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. The wives are described as foreign princesses, including Pharaoh’s daughter and women of Moab, Ammon, Sidon and of the Hittites. These wives are depicted as leading Solomon astray. The only wife that is mentioned by name is Naamah, who is described as the Ammonite. She was the mother of Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam.
- According to 1 Kings 11:4 Solomon’s “wives turned his heart after other gods”, their own national deities, to whom Solomon built temples, thus incurring divine anger and retribution in the form of the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death. (1 Kings 11:9-13)
- 1 Kings 11 describes Solomon’s descent into idolatry, particularly his turning after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites.
- In Deuteronomy 17:16-17, a king is commanded not to multiply horses, wives or gold. Solomon sins in all three of these areas. Solomon collects 666 talents of gold each year, (1 Kings 10:14) a huge amount of money for a small nation like Israel. Solomon gathers a large number of horses and chariots and even brings in horses from Egypt. Just as Deuteronomy 17 warns, collecting horses and chariots takes Israel back to Egypt. Finally, Solomon marries foreign women, and these women turn Solomon to other gods.
- According to 1 Kings 11:9-13, it was because of these sins that “the Lord punishes Solomon by tearing the kingdom in two”:
And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the LORD commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen.
So what was that about “rebuilding the temple?” A Temple of a sinner? Ironic, isn’t it?
The ultimate truth is that history had been hijacked by Zionism to convince us all that the land is Jewish land. Judaism is not a religion to consider until maybe after the so-called exodus if it ever happened, as Dr. Shlomo Sand points out. The Israelites (sons and tribes of Jacob: Israel) never considered nor called themselves “Jews.”
The “Israelites” history is interesting. One reads nothing in the Bible or the Tanakh other than wars, killing, death and “kingdoms.” These so-called kingdoms were not based on Jewish religious teachings and not even during the times of David and/or the “sinner” Solomon!
- ^ The Sykes-Picot Agreement
- ^ ‘The Letters and Papers of Chaim Wizmann’, Weisgal M.W. (ed.), Israel University Press, 1977, pp. 197-206.
- ^ Chaim Weizmann to Vera Weizmann, ibid, p. 210.
- ^ Book review, Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., Politicalreviewnet.com/Middle East Policy Journal, quoting ‘Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate’, Tom Segev, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company, New York, 2000
- ^ Book Excerpt from A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today, David A. Andelman (Wiley)
- ^ ‘Jews And Arabs In Syria: The Emir Feisul Looks To A Bright Future’, The Times, Thursday, December 12, 1918; pg. 7; Issue 41971; col B.
- ^ Letter by Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter, published in full at amislam.com (collection of correspondence).
- ^ Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine, 3 February, 1919. UNISPAL, accessed 17 August, 2006.
- ^ Statement of the Zionist Organization Regarding Palestine, MidEast Web, accessed 17 August, 2006.
- ^ News Chronicle, July 9, 1937, quoted by ‘Palestine, star or crescent?’, Neville Barbour, Odyssey Press, New York, 1947, p. 100
- ^ Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly (A/364), United Nations, September 3, 1947
- ^ Official records of the Second Session of the General Assembly (A/364/Add.2 PV.21), United Nations, July 8, 1947
- Weisgal (Ed.). (1977). Chaim Weizmann to Arthur Balfour, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series A, Volume VIII. Israel University Press.
- Wikipedia: The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
- Charles E. Carson: We Hold These Truths