Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 11:02:04 IST
From: Shaul Wallach <F66204@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: NEW HOMELAND FOR THE PALESTINIANS
 <1992Dec29.202934.400@trl.oz.au>
 <1992Dec29.210234.21950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 <1992Dec29.225944.3749@trl.oz.au>

In article <1992Dec29.225944.3749@trl.oz.au>, faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz
Faris) writes:

>                                                The Palestinians are part of
>the SYRIAN NATION which has become of Arabic character. This does not change
>the fact that Israel is still occupying the Palsetinian region of Syria. Also
>the Jordanians are part of that SYRIAN NATION that you are fighting with.

     So far, this is true historically. George Antonius in his "The Arab
Awakening" argued cogently against the partition of Syria after the
demise of the Ottoman Empire on the grounds that Lebanon, Palestine
and Jordan were all part of Syria.

>As for sending people to their homeland. I will give you a history lesson. The
>Jewish homeland is not palestine, rather it is where the Jewish tribes have
>come from. The theory is that they were Nomads from somewhere in the deserts
>of the Arabian peninsula. The Palestinians are original inhabitants of that
>land and they are an integral part of the Syrian Nation as evidenced by the
>testimony of history and geography.

     This, however, is a very subjective interpretation of history. It
is true that many Arab historians believe that all the Semitic peoples
originated from the Arabian peninsula; some place the origin in East
Africa with Arabia serving as a reservoir. See, for example, Hitti's
"History of the Arabs." On the basis of this theory comes the claim
that Palestine was originally Arab. As Prof. Walid Salam of the American
University of Cairo put it (in Thomas Kiernan's "The Arabs" (1975), p.
146), "since the beginnings of known human time, Palestine has been first
proto-Arab, and then Arab." The original settlers, to our knowledge, were
the proto-Arab Canaanites. The ancient Hebrews who conquered their land
were themselves also proto-Arab, but they were aliens. After the invasions
of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans (I've corrected
the order here), Palestine was inhabited by, besides the Jews, "a large
number of people who could only be called Arabs." After the exile of the
Jews, "Palestine reverted to its completely Arab character."

      Now obviously there are great difficulties with this argument.
First of all, how do we know that Palestine was originally Canaanite,
if not from the Bible? But the Bible says that the ancient Hebrews
came from Babylon, not from Arabia. To my knowledge there is no
concrete evidence for any large prehistoric migration from Arabia to
Babylon, just as there is none for any such migration to Palestine.

     Secondly, on what basis does Salam call the ancient Hebrews aliens,
after admitting that they were also "proto-Arab"? On the contrary,
archeological evidence such as the Moabite stone and the Ras Shamra
Ugaritic inscriptions show that the surrounding peoples, including
the Phonecians who were closely akin to the Canaanites, spoke
languages which were hardly more than dialects of Hebrew. The Canaanites
were therefore far closer linguistically to the Hebrews than to the
Arabs. Moreover, in the course of their 850 year occupation, the ancient
Israelites completely subdued the Canaanites and obliterated their
culture centuries before the Babylonian exile.

     Furthermore, what "completely Arab character" was there in
Palestine after the "exile of the Jews" (this is also inaccurate, since
many Jews remained until Crusader times and a few communities survived
in the Galilee until our time)? The languages spoken in Palestine
before the Muslim conquest were mainly Greek and Aramaic. The latter
is another language of the Northwest Semitic group and is thus
closer to Hebrew than to Arabic. The religion was mostly Byzantine
Christian and the culture was Hellenistic, a far cry from that
of the Bedouin Arabs. Aramaic-speaking Christians have survived
in relatively small numbers to modern times in Syria and Iraq,
and I believe they call themselves Assyrians rather than Arabs.

      Finally, the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 638 brought a
whole new population with it from Arabia. Antonius tells us as
follows on pp. 16-17:

    Of the countries lying on the fringe of the Arabian Peninsula,
    the portions now known as Palestine and Transjordan received and
    absorbed the largest proportion of Arab stock, and Egypt the
    smallest, while Syria and Iraq occupy a midway position.

He cites the essay by Prof. Louis Massignon in Revue du Monde Musulman,
vol. 57 (1924) to the effect that two thirds of the population of
Palestine was of Bedouin origin, while the proportion in Transjordan
was even higher.

     What can we learn from all this? Antonius, one of the foremost
spokesmen for the Arab cause, was not afraid to admit that Palestine
was largely recolonized by outsiders after the Arab conquest.
Neither does he deny the historical connection of the Jews to the
land. But for him, this was not what mattered. As he stated clearly
(p. 393), "an historic connexion is not necessarily synonymous with
a title to possession." For Palestinians it is enough to say that
their ancestors have lived in the land for the last 1300 years. To
claim a more ancient historical connection simply discredits their
cause.

     So much for historical arguments. As for religious arguments,
it is no secret that neither the Zionist nor the Arab nationalist
movement arose as a religious movement. In my opinion, neither
side can claim that it deserves to possess the land as a reward
for its righteousness.

     What remains after all this? Two peoples currently inhabit
the land. We must simply learn to accept the presence of each
other and live in peace and compassion, above any considerations
of nationalistic or religious exclusivism.

>A.Faris

Shalom,

Shaul Wallach