[goMac]

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

I saw this on Digg today, and I thought it pretty well summed up the liberal viewpoint on the Palestinian problem in the Middle East. I think it also does a good job of explaining why the Arabs are so made.

The key quote from the letter:

"Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine—a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. "We have hurt these people terribly," cries the West to the East. "Won’t you please take care of them for us?"

We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore "cruel and heartless nationalists"?"

[marden]

Spin even then?

The Jews' claim to the Holy Lands predates the Islamic claim, doesn't it?

If the Arab Muslims of Palestine had suffered the exact same experience as the Jews had up until the Declaration (all the way through the times of the Mandate and on til Statehood) would it have been right or fitting to re-locate the Palestinians to some other part of the world? In fact, the question becomes even MORE intriguing when you posit that the 'Pals' might have had a wonderful reaction to being relocated to their 1st or 2nd most Holy places in Islam...Mecca or Medina, and leave Palestine to the Jews.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

The Jews' claim to the Holy Lands predates the Islamic claim, doesn't it?

If the Arab Muslims of Palestine had suffered the exact same experience as the Jews had up until the Declaration (all the way through the times of the Mandate and on til Statehood) would it have been right or fitting to re-locate the Palestinians to some other part of the world? In fact, the question becomes even MORE intriguing when you posit that the 'Pals' might have had a wonderful reaction to being relocated to their 1st or 2nd most Holy places in Islam...Mecca or Medina, and leave Palestine to the Jews.

The letter addresses this. I'm assuming you didn't read it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

The letter addresses this. I'm assuming you didn't read it.

You are correct, sir! I was just trying to fit in and be like many of the regular posters here.

[itai195]

The points brought up in this letter have been disputed several times on this forum. Two that always interest me are, first, the claim that Arabs did not increase their numbers in Palestine via immigration. This is contradicted by British census findings. The second, that Jews did not really want to come to Palestine but were forced to. My grandparents, at least, repudiated any connection to their places of birth and vehemently insisted they would never go anywhere but Israel. And they were not what I would call ideologues. I think the letter is wrong to make light of the connection Jews have always had with Israel. Yes, they were away for hundreds of years, but they have always wanted to return. Also to say that Jews were treated better in Arab lands than they were in Christian lands is accurate if you're talking about the 13th century, but in modern times Christian countries (e.g. France) had begun giving Jews the same rights as Christians. Obviously the situation was still far from perfect (hello, holocaust).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by itai195

I think the letter is wrong to make light of the connection Jews have always had with Israel. Yes, they were away for hundreds of years, but they have always wanted to return.

I think the letter does address this. It gives examples of other cultures deciding they'd want to reclaim their homelands. Just because a group wants something, that doesn't mean they can have it.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by goMac

I think the letter does address this. It gives examples of other cultures deciding they'd want to reclaim their homelands. Just because a group wants something, that doesn't mean they can have it.

Well that depends, doesn't it? Muslims in India really wanted a majority Muslim nation, and they got one where one hadn't been before, causing massive population transfers. This was also at a time when nationalism and self-determination were all the rage.

We can probably argue this until we're blue in the face, and it's really why I have a problem with the extreme liberal position on the issue. Arguing over such a contentious history will not give us a solution in the present.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by itai195

Well that depends, doesn't it? Muslims in India really wanted a majority Muslim nation, and they got one where one hadn't been before, causing massive population transfers. This was also at a time when nationalism and self-determination were all the rage.

I believe India chose to let them form Pakistan, which is different than the case we're talking about.

Edit: Additionally you're talking about a country that was already settled (for a long long time) by a majority Muslim population that wanted to go independent from a British colony. Your example is more like the American Revolution, not the migration of Jews to Israel.

Originally Posted by itai195

We can probably argue this until we're blue in the face, and it's really why I have a problem with the extreme liberal position on the issue. Arguing over such a contentious history will not give us a solution in the present.

I think it is important because it lets us understand the motivations of the people we're dealing with.

[vmarks]

Except that it ignores the brutality of the Arabs in that land toward the native Jewish population for many years preceding the Holocaust. I'm talking 19th, 18th centuries and previous.

So yes, it's just more fiction.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by goMac

Edit: Additionally you're talking about a country that was already settled (for a long long time) by a majority Muslim population that wanted to go independent from a British colony. Your example is more like the American Revolution, not the migration of Jews to Israel.

Not exactly, there were many Hindus there. When India was partitioned it caused massive population transfers, over 14 million people. And the partition was highly controversial, that's why there is still so much tension between India and Pakistan today.

I think it is important because it lets us understand the motivations of the people we're dealing with.

In that sense, okay. But it's one viewpoint out of many.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

I think it is important because it lets us understand the motivations of the people we're dealing with.

When you have Arabs willing to blow themselves up in order to sow terror, and you have Arabs willing to break every negotiation they've agreed to, precisely what is it about this letter that sheds light on motivations that aren't already known?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by itai195

Not exactly, there were many Hindus there. When India was partitioned it caused massive population transfers, over 14 million people. And the partition was highly controversial, that's why there is still so much tension between India and Pakistan today.

14 million isn't so much for India. In addition, India was originally formed by a conquering Muslim army, so it's not like the Muslims just randomly one day showed up and decided to form their own state. Islam had a long tradition in India.

[itai195]

14 million isn't much for India, but it's a lot for Pakistan. Anyway, what I intended to be a side example is now derailing your thread, sorry about that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by goMac

I think the letter does address this. It gives examples of other cultures deciding they'd want to reclaim their homelands. Just because a group wants something, that doesn't mean they can have it.

But...now they do have it. Whether you view that as right or wrong is irrelevent - they're there, and they're not moving. The Arab world seems to have a fascinating mental block in coming to terms with this.

greg

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

But...now they do have it. Whether you view that as right or wrong is irrelevent - they're there, and they're not moving. The Arab world seems to have a fascinating mental block in coming to terms with this.

greg

I'm under no impression that the Jews will ever move, and considering this letter was written in 1947, I don't think the author was suggesting the Jews be kicked out either.

I'm saying there are a lot of thinkheaded people who not only say that the Jews are there to stay in Israel, but that the Arab argument that they still should have rights to the land should be completely ignored. By ignoring what the Arabs have to say on the topic, we're not helping the situation. I think a lot of people, usually more towards the right, aren't willing to compromise with the Arabs, and instead want the Arabs off the land.

[vmarks]

Reality does not reflect your view.

The fact that there are Arab Israeli citizens, and that there are Arab Israelis elected to the highest body of government suggests the opposite of what you believe to be true.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Reality does not reflect your view.

The fact that there are Arab Israeli citizens, and that there are Arab Israelis elected to the highest body of government suggests the opposite of what you believe to be true.

I don't think you're understanding. What you're saying is akin to saying that because there were French citizens in the government for Vichy France, that that government was legitimate for the French.

Arabs view the Israeli government as an illegitimate government.

[vmarks]

I don't think you're understanding.

There are many Arabs who believe that life under Israel is better than life under a 'Palestinian Authority.' The fact that there are many other Arabs and Persians in countries like Syria and Lebanon and Iran that believe the correct course of action is to eradicate Israel, murder the Jews, and then erase the borders between them does not help our understanding of their motivation.

This letter you've seen also isn't very revealing or enlightening in terms of understanding motivations.

And that's what I thought you wanted to get at was an enhanced understanding of motivations.

[red rocket]

Maybe this will help you understand their motivation.

Originally Posted by David Ben-Gurion

“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.”

David Ben-Gurion, 1956.

[marden]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Maybe this will help you understand their motivation.


David Ben-Gurion, 1956.

He was speaking from THEIR frame of reference. His quote provides us a snapshot of HIS perception of THEIR point of view at that time.

It does not say their point of view is valid, in fact you can read between the lines and see that that he does not agree with their motivation or it's validity. (Even if you didn't know who Ben-Gurion was.)

I might recognize that America liberals oppose our efforts in Iraq because to them it is incidental to the war on terror and motivated solely by profit. And while that might be an accurate assessment of their position it does not reflect my belief.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden

He was speaking from THEIR frame of reference. His quote provides us a snapshot of HIS perception of THEIR point of view at that time.

It does not say their point of view is valid, in fact you can read between the lines and see that that he does not agree with their motivation or it's validity. (Even if you didn't know who Ben-Gurion was.)

I might recognize that America liberals oppose our efforts in Iraq because to them it is incidental to the war on terror and motivated solely by profit. And while that might be an accurate assessment of their position it does not reflect my belief.

I don't know if that quote of Gurion is legit or fabricated, but that quote means clearly that Gurion validates the point of view of the arabs of his time, that if he himself were an arab leader he would think and do the same, and that he sees as the only hope, that the arabs might forget the stealing of their country in two decades, and that therefore until then only a strong army can save Israel from extinction.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I
And that's what I thought you wanted to get at was an enhanced understanding of motivations.

I think he was just looking for something to support his notions. enhanced understanding was looked for.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by goMac

King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (1882-1951)

I saw this on Digg today, and I thought it pretty well summed up the liberal viewpoint on the Palestinian problem in the Middle East. I think it also does a good job of explaining why the Arabs are so made.

The key quote from the letter:

"Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine—a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. "We have hurt these people terribly," cries the West to the East. "Won’t you please take care of them for us?"

We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore "cruel and heartless nationalists"?"

Good find.

But it will be ignored like so many articles since. Reality doesn't come into play in this conflict. Religion is what determines the outcome.

[khufuu]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Good find.

But it will be ignored like so many articles since. Reality doesn't come into play in this conflict. Religion is what determines the outcome.

Yes. More American's should read this letter. It quite frankly explains why the Arabs are pissed at Americans... especially near the end where it points out that Pres. Wilson played a key role in helping create the country of Isreal where it really didn't exist before. This is what people mean when they say that American foreign policy is the key to the problem.

[marden]

Originally Posted by khufuu

Yes. More American's should read this letter. It quite frankly explains why the Arabs are pissed at Americans... especially near the end where it points out that Pres. Wilson played a key role in helping create the country of Isreal where it really didn't exist before. This is what people mean when they say that American foreign policy is the key to the problem.

What if we can understand all of that but that the Arab-Palestinian's anger is based on mistruths they've been lead to believe? Should lies become truth just because many people believe them?

[vmarks]

Or that the Arabs of the region chose to make war rather than peace at every opportunity, and losing forfeits their claim?

Or do we believe, that like a spoiled child, they can throw tantrums and cause destruction, and then still get what they wish?

Also worth mentioning is the case of Spain. Despite the fact that the Arabs lost it hundreds of years ago, it is still considered the tragedy of Al-Andalus, and that it does belong to Arabs- the notion is that once an Arab land for however brief a period of time, that it should always be an inheritence, a waqf.

So it's more than a little hypocritical that the letter disdains the Jewish history, minimizes the centuries-long oppression of the Jews at the hands of the Arabs, and ignores the Arab claim on Spain that is seriously put forward.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by marden

What if we can understand all of that but that the Arab-Palestinian's anger is based on mistruths they've been lead to believe? Should lies become truth just because many people believe them?

Exactly. There needs to be some massive de-brainwashing of the Palistinian people. And it needs to happen now.

[vmarks]

Walid Shoebat - Former PLO Terrorist who speaks out for Israel is the site that contains the words of some who have learned the truth.

"Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?

When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out."

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Exactly. There needs to be some massive de-brainwashing of the Palistinian people. And it needs to happen now.

Some massive de-brainwashing? The arabs are mad that Israel took their land. How exactly were they brainwashed?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Some massive de-brainwashing? The arabs are mad that Israel took their land. How exactly were they brainwashed?

Read the post and link posted by vmarks above you.

Most of these "Palistinians" didn't even live there.

That in itself is a big hoax. Another lie they are fed.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by goMac

Some massive de-brainwashing? The arabs are mad that Israel took their land. How exactly were they brainwashed?

They don't understand that foreigners who haven't lived in an area for 1000 years or more have the Biblical right to that land whenever they want to.......... or something like that.

Just ignore him and vmarks. No matter what is said on this subject in their eyes Israel is always right (except a few cases where they think Israel should have dealt harder with the Arabs). People like them are just as much the reason for this conflict still going on as it's the blame of Arab extremists.

Just watch how vmarks and kevin talks about the Arabs. They are "spoiled children" who throw "tantrums" etc etc. In his eyes they aren't his equals. They are Untermenschen who need to grow up (or evolve) to ever be his equals.

You can't argue with people who have such vicious beliefs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

They don't understand that foreigners who haven't lived in an area for 1000 years or more have the Biblical right to that land whenever they want to.......... or something like that.

Because the ACTUALY OWNERS of said land gave it to them? Yeah, I think that's the reason. Why is that so hard to understand? The Jewish people can't take something from someone that was never really theirs.

Just ignore him and vmarks. No matter what is said on this subject in their eyes Israel is always right (except a few cases where they think Israel should have dealt harder with the Arabs).

This is nonesense. I do however think in this matter, Israel is right MOST of the time. Why? Because their arguement is based on factual events. Not made up ones. And not history revisionists.

But hey if always taking the side of one group makes one not believale, you'd fall into that mess as well.
Esp when you attempt to divert blame like....

People like them are just as much the reason for this conflict still going on as it's the blame of Arab extremists.

No, people that think they deserve something that was never theirs in the first place and want the Jews pushed into the sea are the reason this conflict is still going on.

If these individuals would stop, Israel would too.

Just watch how vmarks and kevin talks about the Arabs. They are "spoiled children" who throw "tantrums" etc etc.

For one I never said they were spoiled. But they ARE throwing tantrums, and THEY HAVE been brainwashed. For two, this arguement is a ad-hominem logical fallacy. Instead of arguing the message, you are attacking the messenger. But that is typical.

In his eyes they aren't his equals. They are Untermenschen who need to grow up (or evolve) to ever be his equals.

They aren't moral equals because they have different beliefs.

You can't argue with people who have such vicious beliefs.

That's irony right there if I have ever seen it.

Is expecting Israel to be left alone vicious? Is expecting the Palistinian people to NOT blow up innocent children ON PURPOSE vicious? No.

Quit with the ad-hominems.

Nothing me and vmarks has said is untrue. You know you can't argue the message, so you attack the messenger.

[Hawkeye_a]

1. Jews were living on the land before 1947 under Muslim rule.

2. Muslim rule, treated the Jews as slaves and not as equal citizens

3. After WWII, it was a democratic decision to form the nation of Israel on the same grounds where it stood before Islam conquered it with bloodshed.

4. Christians have made many mistakes in the past...the inquuisition being one of them. That was in THE PAST.

5. The Muslims welcomed Hitler in the hopes that he would get rid of the Jews who resided in modern day Israel.

6. It was the "Evil" Christian nations who eventually stopped the Nazis. Not the Muslims.

7. If the tiny population of muslims whod rather live in refugee camps for 50 years instead of the democratic nation of Israel, what should be done with the Armenians, Kurds, Zorastrians, mrdered Lebaneses-Christians who were expelled from their native lands due to islamo-facist governments ?

8.We "Evil" Christians have managed to form the the Americas, Europe and Australia.... where you have mosques, churches, temples, synogogues, etc....all living in relative peace (with the exception of you know who). What strides has the muslim world made as far as racial and religious equality ? Chechnya, Serbia, Israel, Cyprus, Kashmir, E.Timor, Sudan.

PS>> There is no such place as Palestince on the map, i suggest we refer to the people there as arabs amnd the territory as Syria/Lebanon/Jordan/Israel.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

3. After WWII, it was a democratic decision to form the nation of Israel on the same grounds where it stood before Islam conquered it with bloodshed.

? Elaborate please.

5. The Muslims welcomed Hitler in the hopes that he would get rid of the Jews who resided in modern day Israel.

Complete and utter BS.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

PS>> There is no such place as Palestince on the map, i suggest we refer to the people there as arabs amnd the territory as Syria/Lebanon/Jordan/Israel.

I agree. The term is used as propaganda and to spread lies.

Even in this forum no doubt.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

? Elaborate please.

Complete and utter BS.

Not complete and utter BS. Hajj Amin Al-Husseini who was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did meet with Hitler and did encourage him in writing to come to the middle east and kill Jews faster.

He did spend most of the war in Berlin. Before that he did befriend Himmler, who introduced him to Eichmann. He did host Eichmann in the land of pre-state Israel and did train Bosnian Muslim Nazis as well as a group of Arabs in pre-state Israel under Hitler Youth principles.

His greatest hope was Rommel having victory over pre-State Israel and erecting a death camp for Jews in Nablus.

Now, he was but one man. But he was one man who was loved and supported and made leader of the Arab League, which still exists today. He was also appointed a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, which also still exists today. So he had popular support to become the head of influential organizations.

At age 17, Yassir Arafat meets and begins to learn under Husseini and continue his work.

The idealogical geneaology isn't that hard to trace here.

[vmarks]

Coincidentally, Husseni found conflict with the King of Jordan, alleged author of the letter that began this thread:

From Egypt al-Husayni was among the sponsors of the 1948 war against the new State of Israel. The Jordanian monarch, King Abdullah, gave the position of Grand Mufti of the Jordanian part of divided Jerusalem to someone else, and Haj Amin al-Husayni was in contact with the Arab conspirators of King Abdullah's assassination in 1951, while still living in exile in Egypt. King Talal followed Abdullah as king of Jordan, and he refused to give permission to Amin al-Husayni to enter Jerusalem. After one year, King Talal was declared incompetent; the new King Hussein also refused to give al-Husayni permission to enter the City.

- Mohammad Amin al-Husayni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

PS>> There is no such place as Palestince on the map, i suggest we refer to the people there as arabs amnd the territory as Syria/Lebanon/Jordan/Israel.

Again, the letter addresses this, but I'm assuming you didn't read it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Again, the letter addresses this, but I'm assuming you didn't read it.

Regardless. It's a lie. When the core of it is made of lies, nothing said is going to suddenly make it factual.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most of these "Palistinians" didn't even live there.

Gee. I can't imagine why with Israel kicking them out and all.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Regardless. It's a lie. When the core of it is made of lies, nothing said is going to suddenly make it factual.

Really? Then why is Palestine derived from Hebrew?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac

Gee. I can't imagine why with Israel kicking them out and all.

If Israel actually kicked them all out as you claim, there wouldn't be a conflict today.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Gee. I can't imagine why with Israel kicking them out and all.

Was this being you just being condescending, or are you being serious?

I am hoping it's the first.

I am speaking of before Israel existed. Did you even read the article vmarks posted?

I know you never commented on it.

I am not so sure you really know the true history of this all.

Originally Posted by goMac

Really? Then why is Palestine derived from Hebrew?

Read above.

Go read the articles vmarks posted and respond to them.

Scat.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If Israel actually kicked them all out as you claim, there wouldn't be a conflict today.

You're assuming the neighboring countries were happy about the refuges they got at their doorstep.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

You're assuming the neighboring countries were happy about the refuges they got at their doorstep.

We know they weren't happy. They didn't like Jews.

If I buy a house and my neighbor doesn't like me, that doesn't mean they can send their kid over covered in bombs and kill me.

What basically happened is, a small group of people lived in an "apartment" complex called Israel. The owner of said complex decides to "sell it" to someone else and kicks out the tenants. (This happens all the time)

The tenants get mad even though they were just living there. Didn't own the building.

Suddenly that small group turned into a bunch more people that claimed to have lived there. Yet they lived the next block over in another complex all together. But are lying to make it look worse.

So they send over their kids and such to bomb the people now living in said complex.

We now have people justifying that these people have every right to act the way they do.

Which is simply silly.

Yes that was a simplified version of what happened, but it's made simple so people can grasp what really happened a bit quicker.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac

Really? Then why is Palestine derived from Hebrew?

Uh oh, now Colin is going to give us Hebrew lessons. The term "Palestine" doesn't come from Hebrew.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Read above.

Go read the articles vmarks posted and respond to them.

Scat.

Vmark's articles have nothing to do on the name Palestine. The name Palestine was used around year 0.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac

Vmark's articles have nothing to do on the name Palestine. The name Palestine was used around year 0.

Do you know where the name comes from? Or are you just going to make uninformed statements and then weasel out when you're shown to be wrong, as you've done in the past?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Do you know where the name comes from? Or are you just going to make uninformed statements and then weasel out when you're shown to be wrong, as you've done in the past?

The name Palestine was derived from the name of the southern area of the coast called Philistia. While Israeli's didn't refer to their own country as Palestine, other countries including Rome called the area Palestine. That's why there is no problem with referring to the area as Palestine. Historically, that is what it has been called.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

Really? Then why is Palestine derived from Hebrew?

Actually, Palestine is NOT derived from Hebrew.

It is the name that the Romans gave the area (Syria Palestina) to take away the name from the Israelites. This happened in 135 in an effort by the Romans to ethnically cleanse the Jews from the land.

As part of a program of ethnic cleansing, the Romans tried to erase the Jewish connection to the land of Judea.

By using that name, it's accepting the Roman ethnic cleansing. Interesting to note is that you leave off the Syria part of Syria Palestina.

When the Peel commission asked in 1937 the Arabs, the Arabs responded that they considered themselves southern Syria.

"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937


"Palestine was part of the Province of Syria...
...politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."
- The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted this in a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947


"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
- Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, to the UN Security Council