This research was based ion historical research conducted in 1995, it has brought to light the historical roots of Palestinian problem.

Zionists argue that their occupation of the Land of Palestine is not an occupation at all but a ‘rightful claiming of the land of their fathers’. History shows, however, that the Palestinians are the original inhabitants who, long before any Jew, let alone Zionist arrived there, were scattered into many tribes with many languages. Later, especially with the arrival of Islam in Palestine, they adopted Arabic as their language. Zionist shamelessly draw its justification Myth from the Bible and Israel has been remarkably successful in projecting its existence as being ‘biblical’. This is why many people in Europe and America support Israel as an act of faith. In 1969 when Mrs Golda Meir said: ‘The Palestinian people do not exist’ she betrayed the typical Zionist sentiment towards Palestinians, for as long as there are Palestinians, the world will be reminded of the theft and murder of Zionists committed and still are committing in order to have created Israel. Often Israel’s critics are accused of anti-Semitism. Palestinians are a Semitic people, yet when Israel kills tens of thousands, places hundreds of thousands and rob them all their natural and indisputable homeland, no one calls, or even think of this, as anti-Semitism.

In 1919, Jews owned 2.5% of all the land of Palestine, but the United Nation’s partition plan allotted 56% of all land to them. Between 1948-1950 approximately 385 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed. ‘Redemption of the land’ is what Zionists call these practices. The United Nations assisted in creating the state of Israel but never have they done anything to stop further usurpation of Arab land by Zionists. Up till today Israel refuse to stop the construction of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.

Without American support, Israel, would cease to exist. In 1995, when Israel deported 415 Palestinians to the South of Lebanon, America made it very clear that they would veto all United Nation’s plan to impose sanctions against Israel. It would seem as if Israel has the right to do whatever she pleases, whenever she pleases.

(FROM THEIR 1987/88 CONSTITUTION)
The unpopular leader in many Middle Eastern countries are willing to negotiate for “peace” with Israel. Egypt is by far the leader in this wholesale treachery by her signing and continued conformance to Camp David Accord. Saudi Arabia has never lifted a finger to help liberate Palestine, yet they are willing to use their weapon against Islam and the Muslim.

Even the PLO has become so confused and dictionless that they have decided to recognize Israel’s ‘right’ to exist. All of this is happening at the expense of Palestine and the Palestinians. It is the fault of every Muslim that the struggle for the liberation of Palestine has become such a protracted struggle.

In 1994, there were 45 cases of Palestinians who were killed by Israel commandos disguised as Arabs. The purpose behind this is to incite division and violence among Palestinians.

ZIONIST MYTHS THE U.N ‘CREATED ISRAEL’
Israeli spokesmen and Zionists sympathizers often try to create the impression that Israel is specially sacrosanct among the countries of the world because it was ‘created’ by the United Nations. This does not prevent them on other occasions asserting (as Goida Meir was wont to do) that Israel does not require or care about any International approval or sanction because its existence rest on a higher authority that if the ‘historic title of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel’.

The alleged ‘creation of Israel by the U.N crops up most often in Zionist criticism of the attempt by the Arabs to prevent the partition of Palestine and emergence of the state of Israel in 1947-48. The implication is that the Arab resort to arms at the time was a peculiarly heinous defiance of the authority and wishes of the world at large (as explained below, some Israel were no less ready to defy the U.N and to resort to arms in order to frustrate partition).

Points which deserve consideration in judging the validity of this presentation of events are the following: (1) It is debatable that whether the United Nations was in fact competent under International law to partition or otherwise dispose of the territory of Palestine against the wishes of the clear majority of its inhabitants.

(2) The U.N partition resolution was adopted by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. Resolution of the General Assembly have the force of recommendation to member state of the U.N but not (unlike those the Security Council) possess any mandatory force.

(3) The partition resolution did not by any mean command general support outside the Arab World. It was adopted by a vote of 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions. Among those abstaining was the United Kingdom.

(4) The resolution was moreover procured only by pressure and arm-twisting by the United States. Some days before it was put to the vote. It seemed unlikely to abstain the necessary two-thirds majority. But several postponements gave Zionists and sympathizers among United States officialdom opportunity to put pressure on China, Ethiopia, Greece, Haiti, Liberia and the Philippines, of which are intended to vote against partition, Greece, alone, withstood the pressure.

(5) At that time, the U.N was still far from representative of the whole world community. If the proposal in partition Palestine were put to the General Assembly as it exists today, it would probably be rejected by an over-whelming majority.

(6) After the partition resolution was adopted and when becoming clear, even the United States has second thoughts and proposed that partition should be shelved and the whole question re-examined. By then however it was too late. The partition of Palestine was already taking place.

(7) Having adopted its resolution, the General Assembly did nothing effective to carry it out nor did the Security Council or any other U.N body it was left to other to effect the actual, physical partition of the country.

( During the debate on the partition resolution, Arab spokesmen warned the world that the Palestinians with the support of other Arabs would resort to “their legitimate right of self-defense to prevent the dismemberment of Palestine against the wishes of the Arab majority of the resolution. Palestinian guerrillas took up arms to try to prevent the partition of their country. Were they wrong to do so? What would we have done in their position?

(9) The Palestinians were not alone in attempting to resist partition by force. Zionists propaganda habitually asserts that the Jews in Palestine accepted the U.N plan, and it is true the Jewish agency did so. But the Irgun declared that partition was illegal and would never be recognized. They declared “Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel all of it and forever. They called on the Jews to take up the offensive” not merely to repel Arab attack but also to seize all the Palestine.

(10) The Palestinian guerrillas proved no match for the better armed, better organized and numerically stronger Jewish forces. Before the British withdrew and the Arabs armies intervened in May 1948, the partition was already far advanced. The Jewish forces had not only prevented any Palestinian attempt to gain control of any part of the area allocated to the Jewish state in the partition plan. They had also seized large parts of the area allocated to the Arab state and had uprooted upwards of 300,000 Palestinians from their home. Ben Gurion state that: until the British left no Jewish settlement, however remote was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Hagannah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab position and liberated Tiberius and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad.

(11) In the wake of the British withdrawal, Arab armies intervened in order to support the Palestinians. But after some initial successes, they too proved no match for the Israeli forces and by the time of the cease-fire towards the end of 1948, the Israelis had seized yet more of the territory allocated to the Arabs State and had uprooted over 400,000 more Palestinians from their homes. Israel ended up in possession of nearly 80% of the whole territory of mandates Palestine as compared with the 57% allocated to the Jewish State under the U.N plan.

(12) The U.N plan had envisaged that the population of the proposed Jewish State should be more or less evenly divided between Jews and Arabs, with about half a million of each as citizens of the new state. By the end of the fighting, most of the Arabs population intended for the Jewish state had been uprooted from their homes and were living as refugees.

(13) The state of Israel, as it thus emerged from the conflict, bore no relation in terms of territory or population to the “Jewish State” envisaged in the U.N partition resolution. The claim that the state of Israel was the state which the U.N intended to “create” is false. Its “creators” were in fact the Hagannah, Palmach and Irdun and they certainly cannot claim the sanction of the U.N for the either the state they created or the methods they employed which included expulsion by force and terror of the Arab inhabitants.

(14) After the armistices between Israel and her Arab neighbours, the General Assembly tried, belatedly, to reassert its role and implement its ill-starred proposals for the partition of Palestine. Had it succeeded, there would have been more substance in the claim that U.N ‘created’ Israel which would then have emerged. But now its attempt was frustrated by the new State of Israel itself.

(15) The occasion was provided in May 1949, when Israel applied for admission to the U.N (at the time this was great importance to the Israel leadership as a means of securing International recognition for the new state). The general Assembly took the position that it would admit Israel provided its government undertook to comply with the General Assembly resolution relating to the partition of Palestine and the Palestine refugees. This meant that Israel would confine itself to the territory assigned to the Jewish state in the U.N. Partition plan and would permit the refugees, if they wished, ‘to return to their homes to live at peace with their neighbor at the earliest practicable date’.

In response Israel declared that it unreservedly accepts the obligations of the U.N. Charter and Undertakes to honor them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations. The representative of the Israeli, stated in the General Assembly on April 13th 1949, that his government would pursue no policies on any question which were inconsistent with the resolution of the General Assembly and the Security Council. He was closely questioned in Ad Hoc Political committee and furnished explanations about his government’s intention regarding the two resolution. He stated:

(a) That his government would be very careful not to make an extreme application of the provisions of the U.N Charter relating to domestic jurisdiction, if such an application would deprive General Assembly decisions of all compelling force.

(b) That it would be a mistake for any of the governments concerned to take refugee, with regard to the refugee problem, in their legal right to exclude people from their territories. These explanations satisfied the Ad Hoc Political committee, and accordingly the General Assembly in its Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949, having recalled the two resolutions in question and having noted the declaration by the government of Israel and the explanations of its representative, decided to admit Israel to membership.

(16) However, even while their application was under discussion in New York, the Israel leadership were saying in private that they would never withdraw to the partition lines and would do everything they could to prevent the return of the refugees. And as soon as they had secured admission to the United Nations, they went back on their undertakings to comply with the resolutions.

Clearly, in the light of the above, it is misleading to speak of the U.N. having “created” Israel in the sense of the state of Israel as it eventually emerged and with any implication of International Sanction for the territorial boundaries and the displacement of population which resulted from the conflicts.

Finally, in so far as the idea of the ‘creation of Israel’ by the U.N action has any validity at all, it is evident that precisely the same validity can be claimed for the Proposed Arab (Palestinian) state under the U.N. partition plan. Israelis and their supporters cannot claim U.N authority for the creation of Israel without at the sametime conceding the same authority for the establishment of the Palestinian state envisage in the partition resolution.

Baba Ali Mustapha is with the Department of Planning and Research Ministry of Environment, Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria.

Reference:
This research work with slight editing was originally appeared in Majuba Magazine published in Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran (1995).


Source: http://247tops..com.ng/2016/07/historical-roots-of-palestinian-problem.html?utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

What concern nigerian man with israel and palestinian issue? Our problems are there!!!!! Muslims people won't cease to amuse me!