Deception 7: The Refugee Deception.

Peloni:  Here is the 6th installment of Joseph Shellim’s 12 Deceptions, an excerpt from his important work, “Philistine-To-Palestine”.  We are posting one Deception each week, and  links to the previous installments can be found at the bottom.

Joseph Shellim

Jewish refugees fleeing persecution, murder and property confiscations in Arabia.

Who Are the Refugees? 
Are the Arabs or Jews the refugees of Palestine? This important question is well validated by history  and many Arab Muslim experts, yet both remain disregarded. The only refugees of Palestine reported  are of the Arabs, with no explanation how such a conclusion is arrived at. How can Arab Palestinians  be from other Arab countries that are not Palestinian, as claimed by an award-winning Arab Journalist:  

• “Not only do the Arab countries despise the Palestinians; they also want them to be the problem of Israel alone. That is why since 1948, Arab governments have refused to allow Palestinians permanently  to settle in their countries and become equal citizens. Now these Arab countries are not only denying  Palestinians their basic rights, they are also killing and torturing them, and subjecting them to ethnic  cleansing.” – (Ethnic Cleansing of ‘Palestinians’ by Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim and a  veteran award-winning journalist covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades, Senior Fellow at  the Gatestone Institute. Yonkers Tribune)  

The only error in Khaled Toameh’s report is of the widespread deceptive term Palestinian attributed to  the Arab people, even though it is noted as stated retrospectively as from 1948. His statement has a  historical falsehood that underlies why this conflict has immense issues of resolving and why all have  thus far failed; the pivotal deception in not confronted. Another factor is that none of the regimes could  attain this result without Britain’s full co-operation and assistance. There is strong reasoning of an  arrangement in place which restricts negative subscriptions of the Arabs.  

Herzl’s Palestine
Calling Arabs as Palestinians is akin to calling them as Judeans or Israelites; thereby such a name  switch agenda is one of negation of one side’s history and heritage. This name transfer is thereby a  strategic weapon of deception used against Israel’s existence, a premise often repeated in the Middle  East with an apparent support in Europe and Britain seen the past 70 years at the UN and their media  reporting.  

The real refugees were not the Arabs but the Jews exiled by Rome from their homeland of Judea,  which became named as Palestine. The Jews were also the refugees from Arab ruled lands where they  lived for 2,600 years. Although the Jews chose Israel as their country’s name, it is intriguing to  consider what would result if they chose on the name Palestine, whether the Arabs would still call  themselves by the name of the Jews. Herzl battled for the Jews’ right of return using the 2,000 year  symbol they were called by, referring Palestine by name as the Jewish state’s return in his prophetic  book:  

• “Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people  with a force of marvelous potency. – (The Jewish State by Theodor Herzl, 1896. Translated from  German by Sylvie D’Avigdor.)  

Jewish Refugees. 
That the Arabs instead of the Jews are presented as the 20th Century’s Palestinian refugees of this  region marks the deception of its namesake. The Jews displaced from Arab controlled lands are greater  than those Arabs displaced from Israel, in substance and mode of displacement; thereby the refugee  claim is a reversal syndrome against the Jews. While the Arabs left of their own accord with the  promise of return upon the destruction of the Jews by a multi-state Arab war, or even if fleeing a war  scenario to save themselves – the displaced Jews were forced to leave via murder, pogroms and  property confiscations without the advent of a war by the Jews in those lands. While the historical  period of Arabs in Palestine is comparatively recent, the Jewish habitation in Arab lands is more than  2,500 years, even predating the Arab rule of these lands. And while the Arabs possessed more land  options than any others, the Jews had none but their mandated homeland to return to. Such reasoning  makes the premise of a heritage and physical annihilation aligning with the usurping of the term  Palestinian; these make implausible the charges of land occupation and correspondingly, make credible  the legitimate focus in rejecting the premise of Arabs as Palestinians.  

Europe and Arab Hostilities
The Jews were being exterminated in Europe and the same planned in Arabia. Both of these barred  entry to the Jews in all places under Britain’s watch. Thereby, the refugee deception is of a tremendous  maligning against the Jews, as in the name transfer of Palestinian from Jews to the Arabs. The far more  credible Jewish refugee history is also transferred to the Arabs. Even significant, those accepting the  premise of Arab refugees cannot possibly be unaware of such a falsehood; perhaps their conclusions  are based on different criteria that should be explored.  

• “More than 700,000 Jews had left the Arab states. A large portion of nationalized Jewish real estate  was left, for example, in the poshest neighborhoods of Cairo, Alexandria and Baghdad. The communal  property of Egypt’s Jews covered huge areas, including about half of the district of Maadi (a city of  villas and gardens located about 20 kilometres from Cairo, where all the luxurious houses have turned  into the residences of ambassadors from various countries.” – (“Can Jewish Refugees claim billions  from Arab states?” By Dr. Cohen, the son of Jewish refugees who fled Lebanon in the 1980s, managed  to collect information about this aspect of the “nakba” of the Arab state’s Jews as part of his studies;  Ynet News) 
• “Mr. President. Since 1948 Israel has received nearly one million immigrants, the great majority of  whom are refugees, hailing from over 70 countries and from all corners of the world. The great  majority of those who came to Israel during these ten years, came either from the post-war camps in  Germany and Italy or from Arab-speaking countries.” – (Golda Meir, Israeli PM; Speeches-USA).  

Jordan’s barring of the Arabs west of the Jordan River succeeded in creating an Arab refugee issue  when it was least credible. The Arabs were handed an abundance of lands given them with no  requirement for more; it indicates an improvised stratagem that was not about land. Britain will divide  Palestine as one more land for the Arabs at the expense of the Jews. Instead of resolving this conflict it  will cause a refugee problem, one again caused by Britain’s inaction of requiring this as an end to the  land issue.  

Contrasting the plight of the Jewish refugees, the Arab refugees in Palestine appears intentional. The  vast landmass handed to Jordan affirms the Arabs west of the river could very easily be housed in  Jordan, else the given reason for creating Jordan in Palestine – ‘one for the Arabs and one for the Jews’ – must speak for itself. All other Arab states refused to accept those who came to Palestine from those  lands.  

Which Refugees? 
The refugee term was focused on one set of Arab refugees and disregarded the 850,000 Jewish  refugees from Arab lands, thereby choosing only one over the other. This occurs despite the historical  position of the Jews being inhabitants of those lands for 2,600 years, in lands now ruled by the Arabs.  There is no question the Arabs have not lived in Palestine for 2,600 years; Palestine was Judea 2,000  years ago and the Arabs were enlisted in the Roman legions and thus not this land’s inhabitants.  

More significantly, the modern history of Palestine equally refutes the status of an Arab native  population, namely prior the end of the 19TH Century. The Jewish population was twice as big as that  of the Arabs (See, Census Population Chart); and until the Jews began developing the land, it is  described as among the most barren and isolation regions.  

Thereby, which inhabitants of Palestine are the refugees is an incumbent issue; the Jews who lived here  continuously for a historically evidenced 3000 years, or those who arrived at the end of the 19th Century. Based on such a position, it is a heavy injustice done to the Jews and would also be a heavy  legacy for those who accept such anomalies when such an encounter crosses the borders of the Middle  East.  

The issue also harbors indications such anomalies were fully realized and measures were taken to  overcome them via novel changes. The UN decided that the Arab refugees in Palestine don’t have to be  refugees, at least not how we understood its definition thus far.  

The allocation of refugee status had to be altered for the first time in recorded history; it did not require  native or historical habitation, the displacement from one’s original homeland, or the lack of ancient  land ownership provisions at its disposal. In Palestine, refugee became defined only that one migrated  to Palestine two years ago and are thus deemed as already living in that region as natives. It contested  the essence of the British Mandates of a historical connection of the Jews and Palestine, and the history  of this region. In many countries, one cannot attain even temporary visa or citizenship by a two-year  measure.  

• According to the United Nations weird standards, any person that spent TWO YEARS (!!!) in  “Palestine” before 1948, with or without proof, is a “Palestinian”, as well as all the descendants of that  person. – (The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians; Myths, Hypotheses and Facts) 
• “The definition of a refugee from Palestine in 1948 is a person who lived there for just two years:  because many Arab residents in 1948 had immigrated so recently. The usual definition would have cut  out a substantial portion of the persons who later claimed to be refugees from Palestine.” – (Daniel  Pipes Commentary, July 1984)  

That such a criterion is allocated singularly to only one group of peoples in one land, regardless that it  displaced another group’s position, will lead to disputed and illegally occupied territory charges, and  illegal settlements in contradiction of the mandated right of the Jews to settle west of the River Jordan.  Thereby, an Arab refugee crisis emerged instead of the Jews of Palestine, in the land portion named by  Jordan as West Bank, which the previous body of the UN fully acknowledged was of the Jews:  

• “The League of Nations recognized that all the land west of the Jordan River as to be for a “Jewish  National Home.” (David Storobin; “Nazi Influence on the Middle East during WWII”)  
• “The Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine – the area west of the Jordan – are  parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security  Council.” – (‘The Future of Palestine’, Professor Eugene Rostow, Institute for National Strategic  Studies, November 1993; U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, major text producer of  UN Resolution 242.)  

The Jews, inhabitants for 2,600 years in lands which became ruled by Arabs 1,500 years ago, were not  accorded refugee status by the UN, or their plight even acknowledged in line with the Arab Palestinian  refugees. Based on the UN allocation of Arab refugees, almost all Arab controlled states in the region  have a debt and liability to the Jews, with equal claim for 2-state divisions. Such is the chaos derived  by the decisions made by the UN and its member states of its Arab refugee provisions.  

Arab Homes in Palestine. 
Citizenship is not nativity or ancestry of a land, nor is proof of a home ownership or a passport by  one’s grandfather. These can still be recent immigrants that are natives of another land, especially so if  those making such claims deny the true historical natives of that land. The Jews have home ownership  in numerous lands of the Middle East dating up to 2,600 years since the Babylon Exile of the 6th Century BCE, yet the Jews are not natives of Egypt, Syria and Iraq, and cannot claim native ownership  of those lands.  

There is hardly any place where people are not present, be it the Arctic or the Sahara. Additionally,  there are factual historical details of the recent Arab migration to this region. The premise of some  Arabs with birth certificates and home ownership does not conclude to ancestral or native inhabitation,  as has been presented. A father or grandfather living in Palestine does not signify nativity anymore  than the Jews who have lived in numerous countries for many centuries yet cannot be classed as  natives or claim its sovereignty.  

The grandchildren of British people born in India are not native Indians; nor can they become Indian  refugees that are transcendent of the Indian peoples, nor can they claim that land’s ownership.  

Thereby did the UN introduce new criteria of refugees solely for one people and all their descendents,  wherever they reside in the world. It is aligned with some Arabs that are a few generations in Palestine  and can point at a home in Israel where they once lived. The UN will yet reject the Jews living in Arab  

controlled lands since greater periods and not give them the same criteria. Such chaos can inevitably  also extend across the nations with the same mode of chaos. The UN cannot display one law applying  only for Palestine and Arabs and not for any other land. A host of Jews, Christians and other peoples in  this region can equally produce such documents of home ownership, both in Palestine and in all parts  of the Middle-East. Yet not all can validate a 3000-year habitation in Palestine; this is the unique  historical connection of the Jews that Churchill and the Balfour Mandate referred to. Those Jews and 

Christians who owned homes in Syria, Iran, Yemen, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt do not claim  ownership of those lands, notwithstanding they have far greater longevity credibility of its native  inhabitants. The Jews and Copts predate Arabs in Arabia yet receive no similar statehood facilities by  the UN as afforded the Arabs in Palestine; it affirms the extending impacts of the chaos directed at  Israel.  

Arafat, Abbas Are Not Palestinians. 
The wife of Jordan’s king is thereby not a native Palestinian but of a Kuwaiti aligned genealogy. The  historical evidence says prior to a third generation grand-children history there was no Arab nativity in  Palestine during the Ottoman period and that the Jews were more than double their population; the  survey by the British in 1864 and historical reports of a barren Palestine say so.  

The Jews are the only continuous un-broken ancestral natives of Palestine; the Arabs do not have such  nativity.  

Aside from the European Jews who were exiled across the Middle East, there were ancestral Jews in  Palestine since the Babylon, Roman and Christian era who never left their land, accounting for a period  of 3000 years. These include the Jews who returned under the Persian reign of Cyrus the Great and  remained, as encountered by the Crusaders, Islam and in the Ottoman Empire. Palestine and  Palestinian are thus the exclusive nativity marks of the Jews. Not any of the ministers of the Palestinian  Authority are of a native habitation in Palestine, including of its founder Arafat.  

• “The Person who is called as “Abu Mazen” (whose real name is Mahmoud Rida Abbas Mirza), is of  Iranian origin. He is not Palestinian at all and is not from Safed, because he is of Iranian descent, from  the city Bandar Khamin, the city of his grandfather, the founder of the Bahai religion. Rida Ullah Riza  left to come to Palestine in the year 1882. – (“Abbas, ya Bahai, Get Lost!” Article by Muhammad Al 

Tamimi. Quoted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Published Nov 22, 2012; The Jewish Press.)  

Arabs are not Palestinian despite that some may have fathers born in the land or can produce passports  and home ownership certificates. The Jews can do so across the Middle-East by far greater measures,  without resorting to the new UN criteria. Those Arabs calling themselves as Palestinians are not  natives of Palestine:  

• “…Far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country [Palestine].” – (Winston  Churchill; 1939)  
• “In the Jewish settlement Rishon l’Tsion founded in 1882, by the year 1889, the forty Jewish families  that settled there had attracted more than four hundred Arab families… many other Arab villages had  sprouted in the same fashion.” (Joan Peters – From Time Immemorial p. 252) 
• “The Arab population shows a remarkable increase… partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the [Jewish] National Home…” (The Peel  Commission Report – 1937) 

Theologically Based Refugees
The fastidious and focused usage of another peoples’ historically validated name exposes the absence  of credibility in its nativity claim. It created millions of Arab Palestinians who were improvised by a  new UN refugee criteria applied solely to the Arabs, with a disregard of legal treaties and the history of  the Jews.  

The changes of a land’s ancient names affirm the claimant’s lack of ancient habitation and of their  recent status; it is an admission the previous named Palestinian people are the land’s natives and thereby the 850,000 Jews from Arab lands are the refugees. Thereby, the Arabs are refugees from Arab  lands, not of Palestine. The refugee allocation of Arabs as Palestinian is a historical deception that is  targeted against the right of a state for the Jews; and by extension any other peoples. It is theologically  based.  

The refugee claim is furthered by the dubious arithmetic of accounting the West Bank as a 2-state  instead of a 3-state; it is also astonishing that the Christian community accepts such anomalies.  

The British declaration of the first two-state division of Palestine, with its stated terms of ‘one for the  Jews and one for the Arabs’ pledge will be foiled by further 2-state measures and new transit  agreements that expose an underlying disposition. The fostering of an Arab refugee allocation is a  means to usher another 3rd state west of the river and based, not on a refugee or land issue, but on a  Caliphate doctrine and commercial reasoning.  

• No state any place has faced a greater tide of reductionism more obsessively or further away from  Britain’s original Balfour enactment that was validated by the world of nations. Thereby, numerous  new transit agreements were enacted to negate precedent enactments, including the Peel Commission  partition proposal of 1937; the UN partition plan adopted by its General Assembly on November 29,  1947; and the debacle of the Oslo agreement that accounted a 3-state in the same landmass of Palestine  as a 2-state, one duly followed by many politicians and media today. These are additional provisions  that seek to hide the original corruption that created Jordan, and are among the prime examples of  punishing Israel instead of the perpetrators. Such provisions continued under extreme duress for the  Jews between the periods of the two world wars.  

The Green Line Deception. 
A continuing insatiable trend is well seen again by penalizing Israel for accepting a ceasefire of a  multi-state Arab war with an openly declared goal of genocide. Thus emerged the premise of the 1967  border lines, also called as the Green Line, whereby the ceasefire point Israel accepted are made as a  semblance of Israel’s borders. Such has correctly been described as ‘Auschwitz Borders’, a reference  to the Nazi camps that crammed the Jews in train boxes. A ceasefire point is not a border, especially  not when the winning side accepted it as a peace offering. The Green Line view is akin to one agreeing  to stop battling a home invader when the police arrive, and declaring half of one’s home ownership as  forfeited and given to the perpetrator. The UN Resolution 242 states, concerning the 1967 war:  

• “Israel was entitled to live in peace within secure borders and recognizable boundaries free from  threats or acts of violence.” 

Israel’s Balfour Borders. 
Israel’s borders were the Balfour Declaration lines, one that Lord Balfour fastidiously upheld, refusing  even an autonomous Arab region anywhere in Palestine. The originally pledged borders declared as the  national home for the Jews is never mentioned, when it should be the preamble of all discourse. The  creation of Jordan, the first 2-state, required the prior acknowledgement of the legality of the 1917  Balfour Declaration, and this was duly processed at the UN; it evidences Israel’s borders began at the  Balfour lines, a fully historical pledge of 1917 that was corrupted by Britain in 1922 when oil was  discovered.  

Not recalling the Balfour borders, namely all of Palestine which originally included Jordan and the  West Bank as one only state for the Jews, renders the creation of West Bank as the 2-state division of  Palestine a violation and numerously defined as illegal. Thereafter, Israel’s borders, even by grossly  incorrect measure, can only become the second division of the first 2-state lines, namely west of the  river, following the Kingdom of Jordan’s creation in 1948. The region called as the West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan; it is a portion of land historically and by legal treaty acknowledged as the  most sacred land possessions of Israel; it was virtually devoid of Arab Palestinians in the 17th to 19th Centuries. When the violations of the Arabs are not displayed by the UN, and when other nations  support such violations, the UN is mandated to correct them when Israel’s position is more validated.  

The on-going demands for new state divisions, and its accounting a 3-state as a 2-state, can be seen as  a means of destruction no state can survive. It is also the underlying cause of a theological Caliphate  doctrine that says no other faith must subsist in Arabia as a state. It is the primal cause of an extending  Caliphate goal; its negation only possible by attending the corruptions against Israel and correcting  them so it cannot be emulated in Palestine or elsewhere.  

As with the deceptive name changing of this land’s 3,000 year Hebrew titles to ‘West Bank’ in 1951,  and the follow-up claim of ‘Time Immemorial Palestinians’, the refugee claims are an equally  deceptive provision. The true refugees of the 20th century were not Arabs.  

Jewish refugees fleeing persecution, murder and property confiscations in Arabia. 

Who’s Right of Return? 
A Right of Return that is based on a nativity claim correctly applies with the Jews, those who were  previously displaced from their ancestral land. The issue of Arab refugees in the West Bank is a direct  effect of Britain’s inaction in correcting Jordan’s illegal annexation west of the river in 1949 and the  barring of the Arabs from entry in Jordan. Otherwise it begs the question, why did Britain created  Jordan in Palestine? It contradicts Britain’s pledges and its given reason ‘One for the Jews and one for  the Arabs’. The Balfour Mandate does not accuse Jews of displacing Arabs; it affirms the right of  return as exclusively vested of the Jews. 

Thereby, Jordan’s illegal annexation and the name changing of this land portion as West Bank, and  soon thereafter of Arabs as Palestinians who are barred entry to Jordan, were essential implements in  forming a refugee crisis as a sore unto Israel. From here emerged the one-sided premise of Arab  refugees instead of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands; and Israel, instead of Jordan, becoming the  occupier.  

This became as international law at the UN. It resulted in an irresolvable situation of history, stemming  from theological doctrines and corruption, with consequences for all nations and peoples. Its  underlying result, one fully intentionally improvised, is seen in such debates between an esteemed  scholar of history and an Arabic TV Station. Al-Jazeera TV Interview excerpts with Professor  Mordechai Kedar, Dept. of Arabic Studies, Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv:  

Host: You cannot erase Jerusalem from the Koran.  

Kedar: Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran, not even once, and you cannot re-write Jerusalem  into the Kuran here on Al-Jazerra. 

Host: Mr. Mordechai, the settlements, there are rumors of another 1,000 apartments and thus Jerusalem  will include the whole of the West Bank, isn’t that so?  

Kedar: My brother, Israel does not count the apartments which Qatar is building in the Qatari  peninsula. Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal capital for 3,000 years and not of anyone else’s business.  

Host: International law contradicts everything you say. East Jerusalem is occupied. Everyone knows  this.  

Kadar: Jordan, until 1967, was the occupier. Israel can build whatever it likes in the West Bank.  

Jordan, not Israel, was the illegal occupier of Judah and Samaria, one who changed the 3,000 year  Hebrew names to West Bank in 1948 to enable the term ‘settlements’. The Jews were the only people  granted legal right of return and to settle in Palestine; and it was made irrevocable. There was never a  right of return or any political rights granted to the Arab people with regard Palestine. Thereby, all of  Britain’s over-turning of the treaties established by the international community of nations remains  illegal, according to scholars of international law and legal rights:  

• “The facts are that the Jewish people got the right to Palestine because of their historical connection  to this land. This is the primal aspect. It was neglected for years but in San Remo the international  community realized that was a mistake and that the Jewish people should have full title to the land after  the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. And it cannot be revoked because there is an article in the UN  Charter, article 80, which preserves the rights of peoples; whatever rights they have acquired is forever.  And on top of that there is the convention in the Vienna Convention of Treaties of 1966. It stipulated  the treaty is sacred and even when it expires it remains with the Jewish people forever.” – (Canadians  for Israel’s Legal Rights [CILR], Salomon Benzimra; CBN News)  

Are Arabs Refugees? 
While no people can wish to flaunt the plight of true refugees, no people in history had greater  facilities and options than the Arabs called as Palestinian refugees. Contrastingly, none had fewer  facilities than the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. The Jews were terrorized and expelled from Arab  controlled lands of the Middle East. Thereby, the Jews, not the Arabs, can be defined as refugees with  no place to go. The true cause of Arab refugees can only be pointed to Britain who failed to apply  conditions of rule on the regime states as was done with Israel. It has resulted is a reversing of the  refugee claim from the Jews to the Arabs, as is evidenced in the Middle East historical refugee  accounts. 

Fact-sheet/ courtesy Jewish Virtual Library, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise

---

Here are links to previous installments of the 12 Deceptions:

Deception 1: The Name Deception

Deception 2: The Balfour Deception

Deception 3: The White Paper Deception

Deception 4: The Jordan Deception

Deception 5: The ‘West-Bank’ Deception

Deception 6: The Time Immemorial Deception

 

---

Episode 6. The Time Immemorial  Deception.
[See Next week]

Link to the book on Amazon:
https://amzn.to/2XCR3DH

---