But then, I am Dutch.

The Arabs of Palestine under the Ottoman Turks were hardly a “mation” in the modern sense of the term. But they were the centuries old residents of the land with a deep attatchment to the soil where their ancestors had lived. They were not, as Zionist propaganda pretends, Bedouin wandering in and out. The Jews have no claim to Palestine because ancient Jews once lived there. By that logic, Mussolini and the Italians were entitled to the Mediterranean because of the Roman Empire. The Jews coming into Palestine were mainly the descendants of the Khazars, a Turkic-Mongolian tribe which converted to Judaism en masse in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. Although the Zionists label their Khazar descent a “myth”, there is, in fact, an ever increasing body of research to support it. Anyone interested may consult the work of Kevin Brooke and Paul Wexler.

The Jews have no claim on Palestine because of the declaration of Lord Balfour based on the purported “contract with Jewry” of David Lloyd George. The pretensions of Sir Henry McMahon about his alleged “mental reservation” excluding Palestine from the territory pledged to the Arabs after the First World War are equally irrelevant.The Jews arrogantly granted themselves title to someone else’s land after World War One and have been dispossessing the Arabs of Palestine ever since. Patrick Buchanan’s book is directly relevant to this process. Buchanan argues that the U.S. is stepping into the shoes of the old British Empire and repeating the same mistakes the British made. The Middle East, and the Palestinian problem in particular, illustrate this point precisely. The U.S., by taking over for the British as the guarantor of Zionism is destroying its prestige among the Islamic countries, the same way that the British destroyed their prestige. Buchanan treads lightly on this point for fear of the accusation of anti-semitism. Nevertheless, the Jews bulldozing the Arabs into the rubble of their former homes are the same Jews as those who communized Russia in 1917. Indeed, for those who read Professor Michael Cohen’s book on “Churchill and the Jews”, there exist remarkable passages where Churchill, as Colonial Secretary denounces the riots of 1921 as inspired by communist Jews from Russia and urges action to deport these radical elements out of Palestine. Churchill in this same time period was writing a history of the First World War entitled “The World Crisis” in which, in the final volume entitled “The Aftermath”, he reccomended recruiting defeated Germany as an ally in a joint European crusade against the bolsheviks. In Churchill’s own words: “Nothing can be achieved in Europe without Germany; everything may be achieved with Germany”. By such methods, wrote Churchill “Germany will pass from a cruel fight against us into partnership with us”.

That is a sampling of the revisionist history barely touched on in Patrick Buchanan’s otherwise excellent history. “The Unnecessary War” should be used as a guide to much more explosive material hiding behind his provocative thesis. Isn’t that what good history is all about?

The Arabs of Palestine under the Ottoman Turks were hardly a “mation” in the modern sense of the term. But they were the centuries old residents of the land with a deep attatchment to the soil where their ancestors had lived. They were not, as Zionist propaganda pretends, Bedouin wandering in and out. The Jews have no claim to Palestine because ancient Jews once lived there. By that logic, Mussolini and the Italians were entitled to the Mediterranean because of the Roman Empire. The Jews coming into Palestine were mainly the descendants of the Khazars, a Turkic-Mongolian tribe which converted to Judaism en masse in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. Although the Zionists label their Khazar descent a “myth”, there is, in fact, an ever increasing body of research to support it. Anyone interested may consult the work of Kevin Brooke and Paul Wexler.

The Jews have no claim on Palestine because of the declaration of Lord Balfour based on the purported “contract with Jewry” of David Lloyd George. The pretensions of Sir Henry McMahon about his alleged “mental reservation” excluding Palestine from the territory pledged to the Arabs after the First World War are equally irrelevant.The Jews arrogantly granted themselves title to someone else’s land after World War One and have been dispossessing the Arabs of Palestine ever since. Patrick Buchanan’s book is directly relevant to this process. Buchanan argues that the U.S. is stepping into the shoes of the old British Empire and repeating the same mistakes the British made. The Middle East, and the Palestinian problem in particular, illustrate this point precisely. The U.S., by taking over for the British as the guarantor of Zionism is destroying its prestige among the Islamic countries, the same way that the British destroyed their prestige. Buchanan treads lightly on this point for fear of the accusation of anti-semitism. Nevertheless, the Jews bulldozing the Arabs into the rubble of their former homes are the same Jews as those who communized Russia in 1917. Indeed, for those who read Professor Michael Cohen’s book on “Churchill and the Jews”, there exist remarkable passages where Churchill, as Colonial Secretary denounces the riots of 1921 as inspired by communist Jews from Russia and urges action to deport these radical elements out of Palestine. Churchill in this same time period was writing a history of the First World War entitled “The World Crisis” in which, in the final volume entitled “The Aftermath”, he reccomended recruiting defeated Germany as an ally in a joint European crusade against the bolsheviks. In Churchill’s own words: “Nothing can be achieved in Europe without Germany; everything may be achieved with Germany”. By such methods, wrote Churchill “Germany will pass from a cruel fight against us into partnership with us”.

That is a sampling of the revisionist history barely touched on in Patrick Buchanan’s otherwise excellent history. “The Unnecessary War” should be used as a guide to much more explosive material hiding behind his provocative thesis. Isn’t that what good history is all about?

“What I find incredible is that there are still people around who wonder why the Middle East is up in flames. Andrew Alexander explained it very well last Friday. 90 years ago Britain initiated a policy of providing a Jewish homeland in Palestine â?? on predominantly Arab lands. Then Israel was created on land that supposedly belonged half to the Arabs and half to the Jews. But not for the first time, the Jews took a bigger slice. After beating back the Arabs in four wars, Israel now controls the West Bank, the Holy Sites and the Gaza Strip. We Greeks lost Constantinople in 1453, and as late as 1922 were still trying to get our lands back. (We failed miserably but got Onassis and many other good Greeks to move to the mainland). So I ask you, dear readers: Why are people surprised and bored by the fact that only ninety years on Arabs are still smarting over the seizure of their lands? I know I am stating my facts rather plainly, but plain facts are real facts, not propagandistic bull.”

If he were to have wanted to focus his attention on land issues in the region, he could have used the term “Zionists,” but… he didn’t. He used “the Jews” and resorted to an ancient trope: the Jews will cheat you every chance they can. He’s clearly a sad little fellow who craves attention by writing what passes for “provocative” prose in some circles. Note that the assertion is that it was when Israel was created that “not for the first time, “the Jews” cheated others. There’s no indication that any “taking bigger slices” was going on “90 years ago,” when “Britain initiated a policy of providing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.” It is you, Camilla, who have been “fisked,” i.e., refuted, for a look at the text shows that “Taki” was asserting that “the Jews” cheated (not merely “the Zionists”). The trope is an old one and the source of much ugliness and even murder.

Good day to you.

I’ve heard that Jews call themselves Jews. Are they self-hating or something?

By camilla’s idiotic criteria, essentially every ethnic group could be accused of “taking a bigger slice”, since they all stem from people who at some time in the past invaded someplace; the Germans took over the Roman Empire, the Arabs took over the mediterranean, the Vikings took over much of Europe, the Aztecs took over much of Mexico, the Chinese took over…you get the idea. But somehow it’s the Jews who get singled out. Antisemitism? No way!

Should “the Jews” all move back to Babylonia? Egypt? The city of Ur? OH, it really riles up the anti-semites that Jews have their country once again — for good.

And again, the collective blame. Since Jews in ancient times were supposedly vicious and greedy, Jews today “not for the first time” are vicious and greedy.

It’s OK, Camilla. Anti-semitism is quite fashionable in certain quarters these days. You are what you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

for the history of the area we are discussing, which shows that the Israelis were aggressively “cleansing” the areas now called “Israel” long before the Palestinians of the present day were victimized by the Israeli government.

Mr. Palmer’s eagerness to hunt down “bigotry” in this case is suspect, and, looking through his blogs, it is apparent that his witch-hunting instincts are something he has difficulty controlling. Stop assuming people are “bigots” until you have solid incontrovertible evidence, not anything as slight as this.

If the establishment of Israel in 1948 wasn’t “the first time” that “the Jews” took more than that to which they were entitled — when was the previous time?

Camilla says it’s a reference to previous partitions of “Palestine.”

But she couldn’t be referring to the previous time that British “Palestine” was partitioned — the only people who took a slice the first time around were the Hashemite monarchy created in Jordan.

King Abdullah = not Jewish. Jordan = arab country.

Previously, “Palestine” existed only as a place name for a region of the Roman Empire consisting of the previous Kingdoms of Israel and Judea, which were the last slice of land that “the Jews” had possession of anywhere. That slice of land was considerably bigger than present-day Israel.

What Jewish country existed in the region between the Roman conquest in 70 and 1948?