For the sake of historical accuracy, it is Palestine, not Falestine

Anyone can and should have the privilege to choose the name they wish to be known as. That entitlement needs to be respected.

However, and it is a BIG however, if the choice of name is made for the mere intention of establishing proof of legitimacy, then the onerous task of forming such validation rests entirely on the party that elected to be called by that name.

This principle is, especially, important in the negotiation of historical facts. For the sake of posterity, historical facts cannot and should not be tempered with to win one propaganda battle or another. When they are, they become narratives of the worst, twisted kind.

Accuracy, particularly when it comes to the middle east conflict, is of utmost importance regardless of which side of the conflict one supports.

The recent Gaza war, in my view, not only reinforces this notion, but it also brings to light, yet again, the demand of its dwellers to have a state of their own. Regardless of whether their claim to statehood is right or wrong, I wish to address their designated name for that political entity if and when it is founded.

Those who call themselves “Palestinians,” which, as I stated above, have every right to call themselves by whatever name they wish, did that with unequivocal tendentiousness. The sole intention of adopting that name in 1967, was to “educate” the world that they were here first, before the United Nations General Assembly voted to create the Jewish state, in 1947. It was a means of the well-oiled Arab propaganda machine to start the process of delegitimization of the only Jewish state, Yisrael.

For those who are not familiar with the history of the region, let me give you a bird’s eye view of it.

In the year 135 C.E., a Roman emperor by the name of Hadrian, out of sheer hatred to the Jewish nation, which was exiled out of their home in Eretz Yisrael, decided to arbitrarily change the name of the land to “Palestine,” or more precisely, “Palaestina.” The purpose of such a move was to sever any connection between the Jews and their Homeland.

The name “Palestine” was selected by the Romans in a deliberate effort to add insult to injury to the already beaten, broken and exiled Jewish nation. The Romans named the area after the Philistines, one of the worst enemies of Am Yisrael. The Philistines were heathen sea faring people who, as the meaning of their names suggests, invaded (the root of the word Philistine is “to invade”) the Levant region in the 12^th century B.C.E.

Are you still with me?

In 1920, when the League of Nations voted to establish a National Jewish Home in Eretz Yisrael, Britain was granted a Mandate over the area and was entrusted with the task of preparing the ground for such an eventuality. At that time, the original name “Eretz Yisrael” was officially added and became synonymous with “Palestine,” as the acronym in the parenthesis on both the coin and the stamp below suggests.

 

Since the letter “P” does not exist in the Arabic language, the language of those who elected to call themselves “Palestinians,” they had no choice but to pronounce the original name as “Falestine” and call themselves “Falestinians.” Quite a distortion of the name, wouldn’t you say so, especially when one wishes to establish themselves as the rightful inheritors and owners of a place called “Palestine?”

This leaves inquiring minds such as mine with two questions.

The first is, if anyone wishes to claim legitimate ownership over a territory, why of all names do they choose to be called after invaders, the Philistines, which are recorded as such in the annals of history? Strange, isn’t it?

The second question I have is, if one cannot pronounce the name which one opts to embrace, for the mere purpose of establishing legality of ownership over a territory or any other entity, why use that name? It defeats their goal, does it not?

Again, I have no problem with the right of anyone to be called by the name of their choice. It should be respected. Likewise, though, no one should be denied the right to ask what sounds like valid questions, albeit uncomfortable, questions that are begging to be asked. That, too, should be respected. 

Jewish Rights to Eretz Yisrael, a guide for the perplexed and uneducated

Dear readers,

As some of you might know, I am in the final stages of editing my next novel, with the help of my fantastic editor, Dr. Sandra Alfonsi. The novel, entitled, "Waltzing the Waves," surrounds the sordid affair of the Jewish immigration to Eretz Yisrael during the British Mandate.
Unfortunately, there are still some who claim we have no legal, historical or political rights for Eretz Yisrael. This article is for them! Please share and let us educate the world. Thank you! 

The two most significant events in modern history leading to the creation of the Jewish National Home in Eretz Yisrael:1. The founding of the Zionist Movement by Herzl in 1897 2. The Balfour Declaration of 1917

The Zionist movement which is but part of the noble concept of Zionism, a concept practiced only by Jews for a few millennia was created at the First Zionist Congress in Bazel, Switzerland in 1897. Herzl himself recognized that Judaism is what lies at the core of the Movement when he said:
 “Zionism is the return to Judaism even before the return to the land of the Jews.”

Following the victory over the Ottomans in WWI, the area called Eretz Yisrael which the Romans renamed “Palestine” in an effort to disassociate the Jews from their ancient Homeland, representatives of the Zionist movement, headed by Chaim Weitzman, approached the British government in an effort to impress upon them the need to set up a Jewish National Homeland in Eretz Yisrael.

On November 2^nd, 1917, Lord Arthur James Balfour, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs issued the following:

“Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”

The Balfour Declaration served as the basis and shaped the essence of the British “Mandate For Palestine.”

In 2007 Eli Hertz wrote the following:

“The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000- square-mile3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day. The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920, at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries, and became operational on September 29, 1923.”

In other words, the British were entrusted with the important task of preparing for and setting up of the Jewish Homeland in Eretz Yisrael.

Winston Churchill, the then British Secretary of State for the Colonies, eloquently articulated it in June of 1922 when he said: 

"When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole many take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."

If anyone wishes to rewrite history and remove Jewish rights to Eretz Yisrael in order to replace it with their narrative, a word I have little, if any use for, especially when it comes to the middle east conflict (https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-hell-with-the-narrative-2/), I am afraid they will have to remove Lord Balfour, Winston Churchill, the San Remo Accord and other facts altogether from the annals of history.

Because, when it comes to history, it is the facts that matter. And you all can rest assured that I will keep reminding you of that!

Shabbat Shalom