1.

THE BEGINNING

There are a lot of websites about the Palestinians and the Israelis. Most of them are driven by politics, politicization and even religionization. which threatens the visitor's attention away from that what should be all about: how did they all got into a situation that never seems to end.

It is at least obvious that most of them avoid to begin were you should begin. Indeed, the beginning and that is not whatever temple nor the Al Aqsa mosque.

History is often explained as "umbrella term". That is confusing because it is the presentation of a totality as a whole, so encompassing everything that belongs to that totality. 

If you want everything that belongs to the totality in an arrangement, laying out the exact order in which everything became to exist, you need to speak in terms of chronology, whereby politics, politicization and even religionization are irrelevant.

"Everything" means here any link belonging to an endless chain. And, every link belongs to one other, is part of one other and is associated to one other even when a link is related to a link ahead of it or way back from it. Because, that particular link can't exist if it is not 'sprouted' from a previous link who also needs to 'sprout' from another link. 

Each link presents or represents an event, a happening, an occurrence. In first instance, they look different from each other as they may be about different issues in different situations like one is about religion while the next one is about war.

But, how do they in first become to look different?

There's an religious answer in sense of a story that the Flemish Golden Age painter Pieter Breughel the elder visualized in two versions. One version is to see in Rotterdam, Netherlands. The other version is in Vienna, Austria.

The story? Here's our reflection:

Once , there was one world, one people to whom God have given one language, one thinking, so the unity of One .

But, the people have asked God for more. God asked the people what they would like to have more. The people wanted knowledge. God gave the ability and the skills to learn.

Then, people asked for their own kingdom. God gave them a kingdom. Still, the people were not satisfied as they wanted more than the kingdom they've had. They wanted the same place were God is. So, they started to build. 

When God saw, he warned the people. The people didn't listen and continue to build. God warned the people again. Still, the people refused to listen. When the people nearly reached God's place, they were punished as God took everything they have away.

The world, once one, is shattered into pieces and so the unity of one people now spread over all these shattered pieces.

2.

ALL FROM THE SAME ROOTS

However, Israelites were nomadic people with tribal beliefs as Judaism didn't exist that time. They were driven out from the Amalekite tribe's territory, now Negev desert.

After driven into the north, the Israelites ended up in King David's territory, now the most northern part that borders with Lebanon. But, the king didn't want them either. So, the Israelites were driven out again but from David's kingdom into the direction of the hills of Jerusalem were the driven Israelites themselves also drove a tribe but from one of the hills. That hill would feature in two 19th century ideologies. But only those of Theodor Herzl is written about the most. That is misleading.

But, who started to live on these hills of Jerusalem before whoever was driven out?

Scholars believe the first human settlements took place during the Early Bronze Age—somewhere around 3500 B.C. That is at least a strong indication that Jerusalem became Jewish much and much later.

In the Canaanite period (14th century BCE), Jerusalem was named as Urusalim on ancient Egyptian tablets, probably meaning "City of Shalem" after a Canaanite deity. A strong indication that Jerusalem still wasn't Jewish.

That brings us to the key question: is Judaism an offshoot from another belief? Yes. because it arose from the Canaanite multi-gods belief. Moreover, the early period of the Hebrew religion -it wasn't named Judaism- had still all the elements of the Canaanite multi-godization.

Then we have Christianity which is rooted in Second Temple Judaism thus an offshoot from the Jewish.

And so it looks that one after the other is rooted from one other. 

What do we miss here?

Centuries long lack of awareness that it is about a chain, linking one belief to another belief all the way, yes, even to Islam!

But, one does not belong here: erasure of the other .... by force, by falsehood, by politicization and most of all by religionization.

3.

ABOUT THE FIRST (BIBLE) PEOPLE

In our country the Netherlands, there's a body naming itself "Center for Information and Documentation Israel". It calls itself 'Jewish'.  But, were does "Jewish" actually come from?

Every 'truth' has a beginning. But not everybody starts from there.

The problem is that even the Israelis do not know were the Israelites really came from. Becoming Jewish and being always Jewish are two different stories. And so is the issue about the modern-day Israelis. All of them became Israelis ... in 1948. So, were does this all come from?

Like it is said, even here the 'truth' has a begin not everybody starts with.

The history of Palestine is the study of the past in the region of Palestine, defined as the territory. The name "Palestine" originally comes from “Philistia,” which refers to the Philistines, and first appeared in the 12th century BC when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria with that name.

Philistines are believed to be people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine. They were at least there when the Israelites arrived (see map on the left). The Philistines are not indigenous to Canaan. However, there's not much clearness about the roots Canaanites either.

In the Book of Genesis, the Philistines are said to descend from the Casluhites, an Egyptian people. Modern-day scientists appear to have differences in view: from 'Arab descend', Egyptian, and recently even claimed as 'from Greece'. It gives at least the idea that today's Palestinians may not related to the Philistine people, noted that these ancient people have disappeared.

But, the Israelites are also not indigenous people. How did this happen?

Again this question: who started to live on these hills of Jerusalem?

As already said, scholars believe the first human settlements took place during the Early Bronze Age—somewhere around 3500 B.C. That is at least a strong indication that Jerusalem became Jewish much and much later.

According to (Jewish) scholars, in the Canaanite period (14th century BCE), Jerusalem was named by Egyptians "Urusalim", probably meaning "City of Shalem", after a Canaanite deity. A strong indication that Jerusalem still wasn't Jewish.

Then, Israelites were nomadic people who practiced tribal multi-godization and who arrived in the Amalekite's tribal habitat in what is now the Negev desert, and after the Philistines settled along the southern coast of Canaan, now Palestine. But the Amalekites drove the Israelites into north. This small detail is not told by Jews nor by Christians but those close aligned to Jews.

The historical scientific explanation doesn't align with the this:

There were two groups of people who entered Canaan. The first group are written as those freed from slavery and were led by Moses (in Islam, Musa). The other group are written as those who migrated and were led by Abraham (in Islam: Ibrahim). 

Now from a religious point of view this question: Who did already live in the area, noting that the two groups had to arrive, one from ancient Egypt and the other group from  Ur in Mesopotamia.

That brings us to the phrase "promised land", which is also adjective as it is written as a referral to Abraham (Ibrahim) who is described as a prophet. But, it is also a referral to Moses (Musa).

So, God made a promise two times and to two different people?

But, notice what is to read in the referral to Abraham as "nations' and 'kings' are plural, which reads as references to today's 'countries' and 'leaders' and that is exactly how the world still is today.

Stories like those of Moses and Abraham are written in a particular age were the world was different, were the people were different, and were the way of thinking was different. So, the way things in the Old Testimony has been written had to be read the way it was meant to be read .... as from that time. The more people get evolved, the more their way of thinking modernizes, the greater their distance from an originality or roots. For instance:

The story of the Tower Of Babel you just have read is NOT its original but  -what is called the New International Version or NIV.

The initial story may be something we would like to reflect this way:

Once , there was one world, one people to whom God have given one language, one thinking, so the unity of One .

But, the people have asked God for more. God asked the people what they would like to have more. The people wanted knowledge. God gave the ability and the skills to learn. Then, people asked for their own kingdom. God gave them a kingdom.

Still, the people were not satisfied as they wanted more than the kingdom they've had. They wanted the same place were God is. So, they started to build. 

When God saw, he warned the people. The people didn't listen and continue to build. God warned the people again. Still, the people refused to listen.

When the people reached God's place, they were punished as God took everything they have away. The world, once one, is shattered into pieces and so the unity of one people now spread over all these shattered pieces.

If we materialize both NIV version and our own reflection, "shattered pieces" refers to the state our planet was at the beginning of the prehistoric ages:

One continental shelve broke in pieces (in modern times known as tectonic plates), which floated away from one other to become the continents we still know today.

The phrase "who would make you into nations" from the referral about Abraham refers to the first inhabitants on these 'pieces' 

So, we see a link between the 'Tower of Babel' and the story of Abraham because of this question: were the stories written to mean something other than religion? The answer? You have to think outside the modern-day box to realize that is a way of documenting that part of history.

'GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE' & 'PROMISED LAND'

Throughout history, various groups of people have considered themselves to be the chosen people. The phenomenon of a "god's chosen people" is centuries old.

There is no conclusive information that tells us how exactly people thought at the time when they started to record events we can read in religious books, whether it is the bible or the Koran. We only know what was written but only after and from interpretation, reinterpretation to modernization of reinterpretation. The basis of all this is what it is known from times centuries after Christ and Mohammed.

One of the four earliest known recording appears to be the Codex Sinaiticus,  an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in uncial letters on parchment and dated paleographically to the mid-4th century after CE*.

Other codex are the Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE*) and the Leningrad Codex (c. 1008 CE*). The authors could only have written if there were sources.

These sources are inscriptions on (clay) tablets as they were the medium before parchment became in use. It is even not known who the authors (name of the engravers) of the inscriptions on tablets where.

Another example are the Dead Sea scrolls which in 1947 were found in a cave, not caves near  Khirbet Qumran in the West Bank.

The Israelis only mention that the scrolls are in Hebrew while there are also scrolls found written in Aramaic and in Greek, which partially answers the question who wrote them, namely authors from three different groups of people.

Like the found remaining pieces of tablets, it is about pieces or fragments from ancient documents. So, each found ancient documents misses parts of handwritings, which makes it impossible to learn the exact meaning of the content on each document even when you use the most advanced technology like artificial intelligence.

The first people who started to record did the same as what we do in modern times, namely quoting and referring to who- or whatever a record might have been come from, like this example which we have used before:

Genesis is not a person as it means "In the beginning" and is the title of, what is called a book. That book does not have the age of the biblical events as it is written when "In the beginning" already had taken place. Nobody knows to what time "In the Beginning" really refers to unless we put it in the context of the evolution of our planet (see image on the right).

We also would like to remind the reader that "nations and who would be kings" are plural, which suggest that 'nations' is symbolic for world, because you don't read 'land' in the referral to Abraham.

So, if Genesis is only the name of a title, then who wrote it, when was written and on what was it originally written?

The Israeli claim that says they're the "god's chosen people" appears to be hollow as there is no ancient handwritten document that support their claim. 
 

----------------------

Used sources:

Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC; Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium; Britannica; Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art of The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York; Religion Wikia; Biblia by Faithlife; Jewish Virtual Library;

*) Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE) are abbreviations used by the Jewish for the reason, what they claim,  "to avoid religious partiality". But, the Jewish religion is partial. First, because of their own god. YHWH, which is not the god of the Israelites (Britannica) as they had a tribal belief of multigodization,  Second, their belief stops there were the New Testimony begins.

4.

THE CLAIM OF JERUSALEM

Speaking about tablets. This map in the French language shows you the situation during the Egyptian Amarna period.

The Amarna Letters are a group of around 400 clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform (“wedge-shaped”) Akkadian writing that date to the fourteenth century B.C. and were found at the site of Tell el-Amarna, the short-lived capital of ancient Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten (ca. 1353–1336 B.C.). Most of these letters come from vassal cities in Syria-Palestine, including Byblos, Tyre, Gezer, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), Ashkelon, Megiddo, and Jerusalem.

The letters from Jerusalem (written as “Urusalim” in the Amarna texts) are from a Canaanite ruler named Abdi-Heba.

In multiple letters Abdi-Heba states that he “falls at the feet of my lord the king, seven times and seven times,” a stock phrase and common ancient Near Eastern motif that conveys his faithfulness to his Egyptian suzerain. He also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king.”  This is a clear indication that he wasn't the heir to the throne as it was given by the Egyptian king himself.

But, Abdi-Heba is a theophoric name invoking a Hurrian goddess named Hebat,  implying that the Jebusites were Hurrians themselves, were heavily influenced by Hurrian culture, or were dominated by a Hurrian maryannu class.

The letters come a few centuries before King David would ostensibly vanquish the Jebusite tribe of Jerusalem and make it his own capital. So, to our understanding, Abdi-Heba appears to be from Hurrian descend. He led, however, the Jebusite tribe, whom roots is unclear.

According to Edward Lipinski, professor of Oriental and Slavonic studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, the Jebusites were most likely from the Amorite tribe (see map) who are ancient Semitic-speaking people who dominated the history of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine from about 2000 to about 1600 BC. Lipinski identified the Jebusites with the group referred to as Yabusi'um in a cuneiform letter found in the archive of Mari, Syria.

However, most Biblical scholars hold the opinion that the Jebusites were identical to the Hittite tribe, originally Indo-European who entered the area better known as Anatolia, in Turkey and from there into Upper Mesopotamua..

This indicates that the Jebusite tribe are also not the indigenous people of Jerusalem nor of Canaan just like the Israelites. They are at least the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem, and named after Jebus the strongest fortress in Canaan.

It is very clear that Jerusalem became Jewish by means of King David. So, it is completely false to claim that Jerusalem is Jewish. The fact is that Jerusalem became Jewish and after King David's desire was bloodily fulfilled. That is a much different story.

During the Medieval Ages, Christianity, an offshoot of Judaism, returned back to Palestine and reached Jerusalem in a similar way: also by wars but by Crusaders to drive out the Muslim rulers. But, the city returned under Muslim ruling centuries later: by the Ottomans.

If we would continue to speak in a religious way, we then would reflect: God didn't make Jerusalem Jewish. Warriors did. And, if we translate to the year:

• 1947 and later: God didn't make Jerusalem Jewish. East European migrants did;
• 2018 to 2020, God didn't make Jerusalem Jewish. the orthodox Jew Jarred Kushner, his father-in-law Donald Trump and the Israeli troublemaker Netanyahu did.

It is important to mention that the name 'Israel' and its adjectives 'Israelis' and 'Israeli'' are misleading as the Israelis lets you believe that theirs is from 'Israelites'. Israelites were a nomadic tribal people. 'Israelis' is adjective the East European Jewish migrants have given to themselves in 1948. They enforced international recognition of that naming after having assassinated the Swedish UN diplomat, Folke Bernadotte in that year.

THE TEMPLE CLAIM

Let us begin with some referals:

1 Chronicles 17:1 issues the covenant King David had with God and reads:

1 Chronicles 17:2 also concerns the covenant King David had with God and reads:

But, God said to Nathan, the prophet “Go and tell my servant (King) David, that he's not the one to build me a house to dwell in.”.

The words "to build me a house to dwell in” refers to a temple King David wanted to build. David was not allowed to build because of the bloodshed he created during his siege to take Jerusalem from the Jebusites. His son, King Solomon was allowed to build. His temple was record as completed in 957 BCE*.

Also, the biblical story continues to tell that King David only collected the material needed to build. That means he didn't build the temple.  So, were does the pictured claim come from?

Comment on 1 Chronicles 17:2: the use of the word "replied" keeps the reader in the darkness as the used word forces to ask how did he replied: by saying or by writing?

RECAP

It is widely accepted that the Jebusites were the first who inhabited the hills of what is later named Jerusalem. The record about the existence of a fortress carrying the name Jebus; described as the strongest in Canaan; to whom the tribe owes its name, supports the acceptance.

The 'general'accepted finding actually means that the ground is Jesubite, not Jewish. The story tells about how King David's city was build: "upon the ruins" but not by himself as he wasn't allowed to build. It was his son Solomon who build. Nevertheless, it means that the city but only encompassing the buildings, not the ground upon they are build, can be described as by King Solomon, the son of King David.

The biblical situation reminds us to the Al Aqsa compound which groundplan is declared by an UN resolution, whereby underneath the compound is considered as Jewish, everything above is Palestinian. But this resolution ignores the fact that the Israeli claim is about a temple build on the grounds which where the habitat of the Jesubites.

We also know that there is disagreement in view about the roots of the Jebusites: from the Amorite tribe from Northern Syria, then a part of Mesopotamia' to identical to the Hittite tribe in today's Turkey. It means at least that the Jebusites were not indigenous to Canaan.

The Israelites were a nomadic tribe who entered the Amelekite habitat in what is now the Negev desert. The Israelites were driven from the habitat and into northern regions. They were also not indigenous to Canaan.

The first temple was planned to build after King David started a bloody onslaught to drive the Jebusites from the Jerusalem hills, destroyed the city that was build by the Jesubite tribe, then build his own one upon the ruins city and then came to the idea to build, not a temple but a temple of his own.

However, in the Bible is to read that David wasn't allowed by God to build a temple because of his bloody onslaught. So, he didn't build the temple himself. His son King Solomon was allowed to build a temple. A third temple was never build.

If we could draw an conclusion, it would be:

None of the mentioned group of people were and are not native to the location.That also means the Israelis can not claim the ground as theirs.

------------------

Used sources:

Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC; Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium; Britannica; Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art of The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York; Religion Wikia; Biblia by Faithlife; Jewish Virtual Library;

*) Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE) are abbreviations used by the Jewish for the reason, what they claim,  "to avoid religious partiality". But, the Jewish religion is partial. First, because of their own god. YHWH, which is not the god of the Israelites (Britannica) as they had a tribal belief of multigodization,  Second, their belief stops there were the New Testimony begins.

5.

ISLAM: ROOTS & BIRTH

There's a story about the birth of Islam that goes like this:

The Prophet Mohammed had an uncle who was a trader. His uncle traveled often to the region what is now Palestine. As a young boy, Mohammed often joined hm. In the region, that might issue the era when it was under Roman control, Mohammed saw a lot of things he didn't understand. Well, his uncle does. 

On one of his uncle's trip, Mohammed saw women who were fully covered. He wanted to know why the women where dressed that way. The story about this issue but explained in the Koran, known as from Mohammed's  uncle, comes actually from a story that is known in the Old Testimony:

A story about an orgy appears to include a detail about women who where scarcely dress and drunk. When God saw, He told Moses  -in Islam he's named Musa-  that the women should cover themselves.

The (conservative) Jewish interpretation is that women shouldn't wear men's clothes, and that men shouldn't wear women's clothes. The (conservative) Muslim interpretation is that women should cover their head (Iran) or even from top to toe (Saudi Arabia). These are misinterpretations as God only said to Musa (Moses) that women should cover themselves. He didn't told Musa that women should wear a burka, a hijab or a headscarf.

Mohammed also saw groups of people visiting buildings he had noticed. He wanted to know from his uncle what these buildings are and what the people he saw were doing there. They are temples to pray, his uncle explained. The mosque (and the church) has its roots here. And so collected Mohammed his experiences he later wrote in a manuscript. 

When Mohammed returned to Mecca, he began to share his experiences. But somehow his speeches turned into prophecy. The religion of Islam was born.

And, there were religions born, there's also disagreements, differences in view, bringing opponents to the idea to begin their own enunciations, which often didn't went peacefully. Because, Mohammed fought four wars and lost the last one.

However, an important detail has never been cleared:

There's a story about a caliph who killed Prophet Mohammed. To our understanding it must be an caliph who ruled the region what is now Iraq and Iran as Mohammed's last war was fought there.

The caliph became aware that Mohammed's knowledge would disappear if no one preserves it. So he send couriers and soldiers out into his newly seized land to record witness experiences from those who were in whatever way with Mohammed.

The caliph also became aware that there were 4 pages from Mohammed's manuscript left. They were in the possession of one of Mohammed's wives. The caliph send a representative to the woman to ask if she would lend the remaining pages with the promise that they will be returned. 

Then, the caliph called his scientists to ask them to write a manuscript based on these four pages but must contain the caliph's views. These views also includes the way he wants to rule and to punish. They should burn these 4 pages when they have completed their writing. That manuscript is the real first Koran.

This ancient legend indicates that the roots of birth of Islam, so not the birth, appears to be the region what is today's Palestine but Mecca remains the place were Mohammed's lectures turned into prophecy, to many seen as the birth of Islam. 

But, in Britannica you will find this:

"Muhammad is the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān, Islam's sacred scripture. He spent his entire life in what is now the country of Saudi Arabia, from his birth about 570 CE in Mecca to his death in 632 in Medina."

Nevertheless, the belief of the Muslims can be considered as Semitic because of the roots of  Islam's birth.

-------------

photo 1. Mohammed's early life

photo 2. Mohammed in the Battle Of Badr

photo 3 & 4. Earliest mosque found in Tiberias

6.

JUST ANOTHER CONTINUATION

Let us begin with this quote

"Jews" is the name the people carry to present themselves as belonging to a belief.  This belief, Judaism is an offshoot from ttribal beliefs as the map on the left shows that there where no Jews at the time of the map.

In other words: 'Jews' is not a race. So is 'Jewish' as that is a reference in terms of relating to, associated with, or denoting.

We also know that the Israelites were not the indigenous people of Canaan just like the Philistines. The Israelites arrived in Canaan when the Philistines were already there.

But, there's a similar development more into the direction of the Modern Ages as we notice that the Israelis are also not indigenous people.

Israelis can only claim being indigenous if their entire ancestry directly leads to the very first Jews. That is not the case. Nor does their ancestries directly lead to the Jews who fled the Roman controlled Palestine.

As people, the Israelis descend from European Jewish migrants who have resorted themselves in the politicization of religionized ideas, abandoning themselves from pure religion. How did this happen?

In the 16th and 17th centuries a number of “messiahs” came forward trying to persuade Jews to “return” to Palestine.

The Haskala (“Jewish Enlightenment”) movement of the late 18th century urged Jews to assimilate into Western secular society.

Today's equivalent to assimilate in the Western secular society (see table) is by penetration into vital resources the public opinion rely on, such as politics, news, social media, education. An example is this:

In August 2010, we have find out that entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on the Jewish issue were constantly altered by by the Zionist group "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" (CAMERA). So, we do no longer rely on Wikipedia.

In the early 19th century interest in a return of the Jews to Palestine was kept alive mostly by Christian millenarians, not by the Hungarian born Theodor Herzl.

In 1905, there was a wave of pogroms and repressions in Russia after the failure of the revolution. Thousands of Russian Jewish youth were incited by the Ḥovevei Ẕiyyon (“Lovers of Zion”), led by Austrians and Germans, to migrate to Palestine. It was the first assimilation campaign in the 20th century from outside Palestine.

These historical events not only prove that the roots of the ancestors of the ancestors of the Israelis, is in Eastern Europe. Israelis from 1947 to present are no other then those who also have their roots in Europe and therefre not to be considered as "indigenous people".

7.

LEBENSRAUM

Let us repeat this question: what is history?

The abstract meaning is scientific study of the past. In a more broader sense, it is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events.

However, "umbrella term" is confusing because it is the presentation of a totality as a whole, so encompassing everything that belongs to that totality. But, if you want everything that belongs to the totality in an arrangement, laying out the exact order in which everything became to exist, you need to speak in terms of chronology, whereby politics, politicization and even religionization are irrelevant.

"Everything" means here any link belonging to an endless chain. And, every link belongs to one other, is part of one other and is associated to one other even when a link is related to a link ahead of it or way back from it. Because, that particular link can't exist if it is not 'sprouted' from a previous link who also needs to 'sprout' from another link. That's what a chronology is. Only an untouched chronology of events presents the truth, not the politicization and religionization by snippet practices.

Each link presents or represents an event, a happening, an occurrence. In first instance, they look different from each other as they may be about different issues in different situations like one is about religion while the next one is about war. But, are they really that different?

For instance, "lebensraum" is the naming for a territory which a group, state, or nation believes it is needed for its survival. The term is best known in the context of Nazism were it was based upon Johan Rudolf Kjellén's geopolitical interpretation of Friedrich Ratzel's human-geography term.

The Nazis established "lebensraum" as the racist rationale of their foreign policy by which they began the Second World War. They needed Eastern Europe to fulfill that idea, which was introduced on September 1, 1939.

This absurd idea isn't new as a similar development occurred seven decades earlier but in the context of 'religionization' of politicized ideas.

The resurfacing of Zionism in 1897 was also about establishing of such territory as Theodor Herzl proclaimed that Jews have the right to have their own land. At that time, Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire.

So, on May 15, 1901 Herzl went to sultan Abdul Hamid to ask for autonomy of Palestine. The sultan denied. Herzl then went to the British who had a powerful influence in that region. But they offered Herzl Uganda. Herzl rejected that offer.

On August 25,1933 German Zionists reached and signed an agreement the Nazis. It is known as the Haavara Agreement.

The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

It was a major factor in making the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine possible between 1933–1939.

It is clear that the Zionists were already looking before the Nazis came to that idea ..... 'lebensraum'.

8.

NO HISTORICAL CONTINUITY

PART 1. GENETIC ROOTS

CAMERA is a Israeli Zionist group that portrays itself as "reporting" and "analyzing" the Middle East. But, its website is full of attacks, mystifications, and isn't about the Middle East but the Israelis and against anything that relates to the Palestinians.

The organization is also active on Wikipedia were it in 2010 began to incite supporters of the Israelis by providing hasbara knowledge needed to alter entries to disseminate which makes Wikipedia no longer neutral on this issue. For example:

But, what does history show?

A number of pre-British Mandatory (of Palestine) Zionists, from Ahad Ha'am and Ber Borochov to David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi thought of the Palestinian peasant population as descended from the ancient biblical Hebrews, but this belief was disowned when its ideological implications became problematic. Ahad Ha'am believed that,

"the Moslems [of Palestine] are the ancient residents of the land ... who became Christians on the rise of Christianity and became Moslems on the arrival of Islam."

Israel Belkind, the founder of the Bilu movement also have said that the Palestinian Arabs were the blood brothers of the Jews. Ber Borochov, one of the key ideological architects of Marxist Zionism, claimed as early as 1905 that.

These statements have one thing in common: they are related to the question: who is indigenous?

However, there are several definitions about 'indigenous', one of which we prefer to follow: the definition that refers to the notion of a place-based human ethnic culture that has not migrated from its homeland, and is not a settler or colonial population.

During the Roman Empire, Jews had chosen to decide to flee Palestine, which means that they also had chosen to give up their sovereignty by leaving, no matter the reason, to resettle elsewhere. So, if they resettle elsewhere, their historical continuity also resets, and those after them, their historical continuity had yet to start running.

We didn't mention the possibility to define the roots of an ethnic group by using (medical) scientific methods such as generic profiling.

But, to be able to do such profile, you need samples of the very first people to match them with samples of today's people, not the samples of people from a cherry picked (Canaan) era or samples from a cherry picked (Jewish) group of people like the diagram below is showing. It looks very identical to similar diagrams but about the distribution of the first humans, starting from the region of what is now Uganda and Kenya into north, crossing the discussed region into what is now Turkey, and from there into and across Europe and to Asia.

Is the unknown source trying to tell that the roots of the Jewish is anywhere in the sub-Saharan region, Ethiopia for example?

In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians – and other Levantines – are genetically closer to each other than the Jews to their host countries. Many Palestinians themselves referred to their Jewish neighbours as their awlâd 'ammnâ or paternal cousins.

According to a 2010 study by Behar et al. titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people", Palestinians tested clustered genetically close to Bedouins, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians which was described as "consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula". In the same year a study by Atzmon and Harry Ostrer concluded that the Palestinians were, together with Bedouins, Druze and southern European groups, the closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish populations.

One DNA study by Nebel found substantial genetic overlap among Palestinian Arabs and Ashkenazi* and Sephardic* Jews. A small but statistically significant difference was found in the Y-chromosomal haplogroup distributions of Sephardic Jews and Palestinians, but no significant differences were found between Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians nor between the two Jewish communities. However, a highly distinct cluster was found in Palestinian haplotypes. 32% of the 143 Arab Y-chromosomes studied belonged to this "I&P Arab clade", which contained only one non-Arab chromosome, that of a Sephardic Jew. This could possibly be attributed to the geographical isolation of the Jews or to the immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium. Nebel proposed that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD".

The problem with generic science is that it isn't telling which generation(s) from a Jewish or Palestinian group that have been researched to base findings like it is written above. Also, such science is in our view cherry picking in the evolution of the Middle East. Because, it is only about comparing one group of people with another group of people. It is even not about defining the geographic roots of anyone's origin but an attempt to prove anyone's identity.

Let's take another example:

“Ashkenaz” is Hebrew and refers to Germany. However, in this American newspaper we found that 'Ashkenazi'' are those who originated in Eastern Europe. That is weird as 'Ashkenazi'' is adjective and supposed to be to people who are from “Ashkenaz”. But, it looks that Ashkenazi Jews have their origin in a comnplete different part of the world. Here's a citiation from an article written by Eran Elhaik, lecturer in population, medical and evolutionary genomics, University of Sheffield

"It starts in Persia (modern-day Iran) during the sixth century. This is where most of the world’s Jews were living at this time.

The tolerance of the Persians encouraged the Jews to adopt Persian names, words, traditions, and religious practices, and climb up the social ladder gaining a monopoly on trade. They also converted other people who were living along the Black Sea, to their Jewish faith. This helped to expand their global network.

Among these converts were the Alans (Iranian nomadic pastoral people), Greeks, and Slavs who resided along the southern shores of the Black Sea. Upon conversion, they translated the Old Testament into Greek, built synagogues, and continued expanding the Jewish trade network."

With all respect, but we see the failure of realizing that it is about studying a selected link belonging to an endless chain, which gives immense amount of knowledge but only about the selected link, the Ashkenazi Jews.  If you want everything that belongs to the totality in an arrangement, laying out the exact order in which everything became to exist, you need to speak in terms of chronology, whereby scientific fractioning as written above, politics, politicization and even religionization are then irrelevant if they are not connected with one other.

If we look at science of humanity, it is the study of connections. For instance, if you want to know how people though during the 16th and 17th centuries, just look in the arts in writing, painting and what's behind the composing of music. But we don't see this when it comes to a history. It is about, let us say 'everything' that belongs to a history. 

"Everything" means here any link belonging to an endless chain. And, every link belongs to one other, is part of one other and is associated to one other even when a link is related to a link ahead of it or way back from it. Because, that particular link can't exist if it is not 'sprouted' from a previous link who also needs to 'sprout' from another link. Each link presents or represents an event, a happening, an occurrence. In first instance, they look different from each other as they may be about different issues in different situations like one is about the Palestinian Jews while the next one is about Palestinian Arabs.

If we go back to the ancient times,  we see that the Philistines, the Amalekites, the Canaanites, the people of Moses, the Hebrews (= Abrahamic people) also don't have a historical continiuty as the history of urbanization did not begin with them. They all have their predecessors too. These predecessors are the early modern humans and they also came from elsewhere as the map below shows .

So, you simply can't say that archaeological and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites. They didn't as they appear to become to exist via extensively mixing between Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Anatolians. Another strong indication that Israelis don't have any historical continuity.

9.

NO HISTORICAL CONTINUITY

PART 2. INVENTION BY TERRORISM

“I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it’s tragic.”

In an angerily response, the spokesman for the then American Task Force on Palestine, Hussein Ibish, said:

“There was no Israel and no such thing as an “Israeli people” before 1948. So the idea that Palestinians are ‘an invented people’ while Israelis somehow are not is historically indefensible and inaccurate. Such statements seem to merely reflect deep historical ignorance and an irrational hostility towards Palestinian identity and nationalism.”

On December 4, 2020 Tzipi Hotovely, on that day the new ambassador to the UK, said in her first speech that Nakba is "a very strong and very popular Arab lie." She added that the displacement of Palestinians since 1948, is "a made up story". Hotovely is known to us as a Zionist with an appalling record of racist and inflammatory misbehavior.

It is not the first time that stubborn hardline Israelis come with utterances but after American hardline idiots have done already. So it is about the rhetoric "Hamas is a terrorist organization"

Avraham Stern, Yitzhak Shamir, Nathan Yellin-Mor were the three leaders. Stern and Shamir were both Zionist migrant from Poland while Zionist Yellin-Mor migrated from Belarus. So, none of them where indigenous people of Palestine.

The group split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II.

Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine. On May 29, 1948, the Zionist migrants rooted government formally disbanded Lehi. However ...

At the end of May 1948 Count Folke Bernadotte received a telegram from the UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie with an inquiry if Bernadotte would be willing to undertake the mission of acting as the UN’s mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Folke Bernadotte thereby became the UN’s first official mediator in the organization’s short history.

Folke Bernadotte proceeded to formulate a proposal for a more sustainable solution to the conflict, and drafted a roadmap to peace.

According to the plan the formerly British mandate Palestine should become a union between Jews and Arabs, where the Jewish part would consist of Israel and the Arabic part would consist of the Kingdom of Transjordan (today’s Jordan).

The plan caused outrage among both parties and was turned down by Israel as well as all Arab states except Transjordan. The Swedish Count UN diplomat then began to work on a new proposal for a peaceful solution to the conflict. But he never had a chance to present it to the UN General Assembly.

When Folke Bernadotte traveled in a convoy of three cars on his way to negotiations in Jerusalem in the afternoon on September 17, the Zionist terrorists set up an ambush by pretending their car broke down. That's how the UN convoy was stopped in the Katamon quarter.

Bernadotte opened the backseat side window to see for himself what was ahead on the road. He asked a person in camouflage fatigue who was running into his direction.

The man who run into Bernadotte's direction was carrying a British-made machinegun. He asked Bernadotte if he is the person with this name. Bernadotte confirmed, which prompted the armed man to pour his weapon through the open window.

Then he opened fire and a rain of bullets went through the car hitting Count Bernadotte and Colonel Andre P. Serot, French Air Forces, United Nations Observer several times, while Colonel Serot died instantly. Bernadotte lost consciousness almost immediately but died within a few minutes of his arrival at Hadassah Hospital.

The man who shot and murdered was Yitzak Shamir. The two other men, Ben-Moshe and Steinberg shot at the tires of the UN vehicles, while Cohen was firing at the radiator of Bernadotte's car.

Yitzak Shamir became prime minsiter from October 20, 1986 to July 13, 1992. The Russian Zionist migrant Menachim Begin (marked below), another member of the terrorist group succeeded Shamir as prime minister.

The day after the terrorist attack, the United Nations Security Council condemned the killing of Bernadotte as

"a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists in Jerusalem while the United Nations representative was fulfilling his peace-seeking mission in Palestine."

On the website of the US State Department, on top of the page the visitor will read this

"On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day."

On that page, no single word about the attack!

The Zionist migrants from Central and Eastern Europe, on May 11, 1949 officially named 'Israelis', they were admitted to the United Nations as a full member on that day.

10.

EXPLOITING A WORLD WAR

The Nazi's need of Eastern Europe as 'lebensraum' was covered by Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels who instigated and incited Jew hatred by holding series of speeches full with falsehood and other lies.

But, don't we all know similar developments in our present time? Yes, we do but there are too many among us who pretend these developments as they do not exist. Well, they do! Here are 54 quotes:

Click here to open in full screen (and to download)

The oldest example is only known by people who are familiar with the history about how the Israelis became the first in the introduction of military use of nuclear material in the Middle East.:

During the mid-summer of 1960, an American corporate official was talking to U.S. diplomats in Tel Aviv while sharing information about construction activities near Dimona. The diplomats documented the conversation in a cable they send to Washington. John F. Kennedy immediately wanted explanation about the activities.

But the Israelis repeatedly provided less than credible answers. It was the site of a textile factory, the Israelis said. Well, not quiet a lie because there was such factory there. But, when the Americans demanded a visit to the site, the Israelis turned aggressive. The Israeli leader David Ben Gurion felt the pressure that came from John F. Kennedy's administration. He had to say something. So he came with this: ".. to prevent a second Holocaust from happening".

The documentation of the cables and other files on the Israeli nuclear issue are here.

In September 1950, the Germans signed a agreement to pay a sum of 3 billion marks over the next fourteen years; 450 million marks were paid to the World Jewish Congress. The payments were made to the Israelis -who just had their name since three years- as the heir to those victims who had no surviving family. So, 450 million marks paid to an organization that is traditionally deeply rooted in almost all strategic economical and financial position worldwide. 

In April 2015, the then FBI director James Comey wrote in an Washington Post article:

This is a clear insinuation against Poland as "murderers and accomplices" is also a description against that country. Comey's remark is also an accusation against the Polish for being responsible for the concentration camps in Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka.

Comey ignores the fact that Poland was invaded and occupied by the Nazis on September 1, 1939. That's two days before Britain and France declared war on the Nazis. Poland also became the first country under control but by two powers acting in accordance with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Germany acquired 48.4% of the former Polish territory. Comey's remark shows amateurism in the history of the Second World War as it is heavily influenced by the pro-Zionist stance the US has for decades.

In 2016, the Israelis demanded compensation from Poland that must have been inspired by remarks and statement such as of James Comey. But in Poland, conservatist Jaroslaw Kaczynski did the same but from Germany. That would sound logical as the country was taken by the Nazis (and the Soviets). Still, Polish right-wing groups protested against Germany as it didn't compensate Poland the way the Israelis are, who didn't exist during the war. The Germans never provided a proper explanation.

Germany vows to stand with the Israelis despite the Holocaust. But as said before, the Israelis don't have an historical link to the war. East European Jewish migrant just gave themselves the adjective in 1948. That's three years after the war. The map below suppose to bring awareness that we have to talk about two different groups of migrants: those who left during the rise of Nazism in Germany, which the map shows, and those who left during the rise of Zionism which spread from Austria, Germany to Britain. That was in 1947.

Those who became Israelis in 1948, they were the first converted Zionists who were already in Palestine since 1947. No Jews arrived there because they all went the the Americas while smaller numbers went to other regions of the world. And those the Israelis consider as Holocaust survivors, their historical continuity as such survivor ends when leaving for a place outside Europe. The Holocaust just simply didn't happen in Palestine.  The Israeli demand has simply no relation to the war but with, what we call the "Zionization of the Second World War" as the Israelis made it as an inseparable part of the "1948 event'. That's were the Israeli hunt for compensations come from.

Exploiting of the Second World War is just part of the Israeli Zionist survival strategy. That is why the Israelis use a protocol for foreigner leaders when they come to visit, and that systematically includes a "ceremony" at Yadvashem to send visiting leaders the message "you should put us first" as if the whole world is responsible for something that took place in Europe but by the Israelis has been hijacked to use it for their own (Zionist) cause. 

What strikes us so deeply is that you will never hear from the Israelis, that the highest number of Jews, killed by the Nazis, is in the Netherlands. Three quarter of the Jewish community in that country just uprooted. Jews who never came to the ideas to leave their country for a Zionist cause. 

However, exploiting the war has also other dimensions:

In July 2015, the then republican candidate Mike Huckabee said to the right-wing outlet Breibart: 

He made this utter remark to express his opposition against the JCPOA agreement that was signed on July 14th by the so-called P5+1 on the Iranian nuclear program.

In October 2015, Netanyahu have accused the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during W.W.II, Haj Amin al-Husseini, of causing the Holocaust and "fomenting the final solution" while giving a speech at the World Zionist Conference in Jerusalem.

11.

WHO IS INDIGENOUS ?

 (and the misuse of antisemitism by (pro-) Israelis)

The Israelis also try to protect and preserve their cause in another way: falsifying, mystifying and denying.  It goes like this:

On June 9, 2020 Netanyahu uttered the terms "invented Palestinians" and "indigenous Jews". That is a disgusting copy as it has its origin to the person of the American republican hardliner Newt Gingrich. 

That brings us the question: what is 'indigenous'?

In non-institutionalized definition, 'indigenous' is adjective and refers to the notion of a place-based human ethnic culture that has not migrated from its homeland, and is not a settler or colonial population.

Merriam Webster dictionary explains 'indigenous' as the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group

The institutionalized definition about 'indigenous' as written by the United Nations:

The basis is poor as the 6 points are completely vague and open for any interpretation. The second point is even an attempt to falsify the chronology inherent to historical continuity.

Self-identification is an autonomous act but leads to inaccuracy when it comes to "Jew" and "Israeli".  "Jew" adjective to a religion that sprouted as an offshoot from another belief. while "Israeli" is adjective to the results forthcoming from developments that have led to the invention in 1948.  The roots is the assassination of a UN diplomat in September 1948, which in return has its roots in the invasion of the Zionist migrants in 1947, which in return is a continuation from the early 1900s.

Any continuity is about the continuation of a cycle of events over an immeasurable period of time, and the recognition of events as inseparably interconnected. So it is when we speak about historical continuity.

However, the cycle didn't start to run by the assassination. It was running for thousands and thousands of years. But, not every event belongs to a certain historical continuity as they may have their roots in another continuity. For instance, the migration from Eastern Europe in 1905 was not by ethnic related cycle. There was a revolution in Russia, which prompted Russian Jews to flee. The migration from Central and Eastern Europe in 1947 was even by an religionized political invention in 1897, Zionism. So it is when we look at the continuity from a biblical perspective.

If we focus on what is biblical written, then there were two groups of people who entered Canaan. The first group are written as those freed from slavery and were led by Moses (in Islam, Musa). The other group are written as those who migrated from Mesopotamia and were led by Abraham (in Islam: Ibrahim). This means that there are two historical continuities: one that started in Egypt and the other in Mesopotamia.

So, according to our understanding, there is no proven historical continuity that relates modern-day Jews to the people, documented by historians as led by Moses, because there is no evidence found in the Sinai.

There's also no historic continuity that relates the Jews with the Abrahamic tribe as the first Jews have no roots in Mesopotamia were the Abrahamic tribe came from (see map).

Interesting is this:

'Hebrew' appears to be adjective to the Abrahamic people as a tribe, and who are named after the language they spoke: Hebrews. This indicates that the Hebrew language is not native to Canaan but to the region were Abraham came from, Ur in today's Iraq 

Then this, if we connect any historic continuity to the Israelites, to whom the Israelis liken themselves with by linking them with the victory on the conquest of Jebus by King David, the question rises how did David became king of these tribe while he had his kingdom far north and away from the territory now known as the Negev Deser. A desert that was inhabit by the Amalekites. 

The people who entered the territory of the Amalekites from the south, by Jews described as Israelites, these people ended up in the territory of King David who drove them out into the direction of the hills of Jebus. But, the Jews still connect the Israelites with King David's seizure of Jebus, now Jerusalem as their way of documenting insinuates that the Israelites have fought with the king to seize Jebus. It's quiet illogical to document the Israelites first as driven out by King David, as we found in several referrals, then let modern-day people believe that the driven people have a link in the rebuilding of Jebus but as King David's city.

And, if we translate it to modern times, those who stood at the beginning (1948-1960s), they also don't have any historical continuity that sprouted in Palestine:

So, anyone who speaks in terms of 'invented people' they have invented themselves as 'Israelis' have no historical continuity as it didn't sprout in Palestine. It is a naming enforced to accept by others. That enforcement was by assassinating the Swedish UN diplomat Folke Bernadotte in an ambush, carried out by Shamir, not by Cohen. It is the roots of Sweden's policy on Palestine. 

*) In Wikipedia, details of involvment by 'Yitzak Shamir' has been altered in 'Cohen" by US-based Zionist group CAMARA

On September 24, 2020 BESA published an article in an attempt to explain its readers something that didn't exist: "Why Arabs Hate The Palestinians". The article was published amid Jarred Kushner's regional destabilizing actions to persuade Gulf states to take side with the Israelis. The headlined question was an attempt to let the English reading Arabs believe that the course for an own Palestinian state was to blame.

Hasbara, which is the basis the Israelis and their supporters use in their 'communication' with the outside world, is described as a reference to public-relations efforts to disseminate positive information abroad about the Israelis and their actions, whereby dissemination is scattering or spreading widely, as though sowing seed disseminate ideas.  However, it is actually a practice to deflect attention away from that what is initially the issue.

In plain words: Israelis and their supporters don't want you to talk about what should or must be talked about:  the essence of the matter, not whatever is achieved. It is an kind of robbing you from the right of freedom of expression by accusing you of "anti-Semitism".

But, who and what is Semitic?

Semites are a group of peoples closely related in language, whose habitat is West Asia and Northern Africa. That is what most people know. However, we have showed in earlier chapters that our view differs, that people, but only those whom entire ancestry directly leads to the Semitic habitat, are Semitic people. In other words: those who never have migrated from their homeland, and who do not belong to a settler or colonial population.

Then we have the Semitic languages, which are mainly described -like in Britannica and in Wikipedia- as language that form a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language phylum. But, this description isn't mentioning the distribution of one the Semitic language into Europe during the expansion of the Roman empire. Jews born outside the Roman controlled Palestine have learned to speak Hebrew because of the distribution by Jews who fled into other parts of Europe, such as Spain, France, Greece, Italy and Malta.

So, if we compare the distribution of the Hebrew language with the distribution of the Spanish language, we don't see any difference:

Anyone can learn to speak a language that is not native to the person because languages are once distributed into the world. The map on the right shows you how the Spanish language and the Catholic religion came to the Americas by Cortes' conquest.

The Spanish language was distributed via colonization that began with the Spanish Conquest of the Americas in 1519. The Spaniards not only brought their language to the continent but also their religion and culture.

When the Spaniards engaged interracial relationship, they became the ancestors for all later ancestors who then became the ancestors of today's Central and South American people. That doesn't mean that today's people, who now have Spanish as their 'native language', and have their religion from the Spanish, are Spanish originated people.

It is exact the same to the Hebrew language when it was first distributed across Southern Europe and from there into the rest of Europe. When Palestine became a Roman empire province, Jews who have fled also distributed their language, religion and culture. They are the first ancestors of all later ancestors of ancestors of today's Jews in Europe. This doesn't mean that today's Jews in Europe are Semitic people. They are not. Nor are they originated to Semitic people as their ancestries sprouted in Europe.

The map on the right isn't only showing the reason of a migration. It also shows the result of migration, namely the distribution of the Hebrew language, Jewish religion and culture between 1850 and 1914 and reminds us to the map of the Spanish with the difference that the map below is not about a conquest.

The Israelis from the old generation are originated from those during the migration while the young Israeli generation have parents who are the children of the old generation who in return are the children of the migrants generation.

In the 21st century, Jews in Palestine are from all corners of the world mostly via illegal crowd funding by the Jewish Agency For Israel, which presents itself as a non-government organization, a title misused as the Israelis are occupying belligerents.

So, how can anyone be accused of anti-Semitism when Semitism is factual about indigenous Semitic people. These people do no longer live and that for ages. What is practiced in the 21st century, when whoever views criticism against Jews in Europe as anti-Semitism, it is ripping Semitism completely out of its historical context.

12.

IS IT GENOCIDE ?

The Israelis are a war belligerent. How do we know that? Well, actually everyone could have known if they did understand the United Nations when they issues warnings to the Israelis, that actions could amount to war crimes.

You don't use 'war crimes' when nobody is in a stage of war. The Israelis never have lifted the stage of war since 1967. The reason why they never have lifted is simple to explain to one thing: they're just not finished with annexation. That is why the Israelis never provided their official borders to the UN.

Unlike what is generally viewed, we distinct war violation and war crime from each other. WIn our view, war violation refers to breaches against protocols and/or rules while war crimes refers to unlawful acts to willfully cause damage and destruction during time of war.

For instance:

If the occupying power thinks it needs to own a piece of land, so it takes it with the aim to transfer own people  -even foreign citizens-   to the taken land that is in the occupied territory, both are a war violation as they breach the Rules Of Occupation

Building a settlement for these people is a breach of the Rules of Usufruct specific to the Rules Of Occupation as it permanently changes the environmental identity of that piece of land in the territory that is under occupation.

When the occupying power finds objects and structures, which are either part of the identity of the occupied land, or are objects needed to have an locally based existence, and decides to remove them in order to replace with its own, it is a breach to the same rules.

When all the before mentioned is systematically, that it hallmarks the existence of a used program, raising the suspicion that the program is meant to stop the continuation of life  but across the entire occupied territory, we then have a serious problem especially when occupation military is involved in the achievement. Because, the planning of the locations of settlements is by an military unit. That is what found photos reveal which were taken on construction sites where military officers were seen acting as if they are verifying construction plans.

EXISTENCE.

In short: it means your physical presence, your being, you but 'confirmed' visually by the eyes of anyone who sees you.

However, existence has a broader meaning as it is actually an umbrella term encompassing everything that is needed to exist, not to mention to continue to exist.

Among those belonging to 'everything' are your roots and ancestry, your tradition, your culture, your native language and your belief. They all are elements belonging to your identity.

Material belongings are your house, your property even the whole town or city or neighborhood if not your land as a country were you belong to. Then we have life, which includes food, water, electricity, health, communication and the availability to have a place to stay.

This all is existence.

Erasing all references to the existence of life with the aim to end its continuation doesn't directly need to include making an direct end to psysical life. This can also gradually by a program, a policy, doctrine or directive. We're then dealing with cultural genocide.

But, if the above also includes systematically causing casualties among those who are members of another nation*, ethnicity* and another religion* as well damaging and destroying references to these people's existence, either in whole or in part, we won't support the view of war crimes nor crimes against humanity.

HOLOCAUST

Holocaust is known as about Jews. We have either poorly learned or not learned at all that the Nazis also killed other groups of people. The latter has been silence widely. The push for authority in views, that it must be only about Jews, is found as from German Ashkenazic migrants among the Israelis.

But, holocaust has nothing to do with people who are affected. Holocaust is about those who use all kinds of means to erase the living environment.with everyone and everything in it.

The word "holocaust" originally derived from the Koine Greek word holokauston, meaning "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering," or "a burnt sacrifice offered to a god." In Hellenistic religion, gods of the earth and underworld received dark animals, which were offered by night and burnt in full.

The abstract explanation is destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially by fire or nuclear war.

What the Israelis really do since October 2023 in Gaza is both destruction and slaughter 

Holocaust is a methodical mean to commit genocide or crime of extermination. The "Generals Plan" introduced in September 2024 by high-ranking Israeli military officers, is an methodical mean to commit holocaust.

--------

*)

• Palestine is named in biblical maps much earlier than the name "Israel" ; the Briiish carried "Palestine" in their naming of "British Mandatory Palestine"; there's still no oppositon against the naming "State Of Palestine" while opponent also used the adjective "Palestinian" in "Palestinian Authority".

• It is about a Zionism driven Judaic belief against the ethnicity in tradition, culture and religion of Muslims, and with the help of participating and/or supporting countries

**) click on any of the images to enlarge.

13.

THE EXISTENCE OF APARTHEID  

In the context of people, distinction is differentiating someone from somebody else. You do this to recognize what makes someone different from the other. It is a way to set someone aside from others or to put someone apart from others. A positive way is by excellence that sets someone apart from others. But that is not in Palestine.

Now, you would raise your eyebrows when we mention 'racism' here.

Racism is inherent to perception someone has towards others that leads to prejudice or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. You put someone apart from the rest you (also) belong to. You do the same when you belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

However, we do not view discrimination as racism. Because, discrimination is the act of unjust treatment of anyone, not only because of race but also because of person's background such as religion, sexuality, disability.

But, the question is were does this all come from? In one word? Politicization. 

If you advocate for a land but only for your own people while other people are (still) on the land you designate as land for your own people, it is discrimination. When it is about people from another belief, it remains discrimination. But, when these people are also from a different ethnicity, discrimination is then also based on racism. You then politicize people by targeting them as unwanted for your cause. India's caste system is such example were the Dalit people and Muslims are the unwanted. That is what Zionism is all about too.

Apartheid comes from the word 'apart' and may literally mean "to or on one side" or "at a distance from someone".  In the context of this page, a more freely explanation is simply putting the other apart from you, which emerges in many ways.

Most known example is separation which is synonymous to apartheid as you then do the same but by viewing someone as belonging to the other (side). Separation walls are just meant for such purpose: dividing an area from the other area by viewing the divided area as not being part of the other area.

However, the Israelis are war belligerent and have to obliged to apply themselves to the Customary International Law. The walls in Jerusalem are in violation against the UN resolution on Jerusalem, while the walls erected across the West Bank are in violation against the Rules of Occupation as they partition the occupied territory into pieces. 

You can do that with roads too. That's exactly what the Israelis also do: tarmac roads for their own people and roads in poor condition for the Palestinians.

A less known example are the traffic lights: longer on green for the Israelis, longer on red for the Palestinian drivers. But, roads constructed in the occupied territory are illegal as they also partition the territory into pieces.

And during the pandemic: unexpired vaccines for your own people, nearly to expire for the other. This reminds us to the Israeli health minister in an interview about COVID19 with CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

In this talk show she asked him "Why are you not helping the Palestinians?" The Israeli answer: "We will help them after we have helped our people first". 

Well, that's separation or apartheid by setting the Palestinians apart to let them waiting until all of own people are vaccinated. Separation or Apartheid  in the middle of a pandemic.  As a war belligerent, the Israelis are obliged to apply themselves to the Fourth Geneva Convention and must ensure access to vaccines to Palestinians in the occupied territory.

Israelis can or are certainly to be accused of practicing a version of Apartheid. This is not the same as saying "Israelis are practicing Apartheid" as you then need to show that you have investigated that have led to your finding. This doesn't means that you can't write about this issue. You can but it depends on how you write about it: with or without explanations.

GLOSM is not an NGO, so it doesn't write in the style of an NGO. It tries to help the reader to recognize the methodology on which the Israeli Apartheid is based by providing examples the reader can recognize in every-day life. The roots of the methodology behind the Israeli Apartheid is an ideology: Zionism.

Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man, senior counsel at the Michael Sfard Law Office in Tel Aviv and a member of the legal team of Israeli human rights NGO Yesh Din, wrote:

Apartheid can also be read by the numbers. For example, if 91% of the investigations into ideological crimes against Palestinians were closed with no indictment filed, it means that the number of Palestinians behind the rate were treated differently, so unjust. Well, discrimination is the act of unjust treatment as a result of antagonism against Palestinians.

The Israeli (war belligerent) judiciary systems are subjected to the Customary International Humanitarian Law, which regulates the legal environment of the occupied territories.

The most clear visible form of separation or Apartheid is something everyone can read about or could have watched on TV: the handling of sling shooting, catapulting or throwing stones. But, the world is only familiar with images about Palestinian sling shooters, catapulters and stone throwers.

However, illegal settlers in the West Bank also use slingshots, catapults and throwing stones during their attacks on Palestinian shepherds or farmers who are working on their land. In many cases you even see soldiers nearby who just stand there and watch. See collage on the left.

When Israeli right-wing extremists rally, you don't see troops deployed to crush the rally. When Israelis protest against their leaders, you don't see riot police deployed to crush the protest.  But, when Palestinians protest, then you see all kind of troops deployed, who immediately start firing teargas, rubber bullets and throw stun grenades, sniping and abducting protesters while these people do the same the Israelis do: expressing their views.

The Palestinians don't even need to take the initiative to express their views as this example that happens every year, shows:

Passover is a Judaic ritual, the Israelis held every year during the period from April 15th to April 23rd.  The Ramadan begins on April 12th and ends on May 12th every year. Every year, Israeli extremists use their ritual as a weapon to march to the compound under illegal protection by occupying forces.

In the same week of the Israeli extremists' provocation in April 2021, Netanyahu threw oil on the fire by announcing the forced eviction of of Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Among these people also those who were already forced evicted from Haifa* during Nakba in 1948. That have angered the Palestinians at the Al Aqsa. So, they began to protest as their Ramadan was already disrupted by Israeli extremists. Israeli troops invaded the compound and started a violent crackdown. Tens of worshipers were killed, hundreds of others wounded.

When this development reached Sheikh Jarrah, residents went onto the streets were they met live ammunition from Israeli troops. The military wing of Hamas warned the Israelis but they ignored the warning. The Israelis intensified the crackdown against protesters, willfully causing the escalation between May 7th and May 10th themselves, leaving Hamas no other option than to seek the only way they have to protect Palestinian people: firing rockets. That's the real roots of the 11-days war on Gaza

No one have realized that the Israeli mishandling of the protests, that was triggered by Israelis themselves, and that have led to the 11-days war, is also differentiating, so setting apart the Israeli provocateurs' action from the reaction by worshipers at the Al Aqsa. The world have watched without knowing that they've witnessed an example of Apartheid.

CONCLUSION

It doesn't matter how you would describe it whether you name it differentiating, separating, distincting or setting apart. There is Apartheid. It is based on ideas, perceptions and views entrenched in an ideology invented in 1897 by Theordor Herzl.

The Israeli Apartheid is not the same as the one that was once in South Africa. Because, the Israeli version strives a goal that is aimed erase all references to the Palestinian existence. It is comparable to the one the Chinese are using in East Turkestan which also aims to erase all reference but to the Uyghur existence. However, the Chinese do not exterminate the existence of Uyghur people.

The South African version is different because it didn't include politics that leads to annexation, assimilation and erasure. South Africa's Apartheid was only aimed to concentrate native people in designated areas in the country. It was pure based on racism while those of the Israelis is more than just about racism. Those of the Israelis and the Chinese aims more.