How to establish a coherent conformity of world history using national records and interpretations must sometimes be a very difficult and challenging task, certainly regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Yet there seems little historical doubt that following the Bar Kokhba rebellion (2nd century AD) the Romans renamed "Provincia Judea" (derived from "Judah") to "Syria Palaestina". Thus the Romans, and not only the Prophet, set a precedent of portentous consequences.
The Palestinians have many supporters in different parts of the world, including Europe, but one sometimes wonders what they are essentially supporting. What is the Palestinian cause? No one seems able or willing to give a precise answer, and this despite the fact that these supporters are fully informed of all the latest details of how badly the Palestinians are being treated by their prepotent neighbours.
When one refers back to the UN agreements of 1947, it seems that the Palestinians had relatively little say in determining their own future, for the Arab League and their Higher Committee assumed the weighty responsibility of deciding for them.
At such a time following the second world war, the world rightly felt that the intolerable injustice to the Jewish people should be properly dealt with once and for all. Since the radical consequences of the Bar Kokhba rebellion, one might reason that the world took its time in advocating that justice should prevail, but such is history.
However one considers the UN agreements of 1947 regarding the Partition Plan and the proposed international administration of Jerusalem, the Palestinians would certainly have benefited more, had those who assumed to represent them, agreed rather than categorically refuse, to ratify the terms of those agreements.
As nothing then was officially settled, it inevitably led to an ungodly and interminable 'free for all'.
The world must have been persuaded that the day after Israel had declared its independence in 1948, and was invaded by five Arabian countries with the militarily support of four others, the Jewish State would have no chance whatsoever. Yet not only it survived, it could probably have benefited far more from military gains of additional territories and spoils of war, but the Israelis were, and still are, only interested in Israel, and being allowed to live in peace.
But to return to the Palestinian cause. Considering how many 'peace negotiations' have taken place during the past half century between the Israelis and Palestinians, the cause, certainly of the 'moderate' Palestinians, seems so obscure as to be non-existent.
In contrast, the cause of the 'immoderate' Palestinians is extremely clear. So much so that again one wonders if it really is the Palestinian cause? How many Palestinian families, who, for example, have been caring for their olive groves for generations, would really approve of the total destruction of Israel and the complete Islamisation of the Holy Land? Wouldn't they prefer to be left in peace as well? Yet this seems to be the only apparent Palestinian cause.
One also wonders why the Palestinians who supposedly have been living in the Holy Land since the Jews were banished by the Romans in the 2nd century AD, have never officially tried to establish their State? Was it because they had doubts about their right to do so, or because they weren't interested and never thought it necessary?
This right certainly exists, but it's dwarfed by the consideration that the territories allocated to them but not ratified in 1947, have constantly decreased due to the effects of endless conflict. It also seems to be considered undesirable by the 'immoderate' Palestinians who might believe that by establishing the State of Palestine, either within the reduced confines or even according to the original partition plan,
the Palestinians would then be obliged to recognise Israel's right to exist.
Is this then the Palestinian cause? Or is it the Islamic cause? Must the Palestinians continue to be deprived and to suffer endless martyrdom for the Islamic cause? Such seems to be their fate, initiated by the Romans, then the Prophet, and finally the Arab League's refusal to sign the UN agreements in 1947.
Let us then assume that fate, as well as Islam, decrees the destruction of Israel in order that the Holy Land be entirely Islamised.
At such a time would there be anything sacred left of the Holy Land worth Islamising? Even if the Muslim intelligentsia would still believe that the land so pummelled by diabolical war was still 'holy', what guaranty would humanity have that the Muslims wouldn't then fight amongst themselves for this tiny portion of the world, by then a bomb-blasted, mini-desert where ancient temples, priceless archives, synagogues, wailing-walls and mosques would all have been pulverised to dust, along with their loyal guardians? And this would only be the initial effect of the cause.
History confirms that the Hebrew religion is the oldest of the monotheist religions. If Jerusalem and the Holy land are to be safeguarded for posterity, ideally there should be real co-operation and agreement between the authorities representing the three religions of Abraham. But despite whatever possible co-operation, is there a people more unified, more qualified and more dedicated than the Israelis themselves, to properly assume this responsibility?
The right to live in peace, to be recognised and respected, naturally should apply to all peoples whatever their culture and religion. The Holy Land seems to be an epicentre. A nucleus of humanity in a sacred place that represents a fundamental part of the history of civilisation and the monotheist religions. This to such an extent that if Israel were invaded, would it be unreasonable to believe that it could foment into 'the final battle', Armageddon? And if Israel and Jerusalem were destroyed, could this not lead to the infernal and irreversible culmination, the Apocalypse?
By Mirino, Satellite photo of Israel by kind courtesy of Nasa, with thanks. December, 2010