Shouldn't Israel belong to Palestinians too, according to the covenant?

michardav

New member
I regular here, Rude Borris (thank you very much BTW), posted this link on another question http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/natives.htm Please note "By contrast, the Jews, despite 2000 years of persecution and forced conversions by various conquerors, have always been the majority population there" and " General Allenby, the commander of the British military forces, conquered Palestine in 1917/1918, only about 5000 Arabs resided there" Now if the population in 1920 was 700,000 (4/5 Muslim- 580,000 & 77,000 Christian)http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/349b02280a930813052565e90048ed1c?OpenDocument (thanks to jpeterborough moore for the link) and you subtract the 5000 Arabs, that means the vast majority if the population were Jews (converted forcefully to Islam 1450 years ago). So if the covenant says the land belongs to the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and if Palestinians, for the majority, were converted Jews (forcefully apparently- although there is no evidence of forced conversion at any time in Palestine) then shouldn't Israel belong to them?
@mooch'ee I think the point Rudeborris and jpeterboroughmoore were trying to make is that Palestinians AREN'T Arab. That's been my point for years BTW. You still didn't answer the questions as phrased, though. IF the Palestinians are converted Jews as Rudeborris maintains, wouldn't they be entitled to the covenant? And as jpeterborough moore stated, 652,000 Palestinians (not counting Jews) were NOT Arab in 1920. Given a perfectly natural population growth, even without ONE Arab immigrant into Palestine it is perfectly feasible given the improvements the British brought to have a doubling of the population in a quarter century by purely natural means.
 
Back
Top