Grant And Proposal Writing Made Simple - Neighborhoods Usa: Fill & Download for Free

What right did the UN have in 1948 to partition Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Palestine), without consent from the locals?The short and correct answer is that the U.N. did no such thing.The Jewish yishuv (community) in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the very day the British hauled down their flag for the last time and marched their former Mandate government out of the territory. The Jews did so on their own, without any help from the U.N.Long before that happened, the Jews and Arabs of Mandatory Palestine were at odds, mainly because the Arabs resented any immigrant Jewish presence, especially if the Jews were going to act as equals and seek independence and self-determination, which to the Muslim-majority Arabs of the region was a cause for rage and distress. Jews, in their view, were a dhimmi people — designated as second-class citizens based on the Qur’an and allowed to continue to exist in a Muslim-majority, Muslim-dominated land only by suffrance from the Muslim leadership, which could be withdrawn at any time. The idea of uppity Jews who refused to kowtow to any Muslim on the street was unheard of anywhere else in the Muslim-dominated world, and the Muslims of Palestine (led by a particularly Jew-hating demagogue, Hajj Amin el-Husseini), wanted more than anything else to eliminate such a thorn in their pride. More than anything else, including any effort to build the institutions that would lead to their own state. The Jews, by contrast, just wanted to be left alone, and not to be unjustly deprived of the private lands they had bought for good money (probably overpriced, if you want to know the truth, since much of it was waste land, desert or swamp) and which they had worked, through sweat and ingenuity, into prosperous farms and industry.Britain had been given the Mandate to manage the region of the Levant known as Palestine (which had never been an independent state, nor even a separate province of the Ottoman Empire, but was merely a geographic regional designation), by the U.N.’s predecessor, the League of Nations, in 1922, with the purpose of fostering the “close settlement” of Jews within its territory, leading toward eventual independence for a national home for the Jews. This was part of the breakup of the losing Ottoman Empire imposed by the victorious Allies at the end of World War One, with the goal of also providing self-determination and independence for other national peoples in the region, including Arabs; a number of modern Arab states, including Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Arabia, were created at the same time from former Ottoman provinces. When the House of Saud violently overthrew the Hashemite clan which had formerly been the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of the Hijaz (the western part of Arabia), Britain separated 77% of the Mandate of Palestine to be an Arab state, and set the Hashemite sheikh Abdullah to rule over it — under British supervision until 1946 — as the Emir of Transjordan. In 1946,, Transjordan gained its independence from Britain and became the Kingdom of Jordan, and Abdullah became King.In order to try to resolve the Jewish-Arab dispute in Palestine, in 1947 the U.N. General Assembly sought to appease the Arab League of 22 nation-states by again partitioning the remaining 23% of the original Mandate, giving a majority of that tiny sliver to the Arab League (to divide as they will) and a little less than half (about 10% of the original Mandate) to be run by the Jews. This partition plan was just a proposal, as the General Assembly resolution had no force of law, merely persuasive authority, if the parties to the actual dispute should choose to follow it. The Jews did agree to follow it, but the Arabs did not. Thus, as with any other proposal to mediate a dispute, the proposal had no binding legal effect after one of the parties rejected it.The U.N. did not create Israel. Israel declared its own independence. The Arabs of Mandatory Palestine did no such thing, and had never even thought of themselves as a “Palestinian people” until long after 1948. Nevertheless, the Arab League immediately sought to destroy Israel — and failed, but with Egypt occupying Gaza and Jordan occupying Judea and Samaria — which Jordan renamed “the West Bank” to distinguish it from Transjordan, the “East Bank” of the Jordan River — from 1948 to 1967. The Palestine Liberationn Organization (PLO) was not formed until 1964 — with the goal of “liberating” the region known as “Palestine” (the original British Mandate) by eliminating and replacing Israel. This was 3 years before the 1967 war in which Jordan again attacked, and was driven out of the West Bank by Israel’s defensive counter-attack.For more on this see my answer to this related Quora question:Michael Jacobs's answer to How do Israel's supporters deal with the fact that they uprooted Palestinians and were created by the West?Thanks for the A2A.EDIT 2021–03–10: A fellow Quoran recently commented (3 1/2 years after my original answer was posted) that my answer was “misleading.” He gave a lengthy set of reasons why he thought so. In the interest of full disclosure and full discussion of the issues involved, in a search for the truth, another fellow Quoran suggested I add my reply to that critique, here, as an edit. That was a good idea. So, here it is:Maciej Czyż wrote: "Your answer is misleading."I'm open to listening to your reasons for saying so. Certainly my intention is not to mislead, but to clarify -- particularly regarding matters that frequently seem to escape public attention these days, especially among Israel-bashers who cherry-pick support for their opposition to Israel's existence.Maciej Czyż wrote: "Israel declared its independance - but just look into this declaration to find it mentions UN decision as one of its foundations."Yes; of course, but so what? None of that changes the fact that a UN General Assembly resolution has no LEGAL effect. In acknowledging the UN resolution as one of the foundations of its RIGHT to statehood, Israel was showing its respect for the collective opinion of humankind, in that this resolution was the first time an international body announced explicit international support for the creation of a Jewish state -- not just a "national home" for the Jewish people -- in at least part of the Mandate for Palestine.That resolution was, yes, one source of Israel's plea to the world for legitimacy, and for urging those same countries who had supported the resolution, to also recognize the newly-declared State of Israel. Perfectly reasonable, diplomatically. Absolutely meaningless, legally, since Israel had a RIGHT to declare independence in the entire territory recently vacated by Britain's withdrawal, especially since nobody else did -- and since the united Arab League had specifically rejected the idea of partition, choosing instead to threaten and then make actual war against Israel's very existence.The Arab powers wanted not two states (Arab and Jewish) in Palestine, or even one bi-national state in Palestine, but instead, simply wanted to kick all the Jews out of every part of it, and to recover it all for Arab sovereignty, not caring whether that Arab sovereign was locally based or was Egypt, Jordan, or Syria (or some dreamed-for but still-not-realized unified Arab caliphate). Do you see the difference?In the Jewish morality of interpersonal relations we call this approach to problem-solving the value of "Shalom Bayit." In other words, keeping "peace in the home." Even if one is "right" in an intra-family dispute, one should give in to the unreasonable demands of the other members of the household -- at least temporarily -- to keep the peace, and avoid a fight. That's not just a Jewish value, it's also what motorists are told about yielding the right-of-way to a road hog to be safe even when the other guy is doing something illegal and selfish; being safe is more important than being "dead right" after refusing to yield to a reckless driver. One can save the legal arguments for later, when the power structure is more stable, when the danger is passed.Maciej Czyż wrote: "I think any nation in which immigrants want to declare independance on part or all of territory would mind it."You are probably right. But there was NOT a "nation" in the Mandate of Palestine at any time between 1917 (when the British conquered and occupied that territory from the Ottoman Empire, its previous sovereign) until 1948 (when Israel was founded). Before that, Palestine was not even a separate province of the Ottoman Empire, just the name of a general region of the central Levant.The British military occupation that began with the conquest of that territory in 1917 ended when the Ottoman Empire, at the San Remo Conference in 1920, formally ceded that territory -- and much other territory as well, which went on to become new Arab states -- to the League of Nations, as Trustee, to foster the residents of those territories to eventually become self-governing new states.By 1922, the League of Nations had developed and put into effect the Mandate system, by which individual specific territories would be administered by either Britain or France as caretakers until the locally designated self-governing populations could build the institutions and economy needed for independence. The majority of that area of land became Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and as to the tiny sliver of that land called the Mandate for Palestine, the nation THAT land was intended for as an independent homeland, was the Jews.The Mandate recognized that nothing in doing so should prejudice the "civil and religious" rights of other peoples already living there -- Arabs -- but that term of art means that Arabs (Muslim and Christian, and others) were not to be discriminated against in their right to full participation in the polity that was being built: to live where they chose, work where they chose in whatever profession they chose, and to speak and write and practice their religion freely.“Civil rights” did not include collective POLITICAL rights, to establish their own, independent secessionist state, at least not as of 1922, when the Mandate went into effect, EXCEPT that Britain had the option to separate out 77% of the Mandate territory, east of the Jordan, to form an Arab state that would exclude Jewish immigration. The Mandate authorities did so, almost immediately, creating the Emirate of Transjordan, with an Arab ruler (under British supervision until 1946). None of that is in any dispute. How did my answer mislead, so far?Maciej Czyż wrote: "And it was not about equality;"Wait, what? WHAT was not about equality? CIVIL RIGHTS are about equality. POLITICAL RIGHTS are about the right to secede from an existing polity and form a separate state. Rarely, if ever, do such rights exist anywhere, if there is already a legitimate state governing that territory that accords civil and religious rights to the residents, as Israel was mandated to do, and does.The Arabs of CIS-Jordanian Palestine had civil and religious rights in full, in other words, but NOT separate political rights. Keep in mind that Palestinian Arabs had already got 77% of the Mandate territory to form their own political entity — Transjordan — during the FIRST partition of Palestine in 1923.Every further suggestion for additional partition has been part of the same, unchanged overall goal of Arab nationalism to cut the Jewish “share” of the land thinner and thinner after each Arab gain, until the Jews had nothing left but a postage stamp — while simultaneously trying, by brute force, to simply drive all the Jews into the sea. So far, neither the subtle nor the direct approach toward their ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel has worked. After 70+ years of Israel’s existence, isn’t it time for the Arab side to concede that Israel is here to stay, and to make peace with it?Maciej Czyż wrote: "Golda Meir was promised equality and parliamentary representation by ruler of Transjordan,"Wait, what, again? The ruler of Transjordan had NO legal rights WEST of the Jordan River, at ANY time, including during their illegal 19-year occupation of “the West Bank.” That's why his country was called "Transjordan" -- that's what it MEANS, "Land on the other side of the Jordan River (from Western or Cis-Jordanian Palestine)." Your point is? And what time frame are you talking about, anyway? Are we not discussing 1947? I'm unaware of any such "offer" by the King (he was King by then, having achieved independence from Britain the year before) in 1947–48.Certainly, after 1948, Jordan was absolutely NOT all about granting “equality” to Jews in any areas under Jordanian control; the Jordanian army were killing or starving the Jews out of Jerusalem (east of the Green Line) and out of the Gush Etzion and other pre-1948 Zionist settlements simply because they were Jews, a gross denial of Jewish civil right to life and property, and were denying access for Jews to holy places east of the Green Line, a gross denial of Jewish religious rights and also a blatant major violation of the terms of the 1949 Armistice.Maciej Czyż wrote: "but, as she mentioned, it’s not about this."You are being impenetrably cryptic. By "she" I presume you mean Golda Meir. What is the "it" that this is not about? A specific cite to a specific statement by Ms. Meir would help.Changing topics, Maciej Czyż wrote: "The status of Jews and Christians as dhimmis was changed in Ottoman Empire decades earlier.”Yes, in theory. That's why Jews once again regained, at least formally, the right to immigrate to Palestine from outside of the Empire. This happened in the mid-19th century. Local attitudes, however, take much longer to change than a simple amendment of an empire-wide law.Maciej Czyż wrote: "It’s misleading, or simply lie, that Jews would be subject in Palestine to shari’a and dhimmi restrictions."Not a bit misleading. Changing of the actual laws on the books did not change the attitudes of the population. Just as with the 1865 Civil Rights Amendments to the US Constitution that declared blacks equal citizens with whites, and gave blacks the vote, this did not sit well and did not instantly result in a sea change in attitudes among the revanchist, bigoted elements of the local Southern population. Instead, the bigots among them formed the KKK, and did their best to crush "uppity" blacks and terrorize the rest of the non-poliltical blacks into subservience to whites.That is exactly parallel to what the Grand Mufti Amin el-Husseini tried to do in his hate-spittle rages against "uppity" Jews moving into "HIS" neighborhood -- which the Jews immigrating to Palestine could do BECAUSE the Sultan had allowed them to, just as in 1865 Washington had allowed blacks to vote in Mississippi and to buy land in "white" towns there. But that ruling from a distant central government didn't mean diddly-squat to the LOCAL powers-that-be in small-town Mississippi, nor to the local Arabs in Palestine who followed the Mufti's Jew-hating incitement.Maciej Czyż wrote: "Jews weren’t just wanting to be left alone; they came there, not Arabs, at this point, and they wanted independance in areas inhabited majorly by another nation for centuries."Let's parse that sentence.Jews, family by family, DID come to Palestine, beginning in the mid-1800s, as soon as the Sultan again allowed them to do so, after centuries of being forbidden to enter what was, after all, the Jews' original native homeland, their Holy Land.The idea of independence was a dream of SOME factions of Jews in the 19th century, and the early 20th century, but was far from a universal goal even among Zionists then. At that stage, Jews just wanted to be able to move into the land they had loved and longed for during the last 2000 years, and to be left alone to do things their way and re-establish a viable Jewish civilization there.The fact that people of another ethnicity -- Arabs -- already lived there, had nothing to do with whether Jews had (A) the DESIRE to move back to the Holy Land, and (B) after the mid-1800s, the legal RIGHT to move back to the Holy Land. Jews did NOT displace Arabs by force; they BOUGHT land from willing Arab sellers, who were happy to dump their least-desirable privately-owned fields on the gullible Jews for inflated prices, apparently thinking those sallow bookish Euro boys would never make a go of it as farmers on rugged desert and swamp land, and would soon give up and go back home to their yeshivas and lose their farmer suntans.That's NOT what happened. By dogged determination and effort and innovation, the “new” Zionist Jews DID make the deserts and the swamps bloom. And they continued to move into the Holy Land. And OTHER peoples -- Arabs -- also began moving in from neighboring Arab countries, as well, in the first half of the 20th century, attracted by the new prosperity, and by the absence of any kind of border control between the various League of Nations Mandate-controlled territories — Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan as well as Egypt and (nearby but not bordering) Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Arabs wanting to enter the Mandate for Palestine from the early 1900s through 1948 could simply wade across the Jordan River from Transjordan, for example, into Cis-Jordanian (Western) Palestine.From 1917 on, the UK had committed to support creating a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, an admittedly ambiguous statement. But that's how diplomacy works -- creative ambiguity. It was left up to the Jews to actually BUILD the institutions and infrastructure needed to make the leap to independence. Pointedly, the Arabs of Cis-Jordanian Palestine made NO such parallel efforts to build any kind of Arab national infrastructure; their political leaders did not WANT a separate Arab Palestinian state, they simply wanted the Jews GONE and the area to be subsumed into the one, vast, Arab Nation they envisioned.Maciej Czyż wrote: "Creating Jewish national home was just one of the goals of the mandate. The mandate, just like all the others, was to prepare it for independance for all of the population which inhabited it."Yes. And that independent state, in Cis-Jordanian Palestine, was planned to be a JEWISH state -- one with civil and religious rights for all of its citizens, but run according to Jewish principles and values. It was expected to reach the threshold of independence only after the League of Nations' explicitly declared policy of encouraging wide-open Jewish immigration had allowed enough Jews to enter so as to tip the demographic majority to the Jews.However, in dereliction of its Mandate duties owed to the League (as well as to the ultimate intended beneficiaries of that trust, the Zionist community), and succumbing to Arab pressure, Britain cut off Jewish immigration in the 1930s, just as European Jews were beginning to need that refuge most. Just imagine if the 6 million Jews slaughtered by Hitler had been allowed by Britain to immigrate to Palestine instead. We would not be having this conversation.Maciej Czyż wrote: "Transjordan was 77% of the mandate, you say. But you forget to say it was mostly desert,"Sure. But so was most of Cis-Jordanian Palestine also desert — the part of the original Mandate which was to become Israel. Your point is?Maciej Czyż wrote: "and the territories which Jews wanted the least anyway. It’s manipulation on your side."Go ahead and compare acres of arable farmland in Israel and in Jordan. I'll wait. But regardless of how that balance comes out, the cultivated portion of Cis-Jordanian Palestine was only around 15% of the land by around 1947. The rest was still desert, and was state land, not privately owned by anyone. The Arab private landowners held roughly 9% of the total land area, and Jews held 6%, as of 1947 — including the swampland they had drained and farmed in the Hula Valley north of the Sea of Galilee. But the other 85% of Cis-Jordanian Palestine was empty land that the League of Nations had set aside to facilitate JEWISH immigration and creation of a Jewish national home in what was, yes, mostly empty land.Maciej Czyż wrote: "In 1946, emirate of Transjordan became kingdom of Transjordan. Transjordan became Jordan in 1949 only."Did I ever write otherwise? Your point is? Transjordan renamed itself from an Emirate to a Kingdom, beginning with independence in 1946. But the re-naming in 1949 was a not-so-subtle attempt to make it sound as if this newly named nation, "Jordan," had some legal rights on BOTH sides of the Jordan River, not only to Trans-Jordanian Palestine (which Transjordan had legitimately held, since 1923) but also to "the West Bank" (an area that did NOT have that name until Jordan came up with it, at the same time they were re-naming themselves "Jordan.") But in fact, nobody except the UK and Pakistan recognized Jordan's claim to legitimate possession of "the West Bank," which Jordan had acquired simply by force of conquest from Israel in a war of aggression Jordan had launched the day after Israel declared independence in May 1948. In 1988, Jordan formally renounced any claim to "the West Bank."Maciej Czyż wrote: "Arab League and Arab states had very little significance in 1945."Oh, really? Oil had been discovered in Arab lands decades before that. These commercial interests had HUGE significance to both Britain and the US, with British and American oil companies vying to exploit those resources and requiring support of friendly Arab regimes to be able to continue to do so. The USA and Britain would NOT do anything to offend the Arabs, even back then, for fear of economic consequences.Maciej Czyż wrote: "The current importance of Arab states is result of their increased number, which happened later on,"Nuh-uh. In the 1930s and 1940s, no one in the major powers cared how many or how few Arabs there were. The only thing that mattered was that there were enough of them with enough guns and enough local tribal warfare tradition to make life very difficult for Western companies desiring to extract oil from Arab lands if they did not have the full cooperation of local Arab governments, who were easily riled into violent opposition to Western economic influence by any sign of Western support of the Jewish national aspirations. So Britain and France and the USA were all quite willing to kowtow to Arab demands, to keep getting oil. The 1970s oil embargoes, out of Arab rage over Israel once again surviving the 1973 Egyptian-Syrian sneak attack on Yom Kippur with Western help, only made explicit what had for decades already been the oil-trade sides’ mutual understanding.Maciej Czyż wrote: "and the rise of of price and importance of oil in the 70’s."Boy, did you come to this party late. That dance began in the 1920s. The 1970s was just when it became explicit.Maciej Czyż wrote: "So you’re misleading your readers again."No, it's misleading of you to claim the oil "weapon" was not being used by Arabs until the 1970s. Among other things, the Arab countries did specifically boycott and embargo any Western companies that did business with Israel, for decades after 1948. That's why only Coca-Cola, not Pepsi, was available in Israel, and why, until the 1990s, the only Japanese carmaker or motorcycle maker who would sell to Israel was Subaru. Want a Honda or a Toyota? Go pound sand. Those makers were selling to the Arabs instead.Maciej Czyż wrote: "Palestinian Arabs did declare their independance in 1948"Hah. No, they didn't. Proof, please? And I'm not talking about the Mufti's paper-tiger one-man operation out of Gaza that began several MONTHS after Britain's withdrawal, as opposed to the very day the UK rolled down its flag for the last time. Even if you discount the suspicious timing, the Arabs of Palestine had done nothing to actually BUILD a local, Arab infrastructure for statehood.The Palestinian Arab political horizon was still completely local, with village Mukhtars (mayors) and Hamula (clan) elders dealing with all issues of public policy, and with dreams of pan-Arab unity hovering at the other end of the scale. Between those extremes, no Arab in Cis-Jordanian Palestine actually wanted, or cared about, an independent Arab Palestine, back in 1948. If they did, they would have agreed to the 1947 UN partition plan. They’re not stupid.Maciej Czyż wrote: "but - because of Israeli and Transjordanian conquest - this was of little importance."At least you recognize that Jordan's intervention was a CONQUEST, not an attempt to assist in preserving any nascent Arab Palestinian state, which was on precisely NOBODY's radar in May 1948.Maciej Czyż wrote: "Btw, king of Transjordan crowned himself king of Palestine too. So what you wrote is not true, again."I would have to see that specific reference to know how to respond. Don't forget that Transjordan itself was part of the region known as Palestine and had also been 77% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine. I can easily picture a monarch claiming the title "King of Palestine" while actually ruling over 77% of the former Palestine Mandate territory.Maciej Czyż wrote: "As for the importance of UN resolution, which you dismiss as something not important,”I did NOT claim the 1947 partition resolution was "not important." Please do not paraphrase my words. What I wrote was that it had no binding LEGAL effect. You are changing my apples into oranges. See above re: its vast diplomatic and symbolic importance, in affirming international approval of the creation of a Jewish State. But it would only have taken LEGAL effect if the Arabs had agreed to it also — which they emphatically did not, choosing to begin a genocidal war of annihilation instead.Maciej Czyż wrote: "Israel has bound itself to implement UN decision in its declaration of indpendence:"On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable."Yes, exactly. Even though the Arabs had unanimously rejected the idea, "This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable."Maciej Czyż wrote: "The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel."Yes, they were, keeping in mind that the particular partition boundary was NOT a matter fixed in stone, but was contingent on the Arab side agreeing to those boundaries -- which they did not. So Israel relied on the resolution NOT as a roadmap to specific boundaries, which were contingent upon Arab approval, but for the irrevocable sense of the UN that the Jewish people had a RIGHT to establish a State.IF the Arabs had suddenly changed their minds and agreed to accept partition, then, Israel still stood ready to say "yes" to that too, to accept the partition boundaries as final, and to work cooperatively with their Arab neighbors to "bring about the economic union" of the entire former Mandate territory, as had been urged in the partition resolution. But the Arabs did NOT. Instead, they chose to go to war. And in war, borders often get re-arranged, especially when the aggressor loses and the international consensus is that the defending victor is entitle to adjust the borders to be more defensible and secure.Maciej Czyż wrote: "We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the community of nations."Yes, as we discussed earlier. This was a plea to the UN member states to recognize the new Jewish State that the Zionist Jews in Palestine had just brought into being, because those same UN member states had, just a few months earlier, explicitly and irrevocably recognized the RIGHT of the Jews to do just that. None of which, though, has any LEGAL impact on where the borders of that new state ought to be drawn.Think of it this way. Where, if not at the limits of the former Mandate, WOULD Israel's borders have been drawn, if (as is true) the Arabs did NOT also declare a state upon Britain's withdrawal, and (as is a path not taken) the Arabs had NOT attacked Israel the next day, seeking to wipe Israel off the map? Would they have been drawn at the UN Partition lines? No, only so if the Arabs had declared a state, TOO.Otherwise, the "West Bank" (and particularly Jerusalem, which was not "supposed to" belong to either the Arabs or the Jews) would have been stateless if they had not been absorbed into the newly declared State of Israel. The legal presumption (called Uti possidetis juris) is that a newly declared state in a recently vacated former colonial territory or administered dependency, fills the entire territory recently vacated.But then, perhaps you might argue, there is no legal basis for Israel to claim any lands east of the "Green Line," the cease-fire line drawn by the 1949 Rhodes Armistice commission, because Arabs live there? Well, first of all, the Armistice specifically provided — at Jordanian insistence — that the Green Line NOT be considered a permanent international border. Diplomacy and negotiation, NOT war, was the only way to resolve the issue of borders (unless the parties were willing to assume Israel had legal title to ALL of the Cis-Jordanian portion of the former Mandate).But more practically, as of May 1948, Jews lived east of the (not-yet-laid-down) Green Line, too, until Jordan invaded, conquered, and kicked out all the Jews from every part of "the West Bank" and eastern Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter of the walled Old City (which had been continuously inhabited by Jews for 3 thousand years) and including newer, Zionist communities outside the walls, such as Gush Etzion, which was bought and paid for and built upon by Jewish homeowners prior to 1948 (at a time when the Mandate encouraged "close settlement" by Jews EVERYWHERE in Cis-Jordanian Palestine, after having closed off Trans-Jordanian Palestine to all Jews).But those fully titled Jewish landowners, too, were displaced and ethnically cleansed by Jordan after the 1949 cease-fire. Are you suggesting they and their heirs have no legal right to return to the homes they owned, because Jordan's illegal invasion and conquest and 19-year occupation somehow deprived them of that right? THAT would be rewarding acquisition of territory by conquest, anathema to the modern scheme of the laws of war.There simply is no natural and recognized border between Israel and Jordan except for the Jordan River itself, and the dry Arava Valley south of the Dead Sea which is its natural continuation south, part of the same natural land formation, the Great Rift Valley, extending to the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba/Eilat.Now, despite their valid LEGAL claim to the entire territory, in the interest of compromise and peace I understand that just as for the last 50+ years, Israel remains willing to NEGOTIATE a final border that would allow a nascent Palestinian Arab state to come into being, if the two sides ever do get down to brass tacks and sit at the same table.But it has always been the Palestinians who refuse to do that, because they want the WHOLE ball of wax; negotiating peace with Israel would be their leaders' death sentence in the eyes of even-more-fanatic jihadists waiting in the wings to overthrow such "weak" Arab leaders and continue the "struggle" to obliterate Israel.So, the choice is in the Palestinians' hands: make peace and get a state with negotiated borders, or put up with the existing, rough-equilibrium status quo, indefinitely. Until other Arab states get disgusted with Palestinian intransigence and decide to make peace with Israel anyway, as is happening right now.

Indians Muslims have never been Pakistanis and Bharati Hindus have never been Indians.Islamic Republic of India:All the self-importance the Bharat has been making a show thereon, have been the Indian Muslims heritage. Right from their legendary drummer, namely Allah Rakha Khan to the Nuclear Scientist, Abdul Kalam Khan, including the overwhelming number of the most celebrated poets, writers, historians, geographers, architectures, sport stars, film stars, musicians, singers have been Muslims. Similarly all their world fame fascinating architectural monuments have been Indians Muslims made. So much so that Hindus do not have the name for their country of theirs and thus have swindled us of our name “India” – which had been ours exclusively. Indian Muslims on either side of the border have never been Pakistan is and Hindus on either side of the border have never been Indians – We have been Indians Muslims throughout and they have been Bharati Hindus throughout. Similarly Indian Muslims have never ever named their homeland as Pakistan during their 1000-year rule – and Bharati Hindus have never ever named their homeland as India, before the Muslims rule. During the entire Muslims Era, we the Indian Muslims had always named our country as Hindustan or Hind as a nickname, in the local languages and India in the western languages, before the great divide. Similarly Bharati-Hindus have always named their country as Bharat even after the partition, in Hindi language – and still today their official name in their constitution is Bharat. Bharat has never ever been India – and India has never ever been Bharat before the partition. The name India therefore has nothing to do with Bharat, Hinduism or Hindus. Bharati-Hindus have, like so many other symbols of our highly prestigious heritage and of our great pride, plagiarized, stealthily and slyly – and have been committing the most serious and grievous misnomer in regard of her name. Bharati Hindus always keep their real face, trick and every task concealed, for their realities look much ominous and injurious. So simply for this reasons they have displayed, our owned name, India – which is exclusively our property and pride – and have sent their real name, Bharat in the background, for they know that they can neither throw away their real name Bharat nor they can escape therefrom so openly – hence by applying their traditional duplicity, they displayed the stolen name India on the forefront and kept their real name Bharat hide and behind. Their real name has been Bharat throughout – even in the period far before than Ashoka the Great, which falls far before the Christ – while one Raja Bharth was reigning the huge country of its time. The name of that very country, more or less the now Bharat was Jambu Devipa – and hence after the death of the Raja Bharth, the Hindus used to call the land as Bharth Versh (i.e. land of the Bharth). In this way the present name of Bharat is the corruption of Bharth. And it is for this reason that their religious and orthodox political pundits have named their most rabid pack as Bharatia Janata Party (BJP) – and due to this cause the Hindus have been calling their country as Bharat Matha (i.e. Mother Bharat). And now they have named their first ever so called spaceship as “Bharateena”.The Muslims have ruled exclusively, the whole Indian sub continent for round about 1000 years – if the name India had any link with Hinduism or Hindus, the Muslim powerful rulers, particularly the emperor Aurang Zeb Alamgeer would have smashed it into the dustbin of the history. They have grabbed our exclusively owned entity and property, the name India – as they have grabbed Junagarh, Manader, Haiderabad Deccan, Siachin, Kargil and Kashmir. How they did it, I borrow the quotation from the famous book, Freedom At Midnight of the two renowned co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique Lapierre:“AT THE OUTSET CONGRESS CLAIMED THE MOST PRECIOUS ASSET OF ALL, THE NAME “INDIA”. REJECTING PROPOSAL TO NAME THEIR NEW DOMINION “HINDUSTAN”, CONGRESS INSISTED THAT SINCE PAKISTAN WAS SECEDING, THE NAME INDIA AND INDIA’S IDENTITY IN GROUPS LIKE U.N. REMAIN THEIRS”.Now let trace the base of the name India. There is no denying the hard fact that the Greek word Indos and the Latin word Indus have been the ancient names of the mighty River, Sindh (i.e. Indus) respectively – and the Sindhus as well as India have been derived from the words Sindh and Indus respectively. One of the world most ancient civilizations has been the Indus Valley Civilization which came out more than before 3230 BC – flourished and cherished in the Indus Valley – and when it perished, after the intrusion of the Aryans Settlers – it was buried also in its nativity. Thus the Indus Valley Civilization was also native of the Indus Valley. And ergo it also derived its name from the very river, Sindh, (i.e. Indus) – whose Greek and Latin names were/are pronounced as Indos and Indus – and so that ancient most civilization is remembered in the history, as “Indus Valley Civilization.” Though it had the most contemporary features. Its main Mausoleums, the largest sites with citadels, have also been discovered in Pakistan, Mohenjo-daro on the lower Indus plain in the South at Larhkana (in Sindh province) and Harappa on the upper Indus plain in the north, at Sahiwal (in Punjab province).Now let go back a little more. The intrusion of the Aryans started in waves after waves in about 3000 BC, and continued for about 1000 years – those Aryans were not a single tribe or race but they were comprised of an assortment of tribes from the Central Asia. So in first instance, those Aryans settled in the upper part of the mighty river; Sindh/Indus namely, Sindh Valley or Indus Valley – which were then known as Saptasindhva or Sapta Sindhus meaning, land of the seven rivers (i.e. Sutlaj, Bias, Ravi, Chanab, Jehlum, Sindh and the now extinct river Saraswati).Bode Roy Punjabi quoting Dr. Abinas Chandra Das as under, “The land in which the Vedic Aryans lived is called in Rigveda by the name of Saptasindhva or the land of seven rivers, which includes the Indus or Sindhu with its principal tributaries on the west and the saraswati on the east. The Ganges and the Yamunas have certainly been mentioned once or twice but they have not at all been included in the computation of the seven rivers that gave the country its name”Bode Roy Punjabi himself writes in his book, Saptasindhva as under:” Thus the area now forming Kashmir, the Punjab, the KPK, Eastern Balochistan and Sind was the area of Aryan Settlement”.So merely as a common noun from the word “Sapta Sindhus” and simply for the reason of their new common nativity and to denote those Aryan Settlers: they were first called as Sindhus and Sindhi in some of the local and eastern languages. And exactly for the same reason and as a common noun from the word Indus they were called as Indians in most of the western languages. Thus none of those Aryans was either Hindu nor that was possible, for Hinduism was not yet handcrafted. Similarly the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization, making a part of Pakistan is called even today as Sindh (i.e. sindh province) and its natives as Sindhi because of the river Sindh/Indus – exactly as natives of Punjab (i.e. land of five rivers) are called Punjabi, as a common noun.Now how the erstwhile common noun Sindhus transmuted subsequently into the Hindus- the proper noun – that implied subsequently, one pertained to Hinduism. Or to simplify this question a little more, how the then simple common noun Sindhus from the word Sindh, corrupted into Hindus, the complicated noun – which turned into as a certain creed specific. In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, Hinduism. Because emerge of the word Hindu was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, Hinduism. And as a matter of fact the word Hinduism have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the caste-rule (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists – and thus the word Hindu had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done. The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of Sindhu – a native of Sindh – Valley (i.e. Indus – Valley). And today also the local natives of Sindh, in Pakistan, are called Sindhi, as a common noun from the word Sindh; the local name of the river Indus. Actually when the closest neighbors Iranians invaded the India, in about first half of the first BC millennium, they pronounced the word Sapta Sindhus as Haft Hindus, for in Persian language the word haft also denotes seven – and as such the word Haft-Hindus is the Persian corruption of Sapta Sindhus the then name of the Sindh Valley or Indus Valley. In this way if the word Hindu is admittedly the corruption of Sindhu – then the word Hindi is obviously the corruption of Sindhi. And this is the reasons that all Arabs even today call, all the Indian Muslims, including the Pakistanis as Hindi whereas the believers of caste rule specifically as Hindus – exactly and similarly the whole world call all the natives of India as Indians but the believers of the caste rule (i.e. Hinduism) as Hindus. Even the Hindus do not and cannot dare to use the word Hindu for other than them. The meaning of Hindu and Hindi/Indian are so distinct right from the birth of Vern Ashram that in Arabic language the words Hindu or Hindukki are used simply for the believer of Hinduism – and its plural has been Hindoos or Hanadic – whereas the plural of the word Hindi (i.e. Indian) has also been clearly distinct as Hanud – from the former plural.Now let go a little further deeper. Actually after about 2000 years of the Aryans mega migration, round about in 1000 BC, with the passage of time, some of the Aryans Settlers, like other ancient idol worshipers developed a sculpture based culture and as such some of them first attracted to, then converted to and finally adopted that culture as a creed. So those were the circumstances, in about 1000 BC, when the metamorphosis of the sculpture based culture into the Vern Ashram (i.e. Caste Rule) was underway – and the newly debuted sculpture based creed thus started rising up and swelling up in the shape of Vern Ashram. But as yet, no one had ever called that culture or creed as Hinduism – they used to use the word Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) and subsequently Sanatan Dharma (i.e. the Eternal Way) for the newly emerged creed, as evident from their basic most, primitive most and the sacred most, four religious books, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda of Hindus. And it is for the reason of this most primitiveness – that they are also known as childhood of Hinduism. Thus with the passage of further time, when some more extraordinary distinction in regard of the ethnicity as well as in beliefs, inter-se the Aryan Settlers, developed and protruded, then the common nouns, the Aryans and the Sindhus or Hindus lost its original sense and were therefore no more meaningful or conclusive, for all the Aryan Settlers did not adopt Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) or the sculpture based culture. Thus those Aryan Settlers who adopted the sculpture based culture, as his/her creed, they were called the Hindus specifically as a proper noun and the rest simply the Sindhi/Hindi in the local as well as in the eastern languages and the Indians in the western languages, as a common noun. So one can say that as the Hindus word is the corrupted form of Sindhus – similarly the Hindus people are the corrupted viz converted form of some Aryans, who adopted the Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) as their creed. Thereafter when the Aryans Settlers spread throughout the whole sub continent, the whole subcontinent was also emerged as Barsagheer-Hind in the eastern languages and as Indian subcontinent in the western languages – and its natives as Hindis/Indians respectively – irrespective of their different religions, creeds and ethnicities, for the words Hindi/Indian simply denoted the native of Hind/India – and had nothing to do with any religion – whereas to denote believers of the caste rule or Vern Ashram the specific word Hindus were/are used for them, in all the languages of the world. Exactly as Asians implies natives of Asia, irrespective of the creed of the Asians. Even today all the natives of India are called Indians but the believers of Islam in Bharat are called the Indian Muslims, the believers of Christianity are called the Indian Christians, and the believers of Sikhism are called the Indian Sikhs and so forth: as I said earlier that Aryans were not a single tribe but were multitude of tribes and were of multi-ethnical origin – hence after the mass exodus when the difference in their creeds also developed with the passage of time – then the word Hindu turned as creed specific and the word Sindhi/Hindi or Indian kept its originality, as nativity specific. Actually Hindus never had any specific name for their creed. Now we must ask the question, why the Hindus creed had been nameless right from the beginning? In fact firstly, in the beginning the Hindus creed did not come out as a regular religion – secondly, unlike all others man-made creeds, Hindus never had any founder persona, neither in the sky nor on earth, as a founder of their creed. Hence no one was there to be attributed their creed thereto. Conversely, the Honorable Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao-tzi, Mahavira, Mormon, Guru Nanak Sahib, have been the Founder Personas of the Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism respectively. Actually in the start the creed of Vern Ashram was simply a jumble of some rituals of the assorted peoples, in the shape of a culture. Subsequently and gradually it transformed into a larger blend of the available respective cultures, pertaining to the host of Aryan Settlers along with the host of the local Dravidians – which was emerged subsequently as Vedic Civilization, solely based on the Vern Ashram (i.e. the caste rule). And as such it was their native name Hindu, wherefrom the name of their creed was coined after about more than two millenniums of the surge of the creed.A renowned Hindu scholar, Nirad C. Choudhry writes in his book, “The Continent of Circe”“I am surprised to find how many people even among those who are well-educated think that we are Hindus because we have a religion called Hinduism and that word is comparable to ‘Christian’ or ‘Muslim. It had no such association for the Hindus or for their neighbors in former times. This crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices except the phrase Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the Orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism; our religion has been given the very imprecise label Hinduism’ because it is the jumble of the creeds and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country. On this analogy the Greek religion might be called Hellenism and Graecism”.Another Hindu scholar, Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul writes in his book, Wakes up Hindus:“The word Hinduism derived from Hindu, a Corruption of Sindhu.The Punjab in Vedic times called Sapta Sindhu (The land of seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranians as, Haft Hindu and so the inhabitants of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslims invaders.”To tell the truth, the Indus River is exclusively a Muslim River (though I use this term as a phrase) -for, which has been as steadfast as a Muslim should have been. In spite of all the hurdles and the unjust divide of our owned India, this mighty, impressive and striking river after forming its identity as such has been flowing throughout in the now Muslim India (i.e. the Pakistan) – and by hinting towards the destiny it ends its journey at the Arabian Sea, in the Ocean – the Ocean which itself has not only being contributed by the former with fresh water but had also been contributed, by this splendid and refined river, with an identity and name – (i.e. the Indian Ocean).The phrase I have used for the Indus River can be judged not only from its nativity but also from its originality, openheartedness, cleanliness and candidness. This superb River has also given identity to many other entities, nations and regions, so openly – and none of them has any nexus whatsoever with Hinduism. For instance,Indian Ocean the ocean wherein the mighty river, Indus is emptied and has been taking bath, since the time immemorial.Indonesia/East Indies a Muslim country comprised of nearly 13000 islands, situated in the Indian Ocean.Indochina: the now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam etc. – once were comprised of a peninsula called Indochina, for its inhabitants had been or considered to be the cross-breed of Indians and Chinese.West Indies: the chain of islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica etc. which includes about 23 entities, situated in the Caribbean Sea, to the west of the Indian Ocean – given this reason the Indonesia along with Madura and south Borneo were once called East Indies, for they were located in the southeast of the Indian Ocean.Red Indians: the Native Americans or the aborigines, inhabiting north and South America, they are considered as the Indians who crossed the now Bering Strait (in Atlantic) through the ice-bridge in the ancient ice age of Pleistocene epoch. So the main region of those Red Indians have been given officially, the name and status of Indiana state as the 19th state of the USA. In this regard my reliance is on the following borrowed excerpts from the world class, the world best selling and amazing Multimedia Encyclopedia; ENCARTA“The Native Americans of North America are believed to be descendants of the Mongoloids, early hunters and gatherers who migrated from Asia to North America in waves possibly from as early as 30,000 BC. These Stone Age peoples crossed an ice-age land bridge across what is now the Bering Strait during the Pleistocene epoch”. Furthermore,“Indiana entered the Union on December 1, 1816, as the 19th state. Three 19th-century US presidents William Henry Harrison, his grandson Benjamin Harrison, and Abraham Lincoln lived in Indiana for substantial periods. Manufacturing became the chief economic activity in the early 20th century, but at the start of the 1990s the state was also a major producer of farm commodities, especially corn, soya beans, and pigs. The states name, which refers to Native Americans (“Indians”), was coined in the 1760s and applied to a private tract of land in Pennsylvania; the name was officially adopted when Indiana Territory was formed in 1800. Indiana is known as the “Hoosier State”. Its major cities are Indianapolis (the capital), Fort Wayne, Evansville, Gary, South Bend, and Hammond”.I also reproduce the opinions of the world-renowned geographer, Hecataes (549-52) and of the world-renowned historian, Herodotus (484-425 BC), considered as “father of history” – in the following borrowed words:India was the country in the neighborhood of river Indus and this was the ultimate country on the face of the earth. Beyond this lay the ” Deserta Incognita” unknown desert or ” Marusthali” (i.e. place of death).It shows that the now Pakistan was India and not the now Bharat.Now when it is an established fact that Hind/India have been derived from the grand river Sindh/Indus (even in the northern regions of Pakistan, including Malakand division the name of this river has been Aba Sindh – meaning, father of rivers) – then this name is exclusively our entity and property and hence amongst other prides, this also must be our sanctity and identity, not of others who has no right whatsoever upon it – and we alone have the right to snatch it back – and rename our country as Islamic Republic Of India – or Muslim India to be more appropriate.The reasons for my this urge and drive are very much compelling and pressing, for instance,The foremost and the prime question has been that what is the nationality and what is our nationality? In my view every live nationality, in this world has two inescapable ingredients, the soul (i.e. the religion) and the body (i.e. the region – or the nativity) – as these have been inevitable for a living being. Religion has been optional, hence can be chosen and be changed any time – but nativity has been non-optional, hence can neither be picked out, nor can be replaced. This is why that after embracing Islam, the soul or nucleus of nationality of the Arabs, Persian and Turks and many others, changed forthwith – and they all became Muslims – but so far their nativities were concerned all of them have been intact and will be intact – hence they are the Arab Muslims, the Persian Muslims, the Turks Muslims and so forth. So much so that the renowned Companions of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW), Bilal (RA) has been Bilal Habshi, (RA) – (i.e. Bilal the Ethiopian, RA), Salman (RA) has been Salman Farsi (RA) – (i.e. Salman the Persian, RA), Suhaib (RA) has been Suhaib Rumi (RA) – (i.e. Suhaib the Roman, RA) – and one of the Ummahat-ul-Mumineen (RA), namely, Omul Mumineen, Maria (RA), Mother of Ibrahim (RA), the Prophet Mohammads son, has been Maria Qibthiya (i.e. Maria the Egyptian, RA) – and Malka of Saba, AS (i.e. Sabean Queen, AS) has been Malka Saba, AS (Queen of Saba) – even after they all embraced Islam. As such the Muslim Millat (i.e. The Muslim Grand Nation) has been composed of Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turk Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Berber Muslims, Tartar Muslims and so forth. And when the reference is to be made to the Muslim Grand Nation or Muslim Millat – then the whole world is their Grand Nativity. This is one of the edges the Muslims Nations have got over other nations, for there is no conception of Millat in them – because in Muslims the nucleus of their nationalities has the same i.e. Islam – whereas in them the both the nucleuses as well as the peripheries are different. In seeking the answer of the question my reliance is on the Holy Quran: “O MANKIND! LO! WE HAVE CREATED YOU FROM MALE AND FEMALE – AND HAVE MADE NATIONS – AND TRIBES THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER. LO! THE NOBLEST OF YOU, IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH, IS THE BEST IN CONDUCT. LO! ALLAH IS KNOWER – AWARE.” (SURAH AL-HUJURAT, 39-13). By going through and thinking through this Holy Verse along with many others relevant to the subject – what I have gathered, as a petty student of the Holy Quran therefrom is that in classification of the humankind the inter se distinction among the nations has been emphasized more overtly while sorting out the various nations. Ergo the following are the criterions/yardsticks for the classification of the mankind:Humanity: humanity has been used as the first criterion or the yardstick to distinguish the human race from all other beings, as evident from the addressee as well as from the discloser of the commonality of their descendant, in the Holy Verse. And as such it has been established, firstly; that as human beings we all are one and the same entity – and secondly; that human being is second to none vis-à-vis other beings.Loyalty to a faith: now to define and distinguish the humankind inter se, faith has been used as the second criterion or yardstick – and thus the believers of Islam has been declared as the “Muslims” – whereas the believers of Judaism are called Yehuda i.e. Jews, the believers of Christianity are called Nazareth or Christians – and so forth were the nations of Aad, Thamud and Sab-i-een accordingly in the ancient periods.Nativity: But as obvious from the day one that the humankind at variance in religions are found all over the world at variance in regions or nativities – so solely on the basis of the loyalty towards a particular religion without giving reference to the respective region or nativity, the inter se distinction could have neither being made in Muslims nor in the believers of other religions. Hence due to this reason, in the aforementioned Holy Verse as I have been referring to, the most emphasis has been given on the inter se distinction of the various nations and tribes. Now so for the tribes are concerned even in them the inter se distinction cannot be established without giving reference to the respective progenitor or nativity thereto. Hence in the same way, nations of same belief all over the world could not be distinguished without giving reference to the respective region or nativity. And thus it is for this reason that the words nations and tribes have been used in plural, in the Holy Verse, which signifies that nations as well as the tribes have been more than one. Thus to distinguish the Muslims inter se as well as the Non-Muslims, the respective religion along with the respective region (i.e. nativity) has to be used inevitably to consolidate the definition as well as the distinction of various Muslim nations as well as the Non-Muslims all over the world. To stress a little more I mean to submit that neither alone a religion could be made the sole basis for a living and a distinctive nationality – and nor alone the nativity. And ergo both the definitions of nationality unleashed by the two most celebrated and great scholars, at the juncture of formation of this country; one on the sole basis of religion and the second on the lone basis of region (i.e. nativity) with due respect were suffering extremely from extremism. Thus in my opinion both the religion as well as the region (i.e. nativity) have been as vital for a living and a distinctive nationality, as a nucleus and its periphery have been vital for a viable atom. And it is due to this cause that even today the people of Germany, America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Russia etc are as different nations simply on account of their different nativities – as the Buddhists, Sikhs and Chinese have been, on account of their difference in religions as well as in nativities.Now the next part of my question is, what is our nationality? In our case too Islam has been the Soul or Nucleus of our nationality and the Indian nativity has been the natural body or the natural periphery of our nationality. We could choose the religion of our choice, that we have done well, but we can neither choose the nativity nor substitute, for that is not a matter of choice or substitution – it is always granted – and we have been bestowed upon, the Indian nativity – the original most, the natural most, the ancient most, the magnificent most and the elegant most. We have been Muslims by religion and Indian by region/nativity. As such we have been Indian Muslims – as others are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turks Muslims. Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Tajak Muslims, Uzbek Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Maldivian Muslims, Sri-Lankan Muslims, Moroccans Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims and so on. And if all the Muslim nations, the world over have retained and have been retaining their respective nativity, they have had long before embracing Islam – why we the Muslims of this subcontinent could not retain ours? Whereas in fact our nativity has been more ours exclusively and has been more original and natural, as compared to others. But the funny thing has been that we were staunch and sturdy Indian Muslims at 12.00 midnight, on August 13, 1947 and before – but simply a little after i.e. at 12.01 AM, August 14, 1947, all of a sudden we became Pakistani Muslims – altogether a new brand and breed. And as such we stunned and shunned all the pride we had been the custodians thereto, for round about one millennium. This is an unprecedented national tragedy and a comedy simultaneously.Every live nationality in the world has been comprised of a nucleus (i.e. the religion) and the periphery (i.e. the nativity). Hence we observe that there have been, Arab Christians, American Christens, Russian Christians, Bharati Christians and so forth.The secular Turkey (or say with the feeble soul of religion) can survive easily but the most religious Chechnya and the Palestine (without the control of their respective regions) could not – or survive hardly.4. We as Indian Muslims had no free homeland after fall of the Muslim empire and before the freedom – but yet we were a formidable nation, as Indian Muslims and as such we had retained our identity and nationality, though we were in search of free homeland desperately. But the amusing thing is that the moment we seized a marvelous homeland – we left behind our identity and lost. And hence before the freedom we were in search of a homeland: but after the freedom, our homeland has been in the search of her nation. Simply because of the simulated and childish replacement of our natural nativity – and this is why, still we are bewildering in the search of identity and nationality.By fabricating and calling ourselves as Pakistani Muslims, instead of Indian Muslims, we severed and cut off the root of the two-nation theory on one hand and admitted the Bharati Hindus as Indian Hindus and the left over Muslims i.e. the Indian Muslims as Bharati Muslims, in Bharat, on the other.As Indian Muslims we had played the most dominant, commanding and vital role as an impressive nation in the world history – but simply because of the concoction and impersonation in respect of our nationality, no one knows even today, what is Pakistan and who are Pakistanis? And all the historical pride belonging to the word India was bequeathed to the stingy Hindus, our bloodthirsty archenemy.The word, Pakistan had never ever been, a civilization, a culture, a creed or even a city, let alone a country.The word, Pakistan has no real historical meaning and had never ever been a word or entity that had been written or entered in any dictionary or encyclopedia in any part of the world.All the Muslims on either side of the border admit with pride that they have been the Indian Muslims but none of them could understand to admit with pride that how they became Pakistani Muslims and the left behind Muslim brethren as Indian Muslims, hence an identity perplexes developed – and so due to the absence of natural nativity, the artificial locality were being contrived, retrieved and erected instead.The word Pakistan has been as alien for us as it has been for the rest of the world, hence some intentionally while others unintentionally pronounce it incorrectly – very recently, Mr. Blair as well as Mr. Bush pronounced the Pakistanis, as the “Pakis” in an internationally televised speech, which is a nude slang.The Bharati Hindus and the Zionists Jews in particular, because of their old mischievous habits, have been mispronouncing it in more offending way as “phukis” and as such throughout the internet they have been using the slang “pakis” as a nickname for Pakistanis. Both the Hindus and Jews have the old genetic nexus and hence both have been the senior slangy twins. Hence once the Almighty Allah had to intervene when the elderly slangy Jews, by giving extra stress and strain malafidely to the word “Raina” (i.e. Listen to us) – while talking to the Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and used to mispronounce the same as “Raaina” which was a slang hence the Almighty Allah commanded the believers forthwith in these words; “O YE WHO BELIEVE, SAY NOT (UNTO THE PROPHET): “LISTEN TO US” (RAINA) BUT SAY LOOK UPON US” (UNZURNA). (SURAH ALBAQARAH 2-104) Thus so much has been the offensive effect of the mispronounced words.The Hindus were in a high dilemma about the name of the left over country, Bharat, at the time of partition – but it was the late Choudhry Rehmat Ali who answered their problem within no time.No one including Choudhry Rehmat Ali has/had the right to propose a name for the nation simply for entertainment and amusement – like a big choudhry use to propose a name for the newly born baby in their outcaste, in pind (village) – they call them, kami kamin (i.e. base-born persons), as nathu or khairi.China, Germany, Korea, Yemen and many others have been mangled for centuries but yet none of the part has ever deserted its nativity.Religion has been the best rope to be tied with and to keep tight and unite a nation of course but still even a wise woodcutter never tie the bundle of the wood with a single rope, he usually apply three ropes, lest the one let loose, in the intricate journey.Religion has been the greatest integrating force indeed but its fire (i.e. warmth and excitement) need constant fanning by a very fabulous, extraordinary and legendary pious leader – who does not born so frequently but rather very very rarely – whereas so far nativity is concerned, it has been self fanning and self fueling all the time, like the jungle fire.Religion needs nice and virtuous people to be attracted to and blended together – but in case of nativity, even the beasts have been the most loyal and devoted followers. You may throw away a cat for hundred times but it will never leave her native home.Every living being has been granted with two legs at least, no one, if normal has ever been seen as a single footed, for no one can stay at a single foot, like a Hindu jogi (i.e. Hindu ascetic) for longer – so how a nation can stay on a single foot for so longer, particularly when the nation has been surrounded by, with a little exception (i.e. of China, Sri Lanka) – the evil most neighbors, which have been pushing the nation right from the very beginning. So this was one of the reasons due to which our country was dismembered by the over time pushing neighbor, the bulky and Brahman Bharat, which herself has been fastened foxily, simply with the rope of nativity we left behind.To re-catch, reclaim and maintain the lineage and relation with the past glory it is the only way out to rename our country with reference to the context.Now the mind haunting question, I know is, how I exclude the Hindus from the Indian nativity? The reasons are so many but to cut short, I submit a few,They have never ever named their country India before, even before the Christ and before Ashoka the Great.Even today they believe the Indian Subcontinent as Bharth Versh right from the demise of their Rajah Bharth, far more before the Christ, so they must not be bashful to follow their belief.In their constitution their official name has been as Bharat, right from the beginning and never India so they must not feel embarrassed to follow their constitution.The English translation for Bharat has never been India so they have no right to play with the grammar of an international language.The name “Hindustan” is purely a Persian word and the name “India” is purely its English version – and none of them has anything to do with Sanskrit at least – the suffix “stan” has always been used exclusively by Muslims as suffix with the names of Muslim countries, e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Daghistan, Kirghizistan, Afghanistan and hence were used by Muslims as well their rulers in the case of India during the 1000 years Muslim rule. Whereas both, the original name “Bhart” and its corruption the now “Bharat” have its origin from Sanskrit.They have neither any share in, nor any regard for the river Sindh/Indus – rather they have been jealous and envious towards it, hence they have no right to get share and regard therefrom.Their own Hindu and the most sacred rivers have been Ganges and Yamunas, hence they should borrow name therefrom, if they like their own rivers.Hindus have been 99% in Nepal but they have never claimed the name India, for they know that they or their creed have no connection whatsoever, with the India or Indian nativity – and they have been proud of their own nativity namely, Nepalese – which further cements the fact that Hindus, have nothing to do with the word India.