The more that the science of anthropology advances, the more it lends credence to the theory that says, we all are the descendants of one individual from the homo sapient species. The evidence is that this individual arose in Ethiopia, and her descendants spread from there to all the places around Planet Earth.
This
being the case, it cannot be argued that someone (anyone) has originated
anywhere outside of Ethiopia. But despite this reality, we separate and
classify into various groups, all human beings who are, after all, visibly
different from each other in terms of physical attributes such as skin color,
for example. What’s going on? More importantly, what are the ramifications of
looking differently from each other, and having to live apart by necessity or
otherwise?
With
regard to what’s going on, scientists are working hard, as they always do, to
determine how the climate conditions as well as the flora and fauna that were
available in each patch of the Planet, have combined to give each group of humans
the unique appearance that is now considered proper to them.
With
regard to the impact of what happened eons ago on what’s happening today, this
reality is playing an important role in how Civilization is progressing. You
see, my friend, as long as the people who came out of Ethiopia were moving into
places where no one had been before, they could claim the land for themselves,
call it their homeland, and not think about territorial integrity. But when
every place on Earth had been claimed by someone, and there were people that
had no place to call their own, clashes ensued between the have and the have
not. What made matters worse, was that the difference in physical appearance
between the various groups had become more pronounced with the passage of time.
And this added a new dimension to the fear that human beings developed of the
“other”.
For
several centuries after that, the natural state of our species was that of
being involved in wars, mayhem, looting, occupation, colonization and what have
you. And then, the human race of all skin colors, ideology and religious
persuasion, decided that enough was enough. This happened right after the
Second World War when the process of decolonization was in full swing. It was
then decreed and accepted by all that the situation as it existed on the ground
at the time, was to remain frozen. That is, you own the patch of land where you
live. You neither expand it nor fear being annexed by a neighbor or invaded by
an army that will come from afar. Any alteration that should happen, may happen
only with the mutual consent of the stakeholders.
But
as always, even the most moral of ideas, and the best laid out plans, contain
within them what may be considered a fly in the ointment. That’s what happened
here; a reality that brought under the magnifying glass, an aspect of human
reasoning that is more terrifying than any natural or artificial cataclysm you may
think of. You’ll see what that is when you read the article that came under the
title, “Palestine: A fake construct for Jew-hating Arabs,” written by Jonathan
Verlin, and published on July 31, 2021 in The American Thinker.
Jonathan
Verlin begins the discussion by hitting the reader in the face with this
categorical affirmation: There is no “Palestine.” It does not exist.
Reading
a certainty that is this absolute, brings to mind the debate on competing
claims — one Palestinian and
one Jewish — that has been ongoing for a time now, concerning the ownership of
the land known to the world as Palestine. You begin to think that Verlin, who
is a Jew, will try to argue that because there is no Palestine (which is his
false claim) there cannot be Palestinians to claim it, therefore the land
belongs to the Jews, if only by default or whatever screwy logic.
And
so, you continue to read the Verlin article, looking for the moment when the
writer will explain the implication of what he said. It was that the Yiddish
speaking people who fled the Holocaust as it was developing in Europe by
running to Palestine beginning a century ago, had been in Palestine before those
who call themselves Palestinians. But by Verlin’s own admission, the latter had
been in there for decades, for centuries, even millenniums, speaking Arabic
before the advent of the Yiddish speaking Europeans. How does that make any
kind of sense according to Verlin’s logic?
To
your dismay, Jonathan Verlin makes no attempt to explain his logic. What he
does instead, is work on delegitimizing the right of Palestinians to their
homeland by legitimizing the fake right of every convert to Judaism who claims
ownership of Palestine. Verlin does that by inventing historical events that
give him away as the most ignorant thing that has ever disgraced Planet Earth.
His entire article speaks to that effect, of which a representative paragraph
goes as follows:
“Palestinians were people of most any religion
who actually lived there — Jews, Christians, and Muslims. They were all
considered Palestinians. In the 1960s and 1970s, the term became inclusive
of all Arabs because it was imposed upon them by their leaders for political
reasons. Most of these people who call themselves Palestinian are actually
descendants of people from Arabia, who immigrated to Israel often illegally
during the Jewish mandate in order to enjoy a greater standard of living”.
This
guy says he is a teacher. Imagine the toxic garbage he is pumping into the
tender heads of America’s children who will grow up and be in charge of the
country a decade or two from now.
It will not be God bless America. It will be, please God, help America.