One author states no authority for Palestine State

acutejam

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The same UN who continually condemns Israels actions? Why bring the UN up if you only care about what they say when it fits your argument? Saying we are all Palestinians in no way says that Palestinians have the right to kill, it says that they are humans just like anyone else. Israelis have a huge arsenal which they use to bombard people on a very large scale....that gives me no hope. Israel doesn't have to lobby shit they have they have all the funding they need. They seem less 'out there' and 'crazed' because they are not as deseperate.

Ok, just bare with me here for a moment. I bring the UN up because.....
That is what the thread is about, the Authority for a Palestinian State. I attempted to indicate that by "The point at hand..."

Very subtle clues I know but, thus is language.

rebornFixer

acutejam wrote:

Ok, just bare with me here for a moment. I bring the UN up because.....
That is what the thread is about, the Authority for a Palestinian State. I attempted to indicate that by "The point at hand..."

Very subtle clues I know but, thus is language.

Its hard to take "but the UN condemns Israel" arguments all that seriously, when you look at what the content of the resolutions generally is. Its basically harassment, and not much else.

Truthmonger

There was a time when certain people said that the very name "Palestine" was figment of people's imagination. They said that Palestine, either as a general area, or as a distinct political entity, never existed. Well, we know that's not rue. The term "Palestine" has existed for centuries, and was/is used to describe that area now known as Israel.

Last week i ran across a massive book from 1852 called "The History of All Nations" by S.G. Goodrich. It not only makes reference to Palestine, but it devotes an entire short chapter to it, maps and all. From what I remember, it desribed it as a land of the Philistines, who in ancient times vied with the Jews for supremacy of that region.

Truthmonger

I think its interesting to note that whereas some people previously doubted the very existence of Palestine, or any etymological concept of it, they now say that it never existed in any official politcal capacity. The article in the first post here is one such piece. And this is said as though it somehow assuages the actions taken against the Palestinians when the current state of Israel was formed.

Its just my opinion, but I don't buy the notion that a formal Palestinian state had to exist in order that the Palestinian people be given more recognition for the difficulties that they have had to endure. I think thats a cop-out.

rebornFixer

Truthmonger wrote:

Its just my opinion, but I don't buy the notion that a formal Palestinian state had to exist in order that the Palestinian people be given more recognition for the difficulties that they have had to endure. I think thats a cop-out.

I agree, actually ... In fact, I think many of these historical arguments (Palestine never existed, Israel never existed, Israel shouldn't exist, etc.) basically miss the boat by ignoring current realities. In our current reality, Israel does exist, and the Palestinians do indeed have a legitimate claim to their own state, given current social and economic realities.

monkey spanker

reborncareerist wrote:

I agree, actually ... In fact, I think many of these historical arguments (Palestine never existed, Israel never existed, Israel shouldn't exist, etc.) basically miss the boat by ignoring current realities. In our current reality, Israel does exist, and the Palestinians do indeed have a legitimate claim to their own state, given current social and economic realities.

it sems that the palestinians are more interested in israel not existing at all, than having their own state.

rebornFixer

monkey spanker wrote:

it sems that the palestinians are more interested in israel not existing at all, than having their own state.

I don't know ... That assertion applies to groups like Hamas, as well as to many in the rest of the Arab world. However, I think many more moderate Palestinians would simply get on with their everyday lives if the conflict came to an end. People like Abbas would settle for being left alone.

Abookamongstthemany

acutejam wrote:

Ok, just bare with me here for a moment. I bring the UN up because.....
That is what the thread is about, the Authority for a Palestinian State. I attempted to indicate that by "The point at hand..."

Very subtle clues I know but, thus is language.

Yes, but I think it is wrong to point to them for reference only when you agree with them and give them no credibility the rest of the time.

Abookamongstthemany

WindNoSail wrote:

Land for Peace...what a concept. Rather than go to war and win the land we want you to give it up under world pressure so that Palestinians can have land they never had before. And then we the give land to the Palestenians so they use it for corrupt purposes and to further the hatred.

I guess the US is occupying the Southwest these days, cause actually it is Mexico's land. And that isn't really even a good analogy because it is true that we did take that land from Spain. Who took it from the natives.

Damn, we really should all just go back to the Fertile Crescent and live there cause we have no rights to any other land as far as I can see.

This rehash of history is just a tool used to continue the arguments for more war, so I suggest we look at who is propogating the hatred and realize that they are not the way to peace anywhere.

So you wouldn't have a problem with a group or country taking over the US now? They would be justified?

Truthmonger

monkey spanker wrote:

it sems that the palestinians are more interested in israel not existing at all, than having their own state.

This statement is somewhat problematic. First, if you don't believe in something from the very start, or by its very nature, then you won't believe in it later, or because someone else tells you to. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the formation of Israel in 1948, the land was largely inhabited by Arabs - approx. 67 % were Arabs. Why would you, as a sizeable majority, want to lose the land you've been living on for centuries ?

Secondly, the Israeli's have done their fair share in terms of frustrating matters for a Palestinian state - esp. of late. Camp David was/is a joke, yet its held up as a shining example of what Israel offers to the Palestinains. But do you know what Camp David offered the Palestinins ? If you don't know, you should investigate it and maybe you'll understand why the Palestinians were right to refuse it. Its disgraceful that such a proposal saw the light of day, and its even more disgusting that Clinton tried to flog it to the Palestinians.

OutOfBreath

brianjd wrote:

Can someone produce a map of any kind showing there was a country called Palestine at any time?

What Occupation?

I disagree with the premise. The premise is pure nationalism that says that only certain "people" are entitled to a "nation". (But who defines who are "people" and "deserving" is rarely debated.) Since that particular area have rarely througout history been an independant area in any way, I find that phrasing of the question irrelevant. Palestine has been under many different empires and other nations. Never independant until the UN-resolution made it so.

Implied is that the people who live there, who may well have inhabited the area for centuries, does not "deserve" to be there, since they can't call themselves a distinctive nation. That's like saying that my region in Norway, Hordaland, if it were settled and occupied by, say, Icelanders (who emigrated from Norway 1000 years ago), we wouldn't have anything to say because 1. there has never been a nation called Hordaland, and 2. Why can't we just move to other parts of Norway and quit whining. That's paraphrasing the usual arguments when it comes to Israel/Palestine. I find it a sidetrack and largely irrelevant apart from nationalistically motivated score-keeping for continuation of conflict until "the nation" again stands tall.

It is irrelevant whether there are old maps with the nation of "Palestine" inscribed. Several nations today have never existed before the last decades. Does that mean they doesn't exist, or that they should revert under the nations and empires that ruled them for centuries?

What goes on in the occupied territories is definitely an occupation in any practical sense of the term. Military presence is strong and high, curfews and checkpoints all over the place and heavy restrictions upon movement among the natives, and most important the military force is foreign, not made up of the natives, and not under any native control. Calling it an occupation isn't very outlandish. One may debate whether Israel is justified in occupying, but I see little grounds to question that there IS an occupation.

But the premise "there has not been a nation called Palestine, thus there is no occupation" is a semantic twist to contradict and supercede reality. Ok, there has been no such nation, is it an illusion that there live people there, and have done for centuries, until Israel was constructed by the UN in 1948? Are they all bluffing and throwing themselves at Israeli weapons for god knows what purpose because they're evil and heathen and hate jews? I have severe problems with this premise and it's implied conclusion.

Peace
Dan

Truthmonger

brianjd wrote:

Can someone produce a map of any kind showing there was a country called Palestine at any time?

There are NUMEROUS maps spanning numerous centuries that have clearly, explicitly highlighted Palestine as a geographic area in focus. I saw one just yesterday from 1759 that dealt explicitly with Palestine, and referred to it as such. But then, this is hardly rare. Here's another, this one from the 17th c. :

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/maps/MAPHOLY017L.JPG


And this website shows a good many more about Palestine over the past several centuries. A number of them clearly refer to Palestine:

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/maps/MAPHOLY02.HTML

As a former collector of antique maps, let me assure you there is no shortage of maps dedicated to the area known as Palestine. These are not Arab maps either, but European. The assertion that Palestine is a modern contrivance for political convenience, or that the name was simply pulled out of thin air, is patently absurd. If you want to see more maps, I could show you.

brianjd

Truthmonger wrote:

There are NUMEROUS maps spanning numerous centuries that have clearly, explicitly highlighted Palestine as a geographic area in focus. I saw one just yesterday from 1759 that dealt explicitly with Palestine, and referred to it as such. But then, this is hardly rare. Here's another, this one from the 17th c. :

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/maps/MAPHOLY017L.JPG


And this website shows a good many more about Palestine over the past several centuries. A number of them clearly refer to Palestine:

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/maps/MAPHOLY02.HTML

As a former collector of antique maps, let me assure you there is no shortage of maps dedicated to the area known as Palestine. These are not Arab maps either, but European. The assertion that Palestine is a modern contrivance for political convenience, or that the name was simply pulled out of thin air, is patently absurd. If you want to see more maps, I could show you.

This was merely a debating point. Those who take the position that there is historical support for a modern nation state called Palestine miss the point. There could have and should have been a modern nation state called Palestine had the Arab armies not attacked Israel in 1948. Both sides can claim legitimate ties to the land. The point was simply that the idea of modern nation state of Palestine having more historical authority is patently fraudulent. Not only has no nation state ever existed called Palestine does not mean these people have no rights. The name Palestine is not even derived in Arab history. It is a bastardization of a name given to ancient Israel by conquering Romans.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If they want peace so badly, they might want to stop bulldozing homes and occupying land that they have no right to. They take more and kill more in the process. What has Palestine taken from Israel? If you want peace you need to do more than just say it. Killing doesn't start peace. When they stop killing, I'll believe they want peace, until then why pretend they are any better than the Palestinians?

So, if Israel just left Palestinians alone right now, there would be no trouble from Palestine?

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

So, if Israel just left Palestinians alone right now, there would be no trouble from Palestine?

Perhaps, it couldn't hurt to try. Killing them hasn't stopped anything, that's for sure.

Truthmonger

brianjd wrote:

This was merely a debating point. Those who take the position that there is historical support for a modern nation state called Palestine miss the point. There could have and should have been a modern nation state called Palestine had the Arab armies not attacked Israel in 1948. Both sides can claim legitimate ties to the land. The point was simply that the idea of modern nation state of Palestine having more historical authority is patently fraudulent. Not only has no nation state ever existed called Palestine does not mean these people have no rights. The name Palestine is not even derived in Arab history. It is a bastardization of a name given to ancient Israel by conquering Romans.

To be precise, you started this thread with a very particular, if not illuminating, question. I was merely answering the call. I don't understand why you're hung up on some people saying that Arabs had MORE rights than Jews to the land. It doesn't matter who has more or less rights - the fact of the matter is that Arabs had at least some rights to the land, but they got totally shafted. So why would they just roll over and accept it ? Then or now.

Perhaps its worth remembering that just 17 years before the Balfour Declaration, 94% of the inhabitants of present-day Israel were Arabs. Resentment was obviously brewing waaaaay before 1948. And as for the concept of a modern nation state, thats something that would have been foreign to the people of the Middle East - they never thought like that, and I doubt they would have accepted it. They lived in regional tribes, and had happily done so for ages. To them, I'm sure it would have been an imposition, and something to be fought.

brianjd

bootlegger10 wrote:

So, if Israel just left Palestinians alone right now, there would be no trouble from Palestine?

Sharon gave them Gaza and what did they do? Gaza immediately became another launching point for Katyushas and kidnapping. Homes are bulldozed when there is a connection made between a suicide bomber who walks into a market, bus, or school and slaughters innocent people. Its hard to empathize.....

brianjd

Truthmonger wrote:

To be precise, you started this thread with a very particular, if not illuminating, question. I was merely answering the call. I don't understand why you're hung up on some people saying that Arabs had MORE rights than Jews to the land. It doesn't matter who has more or less rights - the fact of the matter is that Arabs had at least some rights to the land, but they got totally shafted. So why would they just roll over and accept it ? Then or now.

Perhaps its worth remembering that just 17 years before the Balfour Declaration, 94% of the inhabitants of present-day Israel were Arabs. Resentment was obviously brewing waaaaay before 1948. And as for the concept of a modern nation state, thats something that would have been foreign to the people of the Middle East - they never thought like that, and I doubt they would have accepted it. They lived in regional tribes, and had happily done so for ages. To them, I'm sure it would have been an imposition, and something to be fought.

Someone who can discuss w/o being hostile and who is somewhat informed on the History of the region. Your point is well taken. And your sense of the History is somewhat accurate. I find it most frutrating to read post after post from people who have probably never opened a book before speaking.

With respect to the point you make about the Arabs being shafted the question really needs to be, by whom? There definitely were small movements of Jewish immigrartion to Palestine before and after Balfour. Jewish immigration back to the area known as Palestine was allowed in some small measure during the Ottoman Turk occupaton. Interestingly, of all the dynasties in modern times that occupied present day Israel, it was the Muslim Turks who were the most tolerant of Jewish religious practices and immigration to the region.

Not even the British allowed open Jewish immigration to Palestine even when they had actual knowledge of the Holocaust. This is not debatable. With respect to who screwed the Palestinians, blame needs to be fairly apportioned.

First, blame the Europeans. Perhaps if they had not forced the Jews out of their homes in every nation in Europe and killed 6 million of them, there would not now be this conflict. Be fair and be accurate. Jews were oppressed and killed in almost every country in Europe at various times in history culminating in the Holocaust. Where were they supposed to go?

Next, let's look at the other Arab actors who have contributed to Palestinian oppression. Jordan occupied the West Bank prior to 1967 and this was land designated by the UN as part of a Palestinian state. Same of Egypt in Gaza. They were occupying the land well before Israel.

So many people have participated in th oppression of the Palestinians that it is just not fair statement to focus on just Israel. The politics of the area is just too complex to do that.

brianjd

brianjd wrote:

Someone who can discuss w/o being hostile and who is somewhat informed on the History of the region. Your point is well taken. And your sense of the History is somewhat accurate. I find it most frutrating to read post after post from people who have probably never opened a book before speaking.

With respect to the point you make about the Arabs being shafted the question really needs to be, by whom? There definitely were small movements of Jewish immigrartion to Palestine before and after Balfour. Jewish immigration back to the area known as Palestine was allowed in some small measure during the Ottoman Turk occupaton. Interestingly, of all the dynasties in modern times that occupied present day Israel, it was the Muslim Turks who were the most tolerant of Jewish religious practices and immigration to the region.

Not even the British allowed open Jewish immigration to Palestine even when they had actual knowledge of the Holocaust. This is not debatable. With respect to who screwed the Palestinians, blame needs to be fairly apportioned.

First, blame the Europeans. Perhaps if they had not forced the Jews out of their homes in every nation in Europe and killed 6 million of them, there would not now be this conflict. Be fair and be accurate. Jews were oppressed and killed in almost every country in Europe at various times in history culminating in the Holocaust. Where were they supposed to go?

Next, let's look at the other Arab actors who have contributed to Palestinian oppression. Jordan occupied the West Bank prior to 1967 and this was land designated by the UN as part of a Palestinian state. Same of Egypt in Gaza. They were occupying the land well before Israel.

So many people have participated in th oppression of the Palestinians that it is just not fair statement to focus on just Israel. The politics of the area is just too complex to do that.

as the previous poster pointed out is that there is no history in the arab world of statehood as we define it in the west. this is indeed the entire problem. states were carved up arbitrarily due to the failed colonization of the area primarily by the British and French who drew boundaries all over the world with little or no regard for the tribal nature of the lands they tried to turn into nation states. this is the problem that will plague the region for generations.

OutOfBreath

Why do you quote yourself brianjd? And talk about your own quote as if someone else said it? Just curious.

I also note you bypassed my nationalism-criticism without comment. should I take it as you have no objections?

Peace
Dan