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
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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. :
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.
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. :
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.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
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?
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.
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.....
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
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.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
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.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
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
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
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.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
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.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
I also note you bypassed my nationalism-criticism without comment. should I take it as you have no objections?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965