Palestinian population rises to 8.7m in 2003

[DuctapeFatwa]

The number of Palestinians around the world reached 8.7 million in 2003, including 3.7 million in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, according to official figures published Wednesday.
The total figure rises to 9.7 million with the inclusion of Israelis of Arab origin, the survey by the Palestinian Authority's bureau of statistics found.

Of the 3.7 million inhabitants of the Palestinian territories, 2.3 million live in the West Bank and 1.4 million in Gaza.

Around 2.8 million live in Jordan, 436,000 in Syria, 415,000 in Lebanon and 62,000 in Egypt. Some 595,000 live in other Arab countries.

The largest western-based chunk of the diaspora is now in the United States, home to some 236,000 Palestinians.

http://www.jordantimes.com/Thu/news/news12.htm

[Jim Sagle]

1. This drives a stake through the heart of the charges of ethnic cleansing.

:thumbsup:

[Aidoneus]

2. how so?

(kids, this lesson is called "Fun With A Calculator"..)

according to these numbers:-- (approximate figures, and decimals were whacked off at the altar of expediency)
--10% of Palestinians live within 78% of their historical homeland
--38% of Palestinians live in the other 22% of their historical homeland, parts of which being so generously being offered back by their invader and conquerer.
--another 38% within a day's drive--not counting the delays that the roadblocks and "Jews only" roads would bring, but I digress--, as refugees/muhajiris and kept outside of their lands.
--thus it is that a majority (52%) of Palestinians live outside the whole of their historical homeland (with 90% existing outside of 78% of it), having been driven out of their lands & homes and--in the eyes of the dominant tendency in the regime created to destroy and prevent their existance as a nation in order to replace them--ideally kept out of them forever.

So "drives a stake through the heart" to that argument wouldn't be the phrase I would use (something of an opposite choice of words, actually), but neither would I say something like "Ariel's da man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place".. so, I guess we're just very different. :shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

3. With ethnic cleansing, population falls.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. No, Jim

You're confusing ethnic cleansing (or transfer, as they like to call it in the Middle East) with genocide.

Of course, that's easy to do. They work hand-in-hand.

The kind of ethnic cleansing that is to be most feared hasn't happened yet. It probably won't. Let's hope not.

On the other hand, there are members of "da man"'s cabinet who think it would be a good idea.

[Jim Sagle]

8. Bzzzt! Wrong again. With transfer, population falls somewhere and rises

somewhere else. The Palestinian population isn't falling anywhere, is it?

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Bzzzt! read what I wrote

(E)thnic cleansing . . . hasn't happened . . .

Ethinic cleansing (aka transfer) is the removal of a population from a specified area. The definition implies that it can be done without loss of life; however, it is unlikely that a government will be able to implement such a program without meetin resistance.

The Rome Statute defines as a crime against humanity (Article 7, Paragraph 1(d)):

Deportation or forcible transfer of population

and further elaborates (Article 7, Paragraph 2(d)):

"Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law(.)

The term ethnic cleansing is not used in the Rome Statute or any other document of international law. The above is intended to cover the matter.

[Jim Sagle]

13. Pfffbbbbtttt! I did read what you wrote. What I wrote anihilated it.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. How so?

What you wrote had nothing of substnace. One person asserted that ethnic cleansing is taking place. You were correct to refute that assertion, but you did so for the wrong reason. You said that if ethnic cleansing were happening, the Palestinian population would fall. I pointed out that that falling population is not a sign of ethnic cleansing, it is a sign of genocide. Ethnic cleansing is simply removing a population from a given area. It is often accompanied by acts of mass murder, as it was in the recent Balkan wars.

I further pointed out in my last post that the term ethnic cleansing is colloquial. What international law prohibits is the deportation or forced transfer of a population, without denoting that act by any special name.

Transfer is every bit as much ethnic cleansing as scarlet is red. Moreover, regardless of what it is called, what Mr. Elon advocates is a crime against humanity.

[Jim Sagle]

23. If people are being transferred from Area A to Area B, the population of

Area A falls.

Right?

[GabysPoppy]

24. You would think so - n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

25. True

That may happen in the case of ethnic cleansing/transfer. It may also be that it is accompanied by mass murder in the area in which the population is to be cleared.

Since we don't see that phenomenon, I agree with you. There is no ethnic cleansing/transfer.

Just where was I wrong, sir?

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. So you don't count the West Bank and Gaza?

I'm sure Israel would be interested to know that.

What it does do is drives a stake through the heart of genocide claims that have cropped up here recently.

[corporatewhore]

5. factual error sorry (on my facts)

[Aidoneus]

7. count them in what?

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Your math

How can someone live in 78% or 22% of his homeland?

"--38% of Palestinians live in the other 22% of their historical homeland"

"10% of Palestinians live within 78% of their historical homeland"

Either Gaza and the West Bank are or are not the homeland for the Palestinians. That means 38% live in their homeland. An added 10% are Israeli citizens, not Palestinians.

[bemildred]

12. His math makes perfect sense.

You disagree with his categories.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Nonsense

It is nonsense to say that someone only lives in a percentage of their homeland. They either live in their homeland or they don't.

And it is also nonsense to annex 1 million Israeli citizens and claim they are something else.

[bemildred]

15. Like I said, you disagree with his categories.

They are not nonsense, they make perfect sense,
I understand them, and many others understand and
agree with them. But you disagree with them, and
that is your prerogative.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Not his categories

His claims. He claims one sixth of the Israeli population for another group. He claims that people live in percentages of territory. People either live in their homeland or they do not.

[bemildred]

19. A group is a category, Sir.

Israel also segregates those people into a diffent group
based on their ethnicity ("Israeli Arabs"). Mr. Aidoneus
refers to them instead as Palestinians. That is a disagreement
about categorization. These are not matters of fact, but of
government fiat and individual opinion and self-assignment. It
would be interesting to ask all of these people directly how
they assign themselves, but I don't expect that will be done.

His math adds up to 100%. The "historical homeland" may
not exist any more, or may be divided in two pieces as here.
The people can then be divided by which piece they reside in.
You are a smart person, I should not have to explain this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. But categories are not necessarily groups

And Israeli Arabs don't magically become Palestinians any more than Israeli Jews. They are, in fact, Israelis.

To call Israeli Arabs suddenly Palestinians is as accurate as calling me one. That is the accuracy that is not.

No matter what number his math adds up to, you either live in your homeland or you do not, unless your home magicaly straddles a border. So his numbers might add up, but they don't mean anything.

You are a smart person, I should not have to explain this.

[bemildred]

28. You are confusing ethnicity with citizenship.

I do not claim that Israeli Arabs are not Israelis.

The point is that they are also descendants of indigenous
Arab populations, and the question Mr. Aidoneus was trying
to address was what happened to those people. The two
categories are not exclusive.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. By that definition

Then there are 6 million Palestinians living in Israel, not 1 million. If the definition is people who live in Palestine or who are ethnically descended from those who did.

[bemildred]

30. That isn't quite it, I think.

They have to be descended from non-Jewish populations
living there at the time of the formation of the State of
Israel, not today. As I said in the other sub-thread, I
think one can argue that the Jews living there at the time
should be included (as Palestinians) too, and most of the
saner Palestinians writers that I see seem to agree, but
Israeli government policy distinguishes the two groups (Jews
and non-Jews) so it is a sort of de-facto division, and I
think that is the one Mr. Aidoneus was using.

[sushi]

33. You are very patient

:thumbsup:

[bemildred]

35. Sometimes.

Sometimes I think I'm just being stubborn.
But thanks for the compliment.

[Aidoneus]

34. I thought of that, but it complicated things beyond my abilities

I do have some figures on the more native Jewish population that lived there with the Arabs before the late 1800s immigrations tied to the European Zionist politics ("more native", as "native" itself is an impossible definition if a long enough time frame is considered). I would have considered those people in the same column as the above numbers, except that I couldn't think off hand of a way of factoring in the last hundredish years to these figures. Perhaps the GOI or a related group has studied that particular obscurity.. :shrug:

I would think that these specific people should be considered in the same definition of "Palestinian" as it is now known, having been a part of the same cultural grouping in the area for the same hundreds of years as those Palestinian Arabs that were driven out by the newer Zionist political organizations. The cultural grouping & interconnected influences between these more native Jews and the Arabs/etc would have dated back to at least the Jewish return to the area following Salahuddeen's jihad (the Crusaders had previously burned and butchered every Jew & Muslim they could run their sword through, running off most of the rest into Syria & Egypt). Many Jews fought in that alongside the Muslims and Coptic Christians, and only the series of victories over the Crusaders allowed them to return to the area, and have thus been with the Arabs in the area since that period up to the recent century (probably a more deeper tie to them than to the Zionists, but that's a more convoluted & complicated question that I don't feel myself qualified to judge).

[bemildred]

36. Yeah, basically from when the Crusaders were booted out.

A quite eclectic mix from what I have read about it, mostly
living in their own little worlds and trading with each other,
for around 700 years if you count up to 1900 or so. I hadn't
known Saladin was a Kurd. But really you should count from
the beginning of the Ottoman period, I suppose, when things
became fairly well stabilized.

[Jack Rabbit]

64. Yes, Saladin was a Kurd

An interesting little tidbit is that he was born in Tikrit (c. 1137).

[bemildred]

37. It is worth keeping in mind that all of these categories

get muddied up over time with people moving around and
miscegnating and so on, and they all fail if you start to
look at them too closely, as with the your comments on
sorting out who is indigenous to Palestine, and who not.

If you go back far enough we are all immigrants, and the
original peoples of Eurasia are mostly living on the high
ground or the fringes these days, as near as can be figured,
the Kurds, the Basque, the Berbers, the Celts. I don't know
enough about Asia to comment much.

B. Traven in his book "The Death Ship" does a long rant on
the closing of international borders and the introduction of
the Passport and visas early in the last century and it's
pernicious effects. I was surprised to find that as recently
as that one could go just go somewhere without much in the way
of permission, and nobody would pay much attention.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Why?

Why is THAT definition the only one that is right. I am African-American, a descendent of slaves brought to the U.S. HUNDREDS of years ago, yet I still have that definition. Why is YOUR claim of time the only valid one?

[bemildred]

40. It isn't the only one that's right.

It was just the one that made sense for the purpose
of understanding what Mr. Aidoneus was saying.
Why should there be only one valid one?

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Sure looks like it from your post

"They have to be descended from non-Jewish populations
living there at the time of the formation of the State of
Israel, not today. As I said in the other sub-thread, I
think one can argue that the Jews living there at the time
should be included (as Palestinians) too, and most of the
saner Palestinians writers that I see seem to agree, but
Israeli government policy distinguishes the two groups (Jews
and non-Jews) so it is a sort of de-facto division, and I
think that is the one Mr. Aidoneus was using."

Nowhere did you say, "They CAN be..."

I think the original claim that there were 1 million Palestinians living in Israel is Palestinian propaganda. There are either none or 6 million. Take your pick.

[Darranar]

43. How do you get 6 million?

And how is the fact that there are one million Israeli citizens who are also Palestinians Palestinian propaganda?

[Aidoneus]

44. I believe that's the population of Israel

I don't quite follow Muddles' argument, but I think he's saying that I have to include that population in with the figures about Palestinians or else the latter are just propaganda. ...or something. :shrug:

Besides nodding along with bemildred's posts (who is batting a thousand as to what I was driving at), I've been a bit hesitant to respond here.. not quite sure what is being disputed, except with Mike--on the other hand I did know what he was driving at.

[bemildred]

46. I infer that part of Muddles argument is that

the current crop of Jewish Israelis are descendants of
people living there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Yes it is the population of Israel

I am saying that if the 1 millions Israelis Arabs are suddenly counted as Palestinians then, by that logic, the other 5 million Israeli Jews should also be counted.

In other words, it's a bogus use of statistics.

Much like saying someone lives in a percentage of their homeland. they either live in their homeland or they do not.

[Jack Rabbit]

49. Yes, we know that's what your saying

However, it is your argument that has holes in it.

You say that in order for Palestinians to be identified as Palestinians, they must live in the Palestinian homeland. We will assume that means the West Bank and Gaza. However, as a supporter of Zionism, you also speak of Jews returning to their homeland. Does the fact that Jews, for the most part, did not live in their homeland for almost two millennia make them less Jews? And what of the two-thirds of all Jews today who do not live in Israel? Are they any less Jewish because they live elsewhere?

Again, Muddle, you are confusing the political concept of a state with the cultural concept of a nation. You are being more rigid about it than usual. An Arab born and living in Israel is an Israeli citizen, but his cultural identity is still that of an Arab.

There are a little more than one million people living in the state of Israel whose cultural identity is Arab. An Arab Israeli is a member of a distinct minority group, just as is an Afro-American in this country.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. No you misstate what I am saying

I am saying that the rules must be evenly applied. If someone must be descended from the people of Palestine then either ALL qualify or they do not.

That means either the Israeli Jewish people -- descended of or native to Palestine -- are Palestinians by that definition or NO ONE in Israel is.

An Arab living in Israel is indeed an Israeli citizen and, as such an Israeli Arab. To assume all such people consider themselves to be Palestinians is hubris and annexation that they did not request.

[Jack Rabbit]

51. You're still confusing culture and citizenship

Some Arab Israelis are Palestinian Israelis. All Palestinians (cultural sense) are Arabs (cultural sense). Consequently, all Palestinian Americans are Arab Americans.

Contrary to what Golda Meir once said, there is such a thing as a Palestinian, certainly in the cultural sense. One may live anywhere and hold such an identity. There is no such thing as a Palestinian citizen, because there is no Palestinian state.

If that's too confusing, I'll restate my point from post 26: the term Palestinian has a more narrow meaning today than it did eighty years ago. Then, a resident of the British Mandated Palestine was a Palestinian, regardless of whether he was a Jew, a Bedouin or an Arab farmer in the Jordan River Valley and coastal plains. Today, it is only that last group, along with his urban-dwelling relatives, that is a Palestinian (cultural sense). Today, all Palestinians are Arabs; all Bedouins are Arabs; no Palestinian is a Bedouin.

(T)he Israeli Jewish people -- descended of or native to Palestine -- are Palestinians by that definition or NO ONE in Israel is.

To accept that statement it is to deny that there were Arab farmers living in Mandated Palestine who were distinct from Bedouins, other Arab groups such as the Druze, and Jews. However, there were such people. Therefore, you are in error.

[Gimel]

188. Israeli Arabs

are not identified as Palestinians today, however. The issue seems to be what comprised the Palestine of a hundred or so years ago, and is that definition still valid today. Also, are the descendants of those Palestinians, no matter where they live in the world today still valid to define them as Palestinians, even if they are perhaps a half or quarter of their ancestry? Did their ancestor reside in Nablus, Acco, or perhaps Jordan?

[MikeGalos]

189. The answer is simple

to the PA, a "Palestinian" is whoever needs to be for whatever PR point they're trying to make.

To anybody familiar with actual history, it is either anybody who was a citizen of the British Mandate of Palestine during its existance or a fictional and deceptive identifier applied to an ever shifting group sometimes including some Arab-only refugees of the 1948 invasion of Israel.

[bemildred]

48. I said in post #40 that it was for purposes of understanding

what Mr. Aidoneus is saying, which was the original subject
of this sub-thread. The use of "CAN be" in the way you suggest
would give the wrong meaning. They "must be" for purposes of
understanding Mr. Aidoneus' post. Outside of that you are of
course free to make up your own definitions, but you cannot
understand his post without using his meanings.

I will leave the subject of the numbers to someone else.

[MikeGalos]

52. Gee, you aren't following the party line

The Palestinian Charter says that a Palestinian is any Arab who lived in the area ever prior to 1947 and anyone born with a Palestinain father since then. (Interestingly having a Palestinian Mother doesn't qualify - no sexism there!)

Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

On the other hand, Jews, to qualify and be allowed to live in a Palestinian state (that, is defined as including Israel) has to have lived there prior to the "Zionist Invasion" in the 1890s (Note, their decendants don't qualify so only Jews over 114 year old need apply for even the promised second-class status.)

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

[bemildred]

53. I rarely do.

I have little use for the PA or it's charter.
You will note however that they are poking around at the same
distinctions that I have been poking around at.

[Jack Rabbit]

54. The Palestinian Charter is not going to be the basis of a final agreement

. . . any more than any forgotten British plan for the partition of the Palestinian Mandate will be.

Most of us who frequent this forum and support statehood for Palestine don't "follow the party line" and don't appreciate attempts to lump us in with it. The fact that several of us think that Arafat is an obstacle to peace and a crook doesn't mean that mean that we have to accept a Greater Israel as the ultimate verdict of history.

The problem is that there are two nations existing west of the Jordan River. Only one of them has a state and it exercises control over the territory of the other so as to prevent that nation from also having a state. The fundamental question is: How does the state end its control over the territory of the unincorporated nation so as to allow that nation to become self-governing and still meet its own security needs?

The specifics of the Palestinian Charter have proved over the years to be quite flexible, depending on Arafat's needs at any given moment. Despite what it says and whether it was actually amended, during the nineties when the Oslo process presented the best hope for peace between the two nations in fifty years of bloodshed, Arafat was willing to negotiate with the state of Israel; that is at least an implicit recognition of such. Whether Arafat's body still chooses to say that it recognizes Israel at this moment is another matter; when Arafat (or his successor) realizes that Israel isn't going into the sea and when Sharon (or his successor) realizes that Palestinians aren't going across the Allenby Bridge, then maybe they'll sit down and talk again, thus implicitly (or even explicitly) recognizing the legitimacy of each other's national aspirations.

Beyond being a statement that the Palestinian people have a right to a state on the land which they inhabit, the Charter means nothing more than Arafat says it means at any given moment. In short, it is next to worthless. When there are two states with a common border west of the Jordan, that piece of paper will be a historical relic. I, for one, prefer to treat it as one.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Thanks for pointing that out, Jack..

Most of us who frequent this forum and support statehood for Palestine don't "follow the party line" and don't appreciate attempts to lump us in with it.

It gets tiresome sometimes to come here and see a 'rebuttal' to a post that consists solely of labelling me 'pro-PA' and continual implications that I support Arafat, when anyone honestly interested in genuine discussion of the issue would have noticed that I no more support Arafat than folk like Gabyspoppy, Cassandra and Lurking Dem support Sharon. Claiming that everyone's following a party line implies that thinking isn't involved in our stances on the I/P issue, which is silly as I know for a fact I disagree to varying degrees with others in this forum who Mike would label 'pro-PA'. So implications that we all think in lock-step is really quite silly, IMO...


Violet...

[MikeGalos]

73. To be honest

The specifics of the Palestinian Charter have been anything but flexible. They've haven't changed one iota in 37 years. They've only changed once in their 40 year history and then only to suddenly announce that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were miraculously now important to the PLO where they'd been happily ceded to Jordan and Egypt before.

While Arafat's statements about them have changed, the Charter has not.
Despite repeated requests from President Clinton, the Charter didn't change.
Despite repeated promises from Chairman Arafat, the Charter didn't change.

Yes, Arafat told the West that the Charter would change but that says more about Arafat's honesty than about flexibility of the Charter and unless the Charter actually does change, all I can assume is that Arafat and his thugocracy have resisted changing the Charter no matter what the pressure because the Charter is still held to be true no matter what lies Arafat thinks the West would like to hear.

When the Charter changes, I'll believe it no longer applies.
When Arafat tells his subjects about the new, revised, charter, I'll believe it no longer applies.

Anything else is just wishful thinking that flies in the face of history and credibility.

[Jack Rabbit]

98. I didn't say Arafat was an honest man, now, did I?

On the contrary, I was saying he definitely is not. Which is why the Palestinian Charter really means very little.

If it did, Arafat would not have even entered the Oslo process.

Arafat is a tyrant, as defined by Plato in The Republic. What he seems most interested in at present is milking his cow. To continue doing so, he will violate any trust or bond that stands between him and his loot. No covenant, even the Palestinian Charter, is too sacred. My guess is that Arafat desires a Palestinian state less because it would benefit the Palestinian people than because it would present him and his cronies with new opportunities for graft.

However, Arafat's perfidy in no way reduces the urgency to create an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. It merely complicates the matter, as do so many other things.

The fact is that, regardless of what the Charter may say on the subject, Israel is not going to be driven into the sea. There is a further fact that, regardless of whatever arguments you may make and whatever long-irrelevant documents you may use to support them, there are over three and a half million Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza who do not want to be citizens of a Jewish state, even if granted full citizenship; in those territories these Arabs comprise over ninety percent of the population. Therefore, Israel's choices are:

• Do nothing they aren't already doing and the bloodshed will continue;
• Annex the territories, either formally or informally, and the bloodshed will continue;
• Attempt to expel the Arabs from the Levant, which will lead to yet more bloodshed and be one of the major crimes of modern times; or
• Agree to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

That last point is sticky, since it must be done in a way that is both satisfactory to the representatives of the Palestinian people and in a way that meets Israel's security needs. However, it is the only acceptable choice.

It may be easier for some to point the finger at Arafat and say that it's all his fault. Arafat bears a great deal of the responsibility for the present bloodshed, but there is still plenty of blame left over to be spread around. However, pointing fingers won't stop the killing, neither on a discussion forum nor in capitals. It will probably only make things worse.

[MikeGalos]

100. My point is a little different

It is that while Arafat's speeches change with the wind, the Charter never changes and even Arafat doesn't have the power to change it. As such, IT is perhaps the only constant in PLO/PA politics and must be considered as VERY stable and VERY important.

After all, can you think of anything else that has resisted any change in the region for 37 years despite global pressure from all sides?

[the_boxer_]

134. I can.

It's called the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

That's been pretty constant, even with all the promises that successive Israeli governments have made.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

173. As Arafat declared

The Palestinian homeland in 1998, it's hard to understand all this retroactive association with a land whose boundaries were never specified, and even now are not established.

[MikeGalos]

38. Even more interesting is the "Historical Homeland"

that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the original Palestinian Charter clearly states that they are of no interest and the only lands they care about are inside the Green Line. It was only when a Jewish state controlled those lands that the Palestinians cared about them. When they were stolen by Jordan and Egypt, it wasn't a problem nor were their any claims that they should be a Palestinian State.

Guess they became the "historical homeland" in 1967. Awfully short history.

Of course, seeing how there were no "Palestinian People" prior to the 1960s, that's not too surprising.(prior to the 1960s, their leadership insisted that they were Syrians and objected strenuously if they were called "Palestinians")

[Aidoneus]

41. This is a most impressive thing you have done here

Not a word or claim in this post of yours is true (wait, no, I take that back--the third use of "the" was not a lie, but unfortunately that was all). Bravo my friend, brav-o. Fortunately it is not too terribly difficult to address. Unfortunately I will probably do so in my typical fashion, that is without much of an eye towards organization and with a few detours off of responses to your specific points to add a bit of context.

A easy softball for starters, 'Article 2' of the original charter:--
...Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British mandate is an integral regional unit...

As for this bit (spread across several paragraphs below):--
It was only when a Jewish state controlled those lands that the Palestinians cared about them. When they were stolen by Jordan and Egypt, it wasn't a problem nor were their any claims that they should be a Palestinian State.

If "it wasn't a problem", why was Britain's dictator of Jordan assassinated by a Palestinian at the site of the al-Aqsa mosque? Their backroom capitulation to the Israeli/Zionists for the personal enrichment of the King and the usurpation of their lands was an affront not forgotten. There was, however, a different response to what followed because there was a different approach chosen by the Jordanians in administering the lands than the Israeli tendencies. The Jordanian government integrated many top Palestinian political figures into the administration of the lands, and tended not to set up checkpoints & daily bulldozer routines. What followed there ultimately becomes complicated for a wide variety of reasons. The Palestinian land on both sides of the so-called "Green Line" was still considered conquered ground, and this inevitably led to irrepairable friction and an eventual collision (with, to be fair, a level of priority established to distinguish between the conquests of the Jordanian King and the Israeli government, the latter being seen with a greater level of urgency and importance).

The Gaza area was administered with something of a "hand's off" approach by Egypt for the most part as I understand it. The local branch of the Ikhwan tended to the thousands of newly-created refugees that were crammed into the small space that remained free of Israeli domination at the time of the ceasefires. Politically it was with Egyptian oversight, with the remants of the All-Palestine Government (formed in Sept'48, declaring the independence of Palestine a month later; the state of independent Palestine being recognized by the Arab states, except Jordan) establishing itself alongside several other Palestinian organizations founded before and during the Naqba.

Both Gaza & the West Bank were attacked frequently by the Israeli military all throughout the 50s & 60s, up to and long after the '67 war.

I see that you're taking the revisionist-denial approach in general (a circumsized David Irving?). As for the bizarre "seeing how there were no "Palestinian People" prior to the 1960s" claim, merely a handful of somewhat scattershot selection of events/people proves your/Golda's "they don't really exist!" line of revisionist/denial as the rubbish it is. As an aside, I don't see how you people can actually believe that "Land Without People" myth, considering the heap of evidence to the contrary!, but anyway..

It seems strange for me to start back at the beginning halfway through a post, but eh..

The factors behind Arab Palestinian nationalism do indeed pre-date the advent of Zionism, but there were several catalysts that gave a bigger boost. On the one hand, as a defensive mechanism in the face of early Israeli-Zionist colonization of the lands and fear of what was to come, and the growing pan-Arab nationalist tendencies. The first major Palestinian newspaper was founded almost immediately after the Young Turks revolt. Responding to the chauvinist approach of these Young Turks in a way not intended by the Turkish nationalists, the Arab lands under Ottoman administration developed many webs of Nationalist & pan-Arab political currents and secret societies. In Palestine, the first 2 major political newspapers were founded in Jaffa & Haifa, the former called Filastin (referring to it's readers as "Palestinians" within a year, shooting down another of your set of dubious claims), the name of the latter unfamiliar to me off hand.. (bearing in mind that this is still before the Jewish settlement of Tel Aviv was founded near the established Palestinian city of Jaffa).

Nationalist development at this time was centered on being duped by the British empire into revolting against the Ottoman khilafah, for the sole benefit of the British Empire which would come to seize and occupy the "freed" lands, opening Palestine up to Jewish settlement from Europe. This third catalyst--the British seizure and occupation of yet more lands they had no business being in--was another major source of distinctly Palestinian nationalism alongside the other Arab nationalist & pan-Arab tendencies, behind Turkish chauvinism & European-Zionist colonization.

Your claim that it "was only when a Jewish state controlled those lands that the Palestinians cared about them" (referencing the regions in Palestine besides the coastal plain) is particularly bizarre. True, these areas were more habitable lands on the whole, thus were more valuable as they could hold more people (Akka, Haifa, Jaffa, Lydda & Ramleh in the area between Jaffa & al-Quds, Maidal, and Gaza being sizeable and well-established Palestinian urban centers, in addition to al-Nasirya, Baysan & Teveriyya being other major Palestinian population centres existing more inland from the coast, and still not counting the hills of central Palestine bewteen the Jordan Valley & the coastal plains and the western Jordan valley itself), and would be the first people displaced by the Zionist immigrants and militants. On the other hand, some of the first major and most lasting/dominant political organizations were founded in Gaza, al-Quds as another major base of political activity and the centre of Palestinian cultural life, the example of Sheikh Izzuddeen al-Qassam being martyred in Jenin resisting the British occupation..

The last act was one factor (of many, mind you) that led to the first intifadah against the British occupation and Zionism with the General Strike of '36. This uprising would survive the harsh crackdowns by the British occupation authorities and the effective decapitation and scattering of urban leadership to at one point liberate most of inland Palestinian lands. Eventually the uprising was drowned in the blood of thousands as the British forces suppressed it, with the help of Nashishibi collaborators and Haganah forces. In all some 5,000 Palestinians were killed in the suppression of their uprising against the British colonial occupation & Zionist colonization, three times that wounded, and another three times that seized and detained by the British colonial occupation authorities. In addition to these, some 5,000 houses were destroyed, with an estimated 40,000 Palestinians fleeing to neighboring lands. These losses were unfortunately just a sign of things to come, as such was only just the beginning and they have seen little else from Israel and its backers ever since this time.

Such things considered, it doesn't seem like they just didn't care about these lands as you dubiously claimed..

This will have to due for now. If I dare to add another few paragraphs to add some other points and expand on the existing bits, this may end up as even more embarassingly disorganized than it already is as it now stands.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Very informative, Mr. Aidoneous

Thank you.

[MikeGalos]

55. Unfortunatly

also Very Inaccurate.

[Aidoneus]

58. how so?

[MikeGalos]

59. See

post 56 for the actual facts discussed but left unanswered.

[MikeGalos]

56. Why thanks. Short and precise is a good thing.

Oh, and wouldn't it have been nice to actually mention in your quite lengthy post why my statements aren't correct? I see a lot of side discussions but none that contradict these two facts:

1. Prior to Israel holding the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, the Palestinian leadership stated publicly that they had NO interest in the West Bank and Gaza and considered them parts of Jordan and Egypt respectively.
   
   
2. Prior to the 1960s Palestinian leadership opposed the identification of a distinct "Palestinian People" and insisted on being considered Syrians.

[MikeGalos]

60. Or, more simply

How can an area be a people's "Historical Homeland" when they've only claimed it since 1967 and only claimed to exist as a people since 1964?

I mean, let's at least be honest with each other, it's absurd to claim ethnicity based on an identity that didn't exist when Lyndon Johnson was sworn it and it's absurd to claim that an area is a "Historical Homeland" when that identity only exists based on who is there.

Let's compare:

Ethnic identification as a distinct people:
Jews - 4,000 years
Palestinians - 40 years
(Jews win by a ratio of 100:1)

Identification with this piece of land:
Jews - 3,300 years
Palestinians - 37 years
(Jews win by a ratio of 89:1)

Years of continuous residency in the area:
Jews - 3,300 years
Arabs in total - 1,250 years
(Jews win by a ratio of 2.6:1)

But, I'm sure someone here will say that this IS the "Historical Homeland" of the "Palestinian People" and isn't the Historical Homeland of the Jewish People despite the facts being so heavily weighted against them...

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Denial of a people's existence...

As yr doing in the case of the Palestinian people is the sort of historical revisionism that falls into the unhealthy category along with a few others. Plus yr 'argument' appears to be leading towards not supporting an independent and viable state for the Palestinian people. If you do support a two-state solution, could you explain why you support it? See, if there was no Palestinian people, and there was no historical ties to the land, then I wouldn't be supporting a two-state solution myself...

I don't think anyone here has denied that the Jewish people have an ethnic identity going back a long time. But there's a difference between having an ethnic identity and nationalism, which is what Zionism was. Zionism only came into being in the 1880's. Palestinian nationalism wasn't all that far behind it, and while it wasn't particularly well organised, there was a Palestinian identity happening in the early part of the twentieth century. I'm not sure why yr denying this, because historians themselves are the ones who say there was and give examples of it...

I think it's utterly insulting to the Palestinian people for anyone to claim they've only had ties to their land for the past 37 years, something which is obviously not true at all...

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

66. Historical Revisionism

Well, back to renaming black as white.

You see, historical revisionism involves changing what the historical record says after the fact.

The facts recorded at the time agree with me. All of them. And these aren't obscure dusty historical records where most have been lost to the sands of time. These are modern statements, recorded by major news sources around the world. Only lately have these true, documented facts been suppressed by your "facts" when Arafat's PR force realized that "we don't want any non-Arab states in our region" sounds as racist as it really is.

Please. Go ahead. Show as a Palestinian reference to the "Palestinian People" from a source prior to 1964. Really. Go ahead. We'll wait. It shouldn't be that hard, should it?

Or, how about a claim by a Palestinian leader claiming the West Bank or the Gaza Strip are the "Historical Homelands" of the "Palestinian People" dating back to when they were under Arab control. We'll wait as well. Again, it should be easy. The PLO has been around since 1964 so there should be at least three years of statements by them about their historical homeland in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before Jordan and Egypt lost them. And there's 16 years of documents before that when the "Palestinian" leadership had Israel around. I'm sure it'll be easy for you to document their statements at how they still had their "Historical Homeland" in Gaza and the West Bank.

While we wait, and it'll be a long, long wait, we'll just leave history defined as the facts reflected in the statements and documents of the time. And that history agrees with me.

Now, as for your unsubstantiated charge of "Historical Revisionism", I think you'll either need to provide some evidence of your accusation or fall back, admit you made it up and thus engaged in your own historical revisionism and then issue a retraction and apology. I suspect we'll have a long wait for that as well.

P.S. As an FYI to anybody caring about the truth, here are some facts:

• There have been Jews living in the areas now known as Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for several thousand years.
  
• In the 1,800 years between the mass expulsion of most Jews by the Romans after the second Jewish revolt and the birth of Israel, Jews have continuously maintained a tie to our ancient homeland reflected in our folklore, stories, songs and prayers.
  
• The phrase "Next Year in Jerusalem" has been a part of the Passover prayers for centuries.
  
• Prayers for a return to our homeland still in the liturgy have been said daily for almost two millenia.
  
• Jewish houses of worship in all times, from ancient archaeological records to synagogues being built today face Jerusalem
  
• Modern Zionism is hardly the birth of Jewish desire to return to our homeland nor is it the first and only manifestation of Jewish nationalism. It is just the most recent of the movements of Jewish identity and, for the first time in 18 centuries of forced exile, one successful in returning our people to our home.

But hey, Violet apparently is sure that these are nothing compared to a "Palestinian" identity that's been around almost four whole decades.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Sorry, but yr very wrong...

All the facts don't agree with you at all, unless the only 'facts' you expose yrself to is the sort of nasty historical revisionism that try to negate the claims of indigenous people to their land...

I didn't realise Benny Morris was 'Arafat's PR force', and that would be because him and reputable historians such as him aren't part of any PR source...

Anyway, since yr (I assume these references to 'we' and 'us' are the Royal We} sitting there waiting for yr claim that there was no Palestinian people, it's not hard at all to find them, and there's plenty to choose from. Here's what Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote in 1923:

"They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence."



And Mike. Who apart from you gives a toss what the PLO have or haven't said? What's important is that the Palestinian people have been there, have always existed, and to deny them their existence is just as evil and racist as if someone were to claim that the indigenous peoples of the US or Australia never existed because they didn't have a strong nationalistic movement stretching back over a century....

Read some history of the conflict. Steer away from any that show Israel as never having done anything wrong, or those that show the Palestinians has never having done anything wrong. From what I can see, yr fond of the revisionist history that portrays Israel as never having done anything wrong, and you really need to expand yr horizons and avoid reading anything that disagrees with what you've decided history is...

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

74. All that and yet

Not one fact presented.

Not one question answered.

Not one bit of documentation presented.

Not one of my facts challenged with any meaningful data.


Amazing.

I guess you must treat this as a religion to be taken on faith rather than something that calls on facts and history.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Mike, I gave you a quote from Jabotinsky...

How is that not documentation?

Not that you've presented anything in the way of facts with documentation to back you up, mind you, but when I reply with a post containing a quote that is what you asked for and you pretend it isn't there, I have to wonder if yr actually interested in any constructive discussion of the issue at all...


Now, if you want to rebut that quote, go for yr life. There's a lot of other historical references to the Palestinian people and for you to continue to deny that they exist as a people isn't doing whatever cause it is you think yr supporting any good at all..


Violet...

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

85. ?!

[MikeGalos]

83. Because it has no facts and is off topic

but aside from being totally useless, decades off the discussion, not from a Palestinian source, not having any facts and saying nothing about the topic it still doesn't answer any question or contradict what I said.

Looks like you can't document your, oh so offended, dislike for the facts I presented.

[Darranar]

87. How is it off-topic?

It shows that a right-wing Zionist, not particularly concerned with defending the Palestinians, acknowledged that Palestine was the homeland of its people.

[MikeGalos]

90. It showed nothing related to the topic

It didn't show a "Palestinian" leader referring to the "Palestinian People" prior to 1964. And that was one of two points.

It didn't show a "Palestinian" leader referring to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the Historical Homeland of the "Palestinian People" prior to the 1967 war. And that was the other of two points.

So despite attempts to change the subject, it didn't answer the questions nor present any contradictory facts.

All it showed was that a minor radical used the phrase Palestinian to refer to people living in the British Mandate of Palestine which isn't disputed by anybody. After all, the Jewish newspaper at the time was the Palestine Post (now The Jerusalem Post). Or are you saying the Post was the paper of the "Palestinian" people?

[Darranar]

92. I don't think he was referring to the Jews in that quote...

since they were also inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine, I have trouble with your interpretation of his quote.

[Violet_Crumble]

140. Yr claim is there's no such thing as a Palestinian...

Jabotinsky's quote was just one of many examples that prove you wrong. I'm convinced now that nothing anyone could show you would alter yr thoughts on this, because you didn't explain why the quote was useless, decades off the discussion, etc. As yr stance is that Palestinians didn't exist, by you asking for a Palestinian source, it seems that you'd dismiss anything presented as not being what you asked for as there's no such thing as a Palestinian. So maybe you should clarify what you mean by a Palestinian source, why it has to be a Palestinian source, and why a quote from the 1920's is unacceptable to you while a later one would be when it comes to acknowledgement in the past that the Palestinian people existed. Then you can explain what you think the Palestinians were if they weren't Palestinians, and how whether or not you call them Palestinians affects the fact that they, like the indigenous Jewish population of historical Palestine, are the indigenous people of that area...

Violet...

[bemildred]

141. That's an interesting point.

If there are no Palestinians, it makes it hard to come
up with a Palestinian source. However, I have seen several sources
now that discuss a "Palestinian National Congress" and it's
interactions with the British Mandate administration, beginning
in 1919 with a protest against the Balfour Declaration. But
those were Palestinian sources so I expect it was propaganda
and not reliable.

Edit: Post #104 and #106 provide a good bit of information on
this, if you get into them a bit, and you can google up
"Palestinain National Congress" and get more stuff, but I
expect that none of that is "facts". There is a big map in
#104 that provides some statistics on land ownership, takes a
while to load.

[Violet_Crumble]

143. Yeah, I thought it was...

I think just about every reference to Palestinian from Mike in this thread has dit-dits round it to denote a denial that they're actually Palestinians, as in this line from post #84:

"Then, please, tell us. What IS a "Palestinian"?"

Mike has yet to explain why references to the Palestinian people are only acceptable to him if they come from a Palestinian (or for Mike, a "Palestinian") source. I take it that Mike must believe that the indigenous people of Australia didn't exist and that their claims and ties to the land are bogus because they never defined themselves as a united and defined group of people, had no nationalistic aspirations, what with them being about as remote from the whole European trend of modern states as any people could get, and even if they had been, they weren't in the habit of putting pen to paper, therefore the wrongs they endured can be written off as the complaints of a bunch of people who didn't define themselves in writing as the 'Aboriginal people', therefore Australia isn't their homeland. Keith Windshuttle, eat yr heart out! ;)

Thanks for pointing me to those posts. I might go googling a bit later on, even though having the word Palestinian in it obviously means that it's unreliable propaganda!! Now I must wade my way through the rest of the thread, where I suspect there's some confusion over fact vs opinion. To keep things happy here, and to stop the thread from getting so huge as to be a waste of time to load and read, I suggest we all go by the rule of thumb that everything Mike says is fact. If we say something Mike agrees with, that's fact. Everything else is merely opinion ;)

Violet...

[bluesoul]

144. Violet

considering his views, denying they even exist wouldn't surprise me. Not the first time not the last time here. Sadly...

[MikeGalos]

142. Yr misquoting me

I asked for a Palestinian source for a reference to a "Palestinian People" since it is ludicrous to deny that there were people living in the Mandate of Palestine who were called Palestinian.

[Violet_Crumble]

145. Nope, I wasn't...

You've repeatedly put dit-dits whenever you've used the word Palestinian in this thread. You've asked other people to define what a Palestinian is for you, and you haven't explained why a quote from a radical Zionist in the early 1920's isn't acceptable to you and why references to the Palestinian people have to come from a Palestinian source. So it's not unreasonable to ask you to define what a Palestinian is, and also what year would be acceptable for you when it comes to a reference, as obviously the early 1920's is a no-go area, even though you haven't explained why...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

146. Imagine

someone using "Israelis". People would be on fire here. Yet for Palestinians that is somehow acceptable. Oh my...

[MikeGalos]

147. So

yet another person who can't contradict the facts calls for them to be censored.

It's getting pretty consistant that nobody can contradict that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian People" prior to the 1960s or a "Historical Homeland" that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to them being controlled by non-Arabs.

[Darranar]

151. Since you've been contradicted multiple times...

I don't see how you can claim that.

Especially since they have provided evidence to support their position multiple times.

[MikeGalos]

152. Nope. Not once

Some people have answered a different question than was asked but that only works with politicians and sympathetic reporters.

[Darranar]

157. Untrue...

you claim that there were no Palestinian people until the 1960s.

This is not true. Violet gave you a quote proving that someone referred to the inhabitants as Palestinians, with their homeland being Palestine. Jabotinsky did not mean the Jews when he used that term.

You rejected the quote because it was not from a Palestinian source. You have not explained why it is necessary for it to be from a Palestinian source.

[MikeGalos]

159. The question was about the "Palestinian People"

only an idiot would claim that nobody living in the "British Mandate of Palestine" was called Palestinian. And I'm not an idiot.

Now, back to the subject rather than changing it.

[Darranar]

160. He used the word "Palestinian"...

not as a name for all of those who lived in the British Mandate of Palestine, but for the Arabs who lived there.

He also referred to Palestine as their homeland.

[MikeGalos]

162. Even if that were true

he was not referring to the "Palestinian People" but to people living in the mandate of Palestine.

Or are you claiming that when Arafat refers to the "Palestinian People" he means everyone who lives inside the old Mandate territories like Jews and Jordanians?

[Darranar]

165. But he was not referring to ALL people...

lviing in the Mandate of Palestine.

I don't think he was referring to the Zionist settlers as well as the Arab inhabitants when he used the term "Palestinians".

[MikeGalos]

166. Nope

he didn't refer to a "Palestinian People". He refered to people living in the mandate.

[Darranar]

170. He differentiated them from the Zionists...

and he pointed out that they inhabited the place and thought of it as their homeland.

Jabotinsky was no propagandist of Arafat.

[GabysPoppy]

153. Multiple times?

I'm waiting for the FIRST time

[MikeGalos]

148. Another person

yet another person who can't contradict the facts tries to change the subject.

It's getting pretty consistant that nobody can contradict that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian People" prior to the 1960s or a "Historical Homeland" that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to them being controlled by non-Arabs.

[Lithos]

177. Mike

Does it truly matter what they called themselves or call themselves today?

Even if they did not perceive of themselves as a nationality, It doesn't change the fact that they, their fathers, their villages and their clans who have indeed always considered the what is today's Palestine as home and have done so for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

69. Why would I support at two nation solution?

Well, technically I don't. I support a three nation solution.
Jewish Israel
"Palestinian" Jordan
"Palestinian" Palestine

You see, I haven't revised history to pretend that Jordan wasn't originally the Arab half of the British Mandate of Palestine.

Now, why would I support not just one but two "Palestinian" states when there is no historical "Palestinian People"?

Simple.

I think it is the solution best able to preserve a Jewish state of Israel with the minimum of bloodshed.

I don't think it is the just solution.
I don't think it is a solution that reflects any historical accuracy.
I don't think it is a solution that reflects any ethnic identity.
I do think it is a solution that makes a mockery of history and rewards bloodthirsty barbarism by terrorist, murderer and thugs.
I do think it is a solution that rewards a dozen Arab states that chose to make their refugee bretheren suffer in camps to be used as political pawns.
But..., despite all that..., I think it is the only solution, however unjust, unfair and painful, that leads to a chance for peace.

By the way, since you are such a fan of the historical Palestinian People, how about answering a few questions? They should be easy for somebody who knows so much about their history that you choose to be such a vocal defender.

1. What were the dates of the previous historical land of Palestine?
   
2. Who was the last historical leader of that Palestine?
   
3. Who created the name "Palestine" and when?
   
4. What are the cultural or ethographic differences between the historically distinct ethnic Palestinian People and, say, the Syrians?
   
5. What was the currency of the Palestinian nation?
   
6. What countries recognized the Palestinian nation?
   
7. When was the last time prior to 1948 that the West Bank was a unique political area?
   
8. For that matter, When was the last time prior to 1948 that the West Bank was a distinct part of any political area (say a single, specific Ottoman Sanjuk)?

I'm sure you'll be right back to us with those answers...

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Sorry, but a two-state solution is the only just solution...

A two-state solution of Israeli Israel and Palestinian Palestine is the only fair and just solution to this conflict. Jordan already exists, has secure and recognised borders, and has nothing to do with it. Trying the 'Jordan is Palestine' line reeks of Benny Elon and his goons, imo....

I see. So yr 'support' of a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories is basically a reward for 'terrorism' and totally ignores the right to self-determination of all people. Oh-kay. You think it's unjust, unfair and painful for the Palestinian people to have the same independence and self-determination as Israelis. I don't, and if I didn't think that way, I wouldn't support the continued existence of Israel. This may come as a shock to you, but there's a lot of us that believe both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to their own viable and independent states, and to safety and secure borders....

Yr questions are in varying degrees pretty silly ones and totally irrelevent. If you want answers, go read some history of the region and come back and tell us what you find and where you found it. And just a hint, you should try further afield than somewhere like israel_US.org or whatever that place is :)

Violet...

[Darranar]

79. Uh...

the borders of the British mandate, like most colonial borders in the Middle East, had little to do with the culture and ethnicity of those under their control. Look at Iraq.

So, the fact that Jordan was under the British Mandate of Palestine has nothing to do with whether its population are Palestinians.

The Palestinian people are the people who lived and farmed on the coastal plain and the land near the Jordan river. This distinguishes them from other inhabitants of the land, such as the Bedouins.

That the Palestinians never had a state has nothing to do with the fact that they were different from many of the people surrounding them. They had and have a distinct identity, and this is a fact.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not the Palestinian homelands - they are part of them. They are the only parts in which the Palestinians may eventually have a chance at self-determination, and that cannot be changed. Letting them have that is not "unjust, unfair, and painful".

They have already lost the Right of Return.

They have already lost 78% of their homeland.

They are going to lose, according to the current basis for just peace (the Geneva Accords), the rights of any other state to airspace and a military, as well as yet more of that sliver of land they have.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

84. So the "British Mandate of Palestine"

borders now has nothing to do with "Palestinians"?

Then, please, tell us. What IS a "Palestinian"?

Please. Go ahead. Tell us who this distinct group is? You seem to know exactly what their "Homeland" is since you've determined what 78% of it is.

So, what was this traditional "Homeland" for this "People"?
What were it's borders?
Who was their last leader?
Name a few historical dates?
How are they distinguished from Syrians?

[Darranar]

88. Re-read the third paragraph of my post...

I hope you are also aware that whether or not a group has a national identity has nothing to do with whether that group has a state, or vice versa?

And that even if you were right, forcing someone out of their homes is not justified by the fact that they have no "national identity"?

What you seem to be claiming is that knocking the Kurds out of Trukey would be okay because they also live in Iraq.

[MikeGalos]

91. So you are conceding

that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian People".

Good. That's a start in having a rational discussion on what to do about the region.

Oh, but then you go on and argue that they're equivalent to the Kurds who have a long-time history as a distinct people unlike the "Palestinians".

I guess it's not quite resolved yet.

[Darranar]

94. I haven't conceded anything...

I was simply pointing out that this argument is pointless, because even if you were right it wouldn't make a difference.

There were a group of farmers who lived on the coastal plain and near the Jordan River who are currently known as Palestinians. They were distinct from the nomadic desert-dwellers that also lived near them. Even if they weren't, though, stealing their land would still be unjustified.

[MikeGalos]

95. Ah

so now you get to tell us what IS and ISN'T worth discussing?

I'd say the validity of a claim of "Historic Homeland" for the "Palestinian People" is pretty much a key issue.

Or did this stop being worth discussing when you did some homework and found out that I was right?

We've had attempts to change the subject, attempts to stop the discussion but no, repeat, no single instance of a document that shows I'm anything but totally accurate.

I think that says quite a bit both about the actual facts involved and about people's willingness to deal with facts that violate their personal mythology that they hold dear.

Darranar, I suspect you really believe that I'm wrong and have a sincere desire to know the truth. Please, do some research. Do some studying. Try to find a way to contradict me. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to but that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that you've fallen into the trap of wanting something to be true so much that you can't admit it isn't even when the facts all contradict you.

Eventually you'll see that there IS no such thing as a "Palestinian" or a "Historical Palestinian Homeland" and then, without that meaningless lie you've been fed, we can discuss whether that makes any difference. But, when you're at the "they are a distinct people but it doesn't matter if they're not" you really are arguing two contradictory points at once.

You see, if they DO have a traditional homeland, then their nationalistic claims are tied to that homeland. If they don't then they may still have a claim but to what land? Should Southern Lebanon be part of Palestine? What about Jordan? What about the Sinai? What about southwest Syria? Maybe it should follow the old Ottoman borders in which case you've got multiple different groups with differing claims. Which are valid? All? None?

Go. Read. Get back to us when you have and we'll discuss it.

[Darranar]

96. You still aren't responding to my point...

and you still have failed to show how the Palestinians do not have a distinct identity when I have stated twice how they do.

[MikeGalos]

97. How nice for you

but the question wasn't whether YOU could dream up a definition. Nobody questions your creativity in coming up with one. Certainly anyone here could.

The two things questioned were:

1. Show as a Palestinian reference to the "Palestinian People" from a source prior to 1964.
2. Show about a claim by a Palestinian leader claiming the West Bank or the Gaza Strip are the "Historical Homelands" of the "Palestinian People" dating back to when they were under Arab control.

And you haven't even tried to do either one.

Since nobody has been able to provide even tentative contradictory facts, it is fair to assume that my claims are true. They are (numbered to correspond):

1. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian People" as that identity did not exist prior to it's creation as a political tool in 1964 as part of the Arab League's creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization and was in fact loudly denied by the Arab refugee leadership prior to that time.
2. There is no such thing as a "Historical Homeland" of the "Palestinian People" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since, first, there is no "Palestinian People" to have a historical homeland and second, those areas were stated as being parts of Jordan and Egypt respectively by the "Palestinian" leadership until the came under control by non-Arabs in 1967.

The PLO and PA claim that specific parcels of land are their "Historical Homeland" is effectively determined merely as any land run by non-Arabs and that claim is both absurd and racist.

[MikeGalos]

167. A few quotes to help all of you

who want so desparately to claim that a "Palestinian People" actually exists.

"There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."
--Philip Hitti, Professor Princeton University, Testimony agains partition before the Anglo-American committee, 1946

"We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."
--Resolution of the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, Jerusalem, 1919

"There is no such country (as Palestine)! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
--Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, local Arab leader in testimony to the Peel Commission, 1937

"Palestine was part of the Province of Syria"
"politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."
--Statement of the Representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations to the General Assembly, May 1947

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
--Ahmed Shuqeiri, PLO spokesman in testimony to the UN Security Council

(Note that the parentheses in the Abdul-Hadi quote should be square brackets but the latest DU rendering engine doesn't seem to provide a way of inserting those characters)

[bluesoul]

169. So Mike in your mind

there is only Israel and Israeli land, and all those people should just move to Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, am I reading you right? Or do you oppose "transfer" and recognize these non-existent people any rights? Gee.i would LOVE to hear this, this is not just interesting but mind-dazzling...

[MikeGalos]

171. Let's get everyone seeing the emperor's lack of clothes first

and then we can move on to discuss how to achieve, as Resolution 242 says, "a just settlement of the refugee problem".

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

202. Hey, we broke the 200 post barrier. Don't look back. nt

[JohnLocke]

203. heh-heh-heh

[Gimel]

18. Why is it that

The indigenous Jewish population in the area called Palestine prior to 1948 is not mentioned at all? I think this is a case of intellectual ethnic cleansing. The Arabs obviously think that they own the entire area, not even allowing for their ethnic cousins to return to their homeland. The 70,000 or so Arabs who moved from the area called Israel (not including the territories or Jordanian segment of Palestine) are not by now 9-11 million.

It is obvious that there was room for both Arab and Jew in Palestine. Some 3 million Jews lived in Palestine in 1948. That the Jews, the ethnic cousins of the Arab population, should be banished from the land, as this report proposes, is ethnic cleansing.

[bemildred]

20. This report proposes nothing.

I am sure the indigeneous Jews are left out because
they are not considered "Palestinians" by the current
conventions, conventions that relate to the policies of
the Government of Israel. I would agree that they should
be considered Palestinians, but then there is much in the
policies of the current Government of Israel that I disagree
with.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Well, if Israeli Arabs are Palestinians

Why aren't Israeli Jews?

[Jack Rabbit]

26. The meaning has shifted over the decades

In the twenties, Palestinian meant a resident of the British Mandadte (aka Palestine). This included what is today Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan.

Today, Palestinian has a more narrow meaning. Ethnically, they are the Arab farmers who lived mainly in the Jordan River Valley and the coastal plain in the Mandate. This distiguishes them from Bedouins, Drouze and Jews (all of who were simply called Palestinians in earlier times, as noted above).

Israeli Arabs are mostly Palestinian. They are also citizens of the state of Israel, something the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not.

[bemildred]

27. There is not point in responding to my posts if

you have not read them.

[Gimel]

183. For a reply

see post no.172. thanks.

[bemildred]

186. Well it certainly is a problem.

And it certainly will not get better if it is not dealt
with constructively. And none of the current "leaders" appears
to have much interest in that, so I expect it will get worse.

You are right that the piece has a point of view, and tries to
present it as forcefully as it can. There is nothing wrong with
that, and we are free to keep that in mind. The whole thing looks
to me like a giant game of chicken being played by the GOI and
the Arab states, with the Palestinian peons stuck in the middle.

FWIW I was browsing on the GOI web site and I believe the current
number was 77.4% Jewish in Israel, or something like that. I think
the US site is a bit out of date.

[Aidoneus]

31. "Some 3 million Jews lived in Palestine in 1948"

That's a ridiculous claim.. by late '47/early '48, the population of the whole of Palestine was approximately 1.9,mil, around 1.3mil being Palestinian Arabs and the other 600-700,000ish being Jewish (owning around 7% of the land), the latter figure rising to around 750k by late '48 and 1.9mil by 1960. Before that in 1939, the population in Palestine was approximately 1.5mil, 450k being Jewish, the rest being Palestinian Muslims & Christians

Where did these 3mil Jews live, as you claim, and how did they avoid every census ever taken until well into the 60s/70s?! Was this the same phantom Jewish presence living underground in the West Bank that YANG once tried to claim?

[MikeGalos]

61. 7% of the land?

Where do you dream up this stuff....

[Aidoneus]

65. running the risk of incurring tinnypriv's *Google Wrath*..

:)

at least 358 responses to this exact phrase (in italics):--Palestine "7% of the land"
http://www.google.com/search?q=Palestine+%227%25+of+the+land%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&start=10&sa=N
(other variations of the inquiry receiving more replies; 30 pages of references should be enough to chew on for now)

and from a couple of my preferred references (more readily available if it would be preferred):--

1947 18Feb: ...Partition Plan in its report of 31Aug, placing 350,000-450,000 Arabs with 500,000 Jews in Israeli side; 20 Jewish settlements on Arab side; & with Jerusalem & its environs (inc Bethlehem) under international trusteeship. Jews less than a third of total population (1.3m Palestinians, 620,000 Jews), & owned 7% of total amount of land, with 279 Jewish settlements, but allocated 55-60% of land in the Partition Plan, including most fertile land. Accepted by UK (26Sept); AHC announces its rejection of the plan (29Sept); Jewish Agency announces its acceptance (2Oct), followed by US (11Oct) & USSR (13Oct). GA voted in favour (GAR181, 29Nov; by 33-13-10); minority proposal (India, Iran, Yugoslavia) to create an independent federal State rejected...
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/Chronology.html
(this bit is halfway down; warning--it is easy to be distracted by the rest of this piece.. my first visit to it was searching for something in the middle of the 2nd page of this chronology, took me 5hrs to eventually get to it..)

a map (lefthand side) showing specific locations of land ownership & population areas:--
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Landownership.html

...Before the War of 1948, Palestinians owned about 87.5% of the total area of Palestine (26,323,000 dunums or
26,323 km2), while Jews owned 6.6% of the total lands. The remaining 5.9% was ‘state land’ as classified by the British
Mandate. (British Government, A Survey of Palestine, 1945-1946)...
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/pdf/pdf2003/sections2/6-Land.pdf

Anything else you'd like me to knock down?

[MikeGalos]

67. Sure

care to say how much of that 93% was in TransJordan?

[Aidoneus]

68. this is "Mandatory Palestine" being spoken of, Mike

You grasp at straws with the best of them, my friend.

Do you have any comment on Gimel's claims?

[MikeGalos]

70. Well you just made my point for me

Since roughly 80% of "Mandatory Palestine" is Jordan...

I'll assume you just misread the data and didn't try to post intentionally deceptive data in hopes nobody would notice.

Maybe you just need better sources that don't pick and choose their data to come up with answers that match the outcome they've decided they want to readers to incorrectly infer ahead of time. (say, ones that don't quietly include Jordan and the Arab partitioned area and imply they mean Israel)

Say, for example, can you tell us what percentage of land that was partitioned in 1947 to be the "Jewish Homeland" was owned by Jews? That is, after all, what your 7% answer was meant to imply...

I'll save you the trouble of looking it up... Here are the ownership numbers that reflect the actual facts you were trying to claim:

• 70% Owned by the Government of Israel through transfer of British Mandatory Government property upon the end of the Mandate or JNF charity purchases
• 18% Owned by Arabs who left during the 1948 war (including all "Palestinian" refugees)
• 9% Privately owned by Jewish Israeli citizens
• 3% Privately owned by Arab Israeli citizens

Of course, saying that 18% of Israel was owned by "Palestinian refugees" is a lot less impressive than implying 93%
Saying only 21% was owned by Arabs and even that includes the Arabs who became Israeli citizens is a lot less impressive than saying "Only 7% of <insert vaguely defined region here> was owned by Jews"
But those are the facts.

[Aidoneus]

71. In 1920, maybe

The time frame in question here is almost three decades later. The location being consistantly and specfically, for definition purposes here--"river to the sea" for east to west, from Sinai to southern Lebanon down for a tip to the Red Sea from southwest to north to southeast.

The Jewish land ownership in specifically that region was around 7%, the population itself making up around a third of the people in this very same region, and the new State would have received some 55-60% of this very same region by the ridiculous partition plans making the rounds at the time.

Now, as far as determining what the land ownership would've been if the terrible idea of "Partition" had been carried out to the latter and taking figures at the time to correspond with the "Partition" area. That would be going from 7% out of 100% owned, corresponding to, say, 60% of the region that would have been turned over to them--I'll do you a favour you don't deserve, and aim high on both of these estimates--would thus be a matter of '7:100 as X:60'.. I think that's around 11.2% owned of the 60% of Palestine they were receiving on a golden platter from people and organizations (British, UN, etc..) who had no right at all to do so with it.. but I digress.

It's kind of strange, considering the facts at hand.. A third of the population gaining well over half of the land, a mere tenth of that in their possession anyway, and most of the best land of the whole of specifically that region (that phrase repeated here and above to overkill the fact that I'm not just referring to whatever the fuck I feel like, but one specific reference to a specific location all throughout this and the previous posts, despite your silly claims). At any rate if you ask me, that's being damn generous and charitable to the Israeli side, but still wasn't deemed as good enough for the latter.. but I digress again.

What is the source of your numbers? These just don't correspond at all to safe figures and estimates that I am familiar with. I'll ask you to do something I can't remember you doing too often, and documenting your figures somehow. I'm always willing to do the same.

This, for example, breaks down percentages of land ownership by region, taking into account a catagory of "public owned and other".
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Zionist_and_Palestinian_landownership.htm
(I also have handy a similar graphic breaking down the population amounts by region)

Do you have any comment on Gimel's claims?

As an side, this thread is a little funny to me in a way. For months I've been quietly mumbling about being more or less ignored whenever I make an effort on a longer post or series of them (and at that, somewhat facetiously), then in this thread here some 97% of the posts are responding to something I said. I don't know how to handle this kind of attention, but I at least will thank you individually for making my replies easy to write out (if lengthy).

[MikeGalos]

77. Interesting source

I'm assuming you didn't notice that your figures are cited on that web site as being the numbers from 1937 used by the Peel Commission report and not at all related to the 1948 numbers? It isn't surprising if you didn't catch that. If you didn't read it VERY CAREFULLY you'd think they meant at the time of partition but if you read it with a careful eye, you'll find that their numbers are bogus and hidden in gramatically deceptive wording to get the reader to draw the incorrect conclusion that the 1937 Peel Report was, in fact, the partition data from 1947. As you might well imagine, ownership and population data changed quite a bit during that decade, what with World War II, the extermination of most of the Jews in Europe, the vast increase in land purchase funds made to charities after surviving Jews saw what had happened, the end of the Great Depression, stuff like that. You'll also note that the data they present doesn't mention land that wasn't privately owned (which makes up the vast majority of land owned in the Mandatory period).

In short, perhaps you need a source that isn't actually a Palestinian Lobbying group.

Another example of their bogus data is their population data for Jerusalem that they cite in the same places as your 7% figure. They claim, at an unspecified date but implied to either be 1947, 1948 or 1937 depending on how you read the grammar, a Jerusalem population that is 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs. Here, for comparison, is the census data for Jerusalem at the closest measured years.

1931....Jewish: 51,222 - Moslem: 19,894 - Christian: 19,335
1948....Jewish: 100,000 - Moslem: 40,000 - Christian: 25,000

Assuming they meant 1948, since that would get at least the Jewish population correct and is the only year even close to a total population that matches, and further assuming that they combined all Moslems and all Christians in Jerusalem into a generic "Arabs", they seem to be off by a little. (This is even ignoring that many of the Christians in Jerusalem at the time were Armenian and not Arab)

The census data says 65,000 Moslems and Christians. (60.6% Jewish)
Your source claims 105,000 Arabs. (48.8% Jewish - just enough to claim Jews were a minority)

Odd that they seem to have doubled the Moslem population as well as Arabized all the Christians. I guess they just couldn't admit that Jews were the majority of the population of Jerusalem since 1896 and the largest religious plurality since at least the first modern census was taken in 1844. (if you're curious, in 1844, Jerusalem was 46% Jewish, 32% Moslem and 22% Christian)

My data on the land ownership are from the Mandatory Government of Palestine's Survey of Palestine done as part of the process of handing over the mandatory government. I don't know if it is available online but it is cited in several books.

[Darranar]

81. Uh...

before you slam the source, why don't you actually find the figures they give?

Palestinians: 65,000
Jews: 99,320
Other: 110

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/pdf/pdf2003/sections2/jerusalem/j-his.pdf

Those figures are remarkably close to yours, assuming they count both Muslims and Christians as Palestinians.

[MikeGalos]

86. Gee, they ARE two faced aren't they

since the figure that contradicted were also from that same site (but a different page)

Looks like they not only produce deceptive wording, they publish multiple versions of history as they need them as well.

Look up "Partition" in their definition of terms section. Oh, and while you are there, try to find out what they say a "Palestinian" is. The term doesn't appear...

[Darranar]

89. Find me this figure.

[MikeGalos]

93. I did

look in the definition of "Partition"

[Darranar]

102. Link to it.

[MikeGalos]

105. Yassuh

But you'll have to scroll all by your self.

http://www.passia.org/diary/Palestinian-Dictionary-Terms.htm

[bemildred]

107. It's a typo.

It's ~150K in the PDF, ~105K in the PARTITION PLAN entry.
The Jerusalem district numbers.

[MikeGalos]

109. So in the PDF

it's even more wrong since they're mixing city and district numbers as they see fit.

[bemildred]

111. Accuracy is a separate question.

I was merely speculating about the discrepancy you pointed out.

FWIW the PDF references the same "Survey of Palestine" that you did.

[MikeGalos]

113. But they do an interesting thing

they do the equivalent of saying:
The population of Philadelphia is x
The population of Boston is y
The population of New York is z
But not mentioning that they mean the State of New York and not the city.

It's surprising how often this is done to show that Jerusalem wasn't a Jewish city...

[bemildred]

116. It seemed clear enough to me. nt

[tinnypriv]

204. I was away for a while!

Is my wrath too late? :)

[Gimel]

103. Mistake

I picked up a figure for immigration since 1948. Yes, it was mistaken. Sorry. Glad someone was watching. Your figures agree with the population statistics. Yes, the British were limiting Jewish land purchases and immigration, while allowing Arab immigration to continue unabated prior to 1948. Some 50,000 Jews were kept in detention camps inside of Israel.

From the end of World War II until the establishment of Israel (1945-1948), illegal immigration was the major method of immigration, because the British, by setting the quota at a mere 18,000 per year, virtually terminated the option of legal immigration. Sixty­six illegal immigration sailings were organized during these years, but only a few managed to penetrate the British blockade and bring their passengers ashore. In 1947, 4500 immigrants on the Exodus were sent back to Europe by the Mandatory government. The British stopped the vessels carrying immigrants at sea, and interned the captured immigrants in camps in Cyprus; most of these persons only arrived in Israel after the establishment of the state. Approximately 80,000 illegal immigrants reached Palestine during 1945-48.

The number of immigrants during the entire Mandate period, legal and illegal alike, was approximately 480,000, close to 90% of them from Europe. The population of the yishuv expanded to 650,000 by the time statehood was proclaimed.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Immigration/Aliyah_during_war.html

[Aidoneus]

32. "The 70,000 or so Arabs who moved from the area called Israel"

I would've condensed these posts, but both of these claims are interesting enough (in all of the wrong ways) to consider seperately.

"who moved"?! Is that what you call it?! And anyway, that mnay Palestinians were driven out of the lands to become Israel already by May'48 alone (perhaps twice that amount), even before the war expanded and sent hundreds of thousands more out of their lands.

The report proposes nothing, by the way.

These remarks from you are revisionist denial on the level of those nuts who say there was no Holocaust.

[Gimel]

172. Proposes nothing

Although the report proposes nothing, it seeks to overwhelm with the sheer number of Palestinians. The one point 2 million Arabs living in Israel are even include. Why are there so many refugees? The Palestinians in the PA are refugees, the Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon are refugees. There are about 9.7 million of them. The sheer number is greater then any country (with perhaps the exception of Iraq or Iran) could hold. Surely all of Israel, now with some 6.716 million inhabitants could never hold them. Israel is already a bit over-populated. The Bedouin don't have all their traditional lands, very little is left for the Jews who have to move in from the territories (assuming that that actually is achieved). They will need new communities in the Golan and in the Negev. Now you say there are 9.7 million from the original Arab population.

BTW, I have posted accurate population figures at least twice on this forum, using figures from a population registry. The notes from the population of Palestine text are not on-hand at the moment. However, the figures are about the same as I find posted here:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/newpop.html

[Saudade]

57. Huh?

"It is obvious that there was room for both Arab and Jew in Palestine. Some 3 million Jews lived in Palestine in 1948. That the Jews, the ethnic cousins of the Arab population, should be banished from the land, as this report proposes, is ethnic cleansing."

Are you making these figures up?

According to The Anglo-Palestine yearbook 1947-8 (London: Anglo-Palestine Publications, 1948), p. 33, the jewish population of Palestine in 1931 was 174,606 out of 1,033,314; in 1936, jewish numbers had gone up to 384,078 out of 1,366,692; in 1946, there were 608,225 jews in a total of 1,913,112.

By the end of 1949, only 130,000 Palestinian arabs remained in the territory controlled by Israel within the Armistice Lines. About 780,000 had become displaced persons, the victims of a concerted effort of ethnic cleansing that continues to this day.

[Gimel]

174. A majority

There has been a majority of Jews in Jerusalem since the 1920's and in some areas of the north. The areas of Nablus and jenin have always been the concentration of Arabs, and also the Gaza strip. So how can we call the 3.5 million Arabs there refugees?

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/yishuv.html

[Jim Sagle]

9. Again, a truly standout, constructive thread.

It shows that two contentious factions can come to agreement on a subset of the issues. (Well, a one-element subset, anyhow. ;) )

Thanks for helping make the world a better place. O8)

[grayrace]

99. would palestinians be a majority if a single one-democratic state were

formed?

[MikeGalos]

101. That would depend

on where you set the borders and how you define a "Palestinian".

If you include the entire "Mandate of Palestine" then you include Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

As for defining what is a "Palestinian", that's a really, really difficult question to get any consensus on.

[bemildred]

104. This is interesting.

Popped up while I was looking for demographic information:

Palestine

From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

1.) When was it founded and by whom?

Palestine was founded by the League of Nations in 1922 and governorship was mandated to Great Britain. Prior to that Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years. After its
defeat by the Allies in World War I, the Ottoman Empire was carved up by the Allies into what is now the modern Middle East.

2.) What were its borders?

Roughly the same as modern day Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza strip. Keep in mind that almost all of the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire which was carved up into new
countries after WWI.

3.) What was its capital?

Jerusalem

4.) What were its major cities?

Bethlehem, Nablus, Jenin, Haifa, Beersheba, Hebron, Gaza, Jaffa, Nazareth, Khan Yunis, Ramallah, Qalqilya, Ramle and Tulkarem.

The bit on currency is kind of cool.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Palestine

[MikeGalos]

108. Disinfo is an appropriate name. So is Encyclopedia of Propaganda

Here's a map of the Ottoman Territories in the area during the 400 years that it was an Ottoman land (1517-1917).

Please show us where the "Roughly the same as modern day Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza strip." area is that had it's capital at Jerusalem.

As an FYI, Viliats and Sanjaks are administrative districts. You can think of a Viliat as a "state" and a Sanjak as a "county". The parallel isn't exact but it is close enough to get the basic idea. I've substituted "State" for "Viliat" and "County" for "Sanjak" in this explanation to make it easier to understand just how absurd the Disinfopedia statement is.

They say "Palestine" was:
The County of Nablus in the State of Beirut
Plus
The County of Acre in the State of Beirut
Plus
Part of (but not all of) the County of Beirut in the State of Beirut
But NOT including
The Province of Lebanon in the State of Beirut
and NOT including
The County of Tripoli in the State of Beirut
and NOT including
The County of Latakia in the State of Beirut
But Also including
The Independant County of Jerusalem
And also including
The western part of the County of Ma'an in the State of Syria
But NOT including
The rest of the County of Ma'an in the State of Syria
and NOT including
Any other Counties in the State of Syria
Except
it also includes the portion of the County of Hauran in the State of Syria that is West of the Jordan river

So, it includes parts of but not all of two Viliats and an independant Sanjak. That's kind of like saying "The traditional lands of New England are the southern part of Maine except for 4 counties plus all of New Hampshire and Two Counties of Vermont and the part of Massachusetts north of Boston but west of Concord."

Oh, and I'd venture to guess that the Capital of the Viliat of Beirut was Beirut and not Jerusalem (and Viliat government in Beirut didn't govern all their lands except for the southern two and part of the third from the south sections)...

[bemildred]

110. I don't believe it's referring to the Ottoman arrangements,

but rather the League Mandate arrangements. The map under
item #10 is quite interesting WRT some of the discussions here.

[MikeGalos]

112. So you are agreeing with me

that there was nothing that even remotely corresponded to "Palestine" until the British Mandate of Palestine was established which included the land now known as Jordan, Israel, The West Bank and The Gaza Strip.

So, it is obvious that there was no such thing as "Palestine" except as an artificial colonial administrative unit that came about as the result of WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

So, now, we're saying that there's no such thing as a state or unique culture of "Palestine" and thus no such thing as a "Palestinian" or "Historical Homeland" that dates back earlier than 1917.

Since Zionism is a national movement that is older than that, you see how it is absurd to say that "Palestinian" identity predates Zionism, or that it predates the Zionist immigration in the 1890s, or that it excludes Jordan as Jordan was as much a part of "Palestine" as Acre or Jerusalem or Gaza.

That's a start.

[Jack Rabbit]

114. Dissent

There were Arab peasant farmers in this region during the time of the Ottoman Empire. Their descendants are the people we today call Palestinians. At the time of the peasants' revolt of 1834, they were denoted as Syrians.

Of course, Syria is no more the homeland of these people than is Jordan. However, the Levant is.

The fact that the British resurrected the name Palestine for the Mandate they took over from the Ottomans in World War I is how the Arab peasants denoted as Syrians in 1834 came to be denoted as Palestinians today.

By whatever name you wish to call them, they've been there a while and they are still there.

[MikeGalos]

117. So then

You agree that any claims that there is such a thing as a "Palestinian people" are bogus and opportunistic.

In the case of your argument there are some other obvious logical conclusions:

There is NO basis for a Palestinian "Nationalist" movement. They are refugees from a war no different than any other group of refugees in history and entitled to no more.

There is NO good reason why they had no objections to the West Bank being part of Jordan but do object to it being part of Israel.

Since they never had an independant identity or national existance then they have no claim for an independant nation than any other group of people saying "we want it".

[Jack Rabbit]

129. No. I don't agree with that

There is a Palestinian people. It is absurd to say that there is not. There is an identifiable group which has gone under different names that is now called Palestinian. We could start calling them Martians and it wouldn't change that a bit.

Consequently, there is a basis for a Palestinian nationalist movement.

As somebody pointed out elsewhere, some Palestinian objected to being annexed by Jordan enough to assassinate King Abdullah.

Also, contrary to what you have said, there were Arab associations formed in the 1920s, the Muslim-Christian Associations, that asserted the uniqueness of Palestinians among Arab peoples.

The Muslim-Christian Associations did not initially define themselves as part of an explicitly political organization. But as with other similar groups -- such as the Literary Club and the Arab Club, which both catered to younger members of leading urban families -- their central principals were Palestinism and anti-Zionism. Palestinism meant the assertion of Palestine as a common homeland at a time when political boundaries were new and still quite uncertain. After a brief flirtation with the notion of incorporation into Syria, the new organization began to proclaim emphatically the existence of a distinct Arab people in Palestine. Even when some adopted pan-Arab programs, they took care to distinguish Palestine's Arabs from those outside the country and, of course, from Jews and British within.

-- Kimmerling and Migdal, The Palestinian People: a history (Harvard University Press, 1994, 2003), p. 56.

It should be noted that neither author of the book just quoted is a Palestinian; Baruch Kimmerling is a professor of sociology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Now, returning to your narrative:

Since they never had an independant identity or national existence then they have no claim for an independant nation than any other group of people saying "we want it".

The same reasoning was used against the Irish in the nineteenth century. It wasn't any better argument then.

Likewise, what we now call Syria, Jordan and Lebanon were not independent as long as the Ottoman Turks ruled over them. Why should the Palestinians have any less right to a state then they?

[MikeGalos]

130. You fail to understand, apparently

Stating that something is so does not make it so even when you say disbelieving it is absurd.

Please note that your quote is not contemporaneous but is a 1994 essay interpreting past events.

The key point in disproving my assertion that there is no historicaly identifyable people as the "Palestinians" is that there is no such self-identification prior to the 1960s. A paper from 1995 by a non-Palestinian missed on both counts and is, in essence, the same lack of response as your initial statement that the proposition is absurd because you say it is.

The Irish, by the way, are an absurd comparison because they (unlike the "palestinians" have a long-term self identification, a clear geographic identity, a common history, a common folklore, a common culture, a common language, etc.

As for your comparison with Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, you'll find that first off, that Syria and Lebanon DID exist as distinct entities and as for Jordan, I'd agree that it is an artificial construct. If somebody said that there was a distinct "Jordanian People" with a "Historic Homeland" there could be a very valid questioning of that claim of peoplehood for a recent artificial construct. And that, would be with a history and identity that is twice as old as any "Palestinian People" claim.

[Darranar]

132. That is true...

Stating that something is so does not make it so

Why, then, do you not give evidence to back your positions?

You made the claims, you prove them.

[Jack Rabbit]

135. To be fair, we'd be askling him to prove a negative

You know, like demanding Saddam prove he has no WMDs. We shouldn't stoop to that.

[Darranar]

137. Not really...

he isn't claiming that the people currently called Palestinians don't exist - he is simply claiming that they were not distinct from the people around them, and therefore they have no homeland. This can be proven.

[MikeGalos]

138. I have provided

the thesis and statements of what would be needed to prove them wrong along with an explanation of why they will be unlikely to succeed. That is all that can be done to prove non-existance.

[Darranar]

149. You are claiming that they are not a distinct group...

and that therefore they have no claim to their homeland being Palestine.

[MikeGalos]

150. Close but not quite

I'm making no claim either way on any consequences so please don't put words in my mouth. It's hard enough for people to admit that there is no "Palestinian People".

On the other hand, you have to admire how effective the PR campaign has been at the expense of the truth.

Compare the emotional reaction to the following phrases:

1. The Arab refugees, who have not been resettled 55 years after the war that displaced them ended...
   
   
2. The Palestinian People, who after 55 years have still not returned to their historical homeland...

Number 1 is clearly accurate but makes the Arab nations who were unwilling to resettle their war refugees look pathetic and manipulative

Number 2 is not accurate and creates a fiction of a "Palestinian people" and "historical homeland" to evoke a feeling of sympathy far above that felt for the hundreds of equally deserving refugee groups.

So, the artificial mythos works in manipulating emotion by manipulating the truth.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

155. Ah. Once agan. Don't like the truth, then try to censor it.

Glad you're interested in open discussion. But, please, if you can show where my premise is incorrect, please do. The invitation's been open for a while and I've had people try to change the subject, answer different questions and call for the topic to be censored but nobody's been able to show where it isn't totally accurate.

[Darranar]

156. Uh...

Please reread your post #112.

that there was nothing that even remotely corresponded to "Palestine" until the British Mandate of Palestine was established which included the land now known as Jordan, Israel, The West Bank and The Gaza Strip.

So, it is obvious that there was no such thing as "Palestine" except as an artificial colonial administrative unit that came about as the result of WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

So, now, we're saying that there's no such thing as a state or unique culture of "Palestine" and thus no such thing as a "Palestinian" or "Historical Homeland" that dates back earlier than 1917.

[MikeGalos]

158. Yes

The emperor really has no clothes.

(If you think post 112 is a contradiction to the 1960s claim, you're wrong. 112 talks about "Palestinian" as a term itself, where the claim is about a "Palestinian People" which are not the same thing unless you're claiming that Jews are an integral part of the "Palestinian People".)

[Darranar]

161. No...

post #112 was a contradiction to this:

I'm making no claim either way on any consequences so please don't put words in my mouth.

Since you were, I don't see how I'm putting words in your mouth.

[MikeGalos]

163. Nope

I've reread 112 and also your handily quoted excerpt and they don't make any claim about consequences of this fraudulent use of language or say anything about how the fact that there are no such things as a "Palestinian People" or their "historical homeland" changes any potential settlement of hostilities.

If you drew a conclusion, you'll find that was one created in your own mind as there isn't one there.

[Darranar]

164. I never did draw a conclusion...

I only posted what you had claimed.

[MikeGalos]

168. So

Where is the conclusion you claim I made?

Or are you going to retract your comment?

[Jack Rabbit]

175. The statements are equivalent

The Arab refugees in question are Palestinians.

I am rejecting both your thesis and your criteria for disproving it. I never said I accepted your rules, and I don't. Instead, I have relied on a history book which asserts that there is a group of Arabs living in the Levant that is unique among Arab groups that have come to be called Palestinians, although were not always identified by that name.

They were there in 1834 when they revolted against the Ottomans.

They were there to greet Herzl when he arrived from Europe with his followers.

They asserted their uniqueness and used the name Palestinian in the 1920s, when the British began calling the region Palestine.

They rioted against British rule in the late thirties.

They fled before Zionist forces in 1948.

Your attempts to say there is no Palestinian people is every bit absurd as Golda Meir's remark to the same effect.

Whether you are or not, I am satified there is a Palestinian people.

[MikeGalos]

176. You are satisfied

but offer effectively nothing but "there were people living there so they must be the mythical 'Palestinian People'"

Apparently you're easily satisfied when you want to believe an answer and impossible to satisfy when you don't.

We call that Faith rather than Fact. I prefer to base my political views on facts.

[the_boxer_]

205. Why are you resorting to this type of argument, MikeGalos?

Do you not agree that there are refugees currently living in portions of the mandate regardless of what they are called?

The argument you have resorted to seems like justfication for what has occurred for the last 55+ years. It really shouldn't matter what the people are called. They should be treated like people. They should be allowed to return home.

[Muddleoftheroad]

208. They are home

Just as the Jewish refugees are home after being ethnically cleansed by the Arab world.

At some point in time, history moves on.

There is no way in hell that Israelis will let happen to them in their nation what happened across the Arab world. The Right of Return is the most destructive fantasy that Palestinians have. It deceives them into thinking they will get something that will never occur.

But they wait for it. They fight for it. Some murder for it.

But it will never happen.

[the_boxer_]

212. You may wish to read about the part Israel played in

"having these Jewish 'refugees' return home."

I'm sure you'll let me know what you think.

[Muddleoftheroad]

213. I have

I have also read about how the Jews were forced to flee, losing jobs, homes, bank accounts, etc. You should try it.

[the_boxer_]

215. I don't think you have.

Or else you wouldn't have made that statement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

217. "I don't think you have."

Or else you wouldn't have made that statement.

[the_boxer_]

219. Yes. I suppose that's your response.

Have fun.

[Jack Rabbit]

139. You are incorrect

The Irish, by the way, are an absurd comparison because they (unlike the "palestinians" have a long-term self identification, a clear geographic identity, a common history, a common folklore, a common culture, a common language, etc.

As if Palestinians do not. There is a definable geographical area (Jordan River valley and coastal plane) and life style (farming). To say that the comparison is absurd is a real stretch on your part.

So, if they were not the people we now call Palestinians, just who were those Arab peasants who revolted against the Ottomans in 1834? Granted, they weren't called Palestinians then, since (as I pointed out) the terms Palestinian and Palestine did not come into modern use until 1917, when the British took over the area from the Ottomans. However, they certainly weren't what we would call Syrians nowadays, either. The revolt was centered in Nablus. Last time I checked, Nablus was not a Syrian city.

Also, are you questioning the facts presented by Professors Kimmerling and Migdal? If so, on what grounds?

[MikeGalos]

179. Wow

So now your whole argument is that there were people in Nablus before 1834 so they must be the "Palestinian People"?

Yes, whoever was in Nablus in 1834 probably did have an ethnic and tribal and family identification. Probably tied to being from the Sanjak of Nablus in the Vilayet of Beirut. But there's no such thing as an identification that even bears a resemblence to a "Palestinian People" prior to the 1960s and whether you like it or not, there IS no such thing as a "Palestinian people" except as a cynical renaming of "Arab Refugee" as they were called prior to then.

As for the "there were farmers in the coastal plain so they must all be the same group", by that logic, a farmer in Mississippi is really a Nebraskan. And a fisherman in Acre is a totally different nationality than a farmer two miles inland...

And the coastal plain and the Jordan valley aren't that geographically related - I guess people living in between were a diffent ethnic group that the plain and valley "Palestinians" leapt over?.

Face it. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian People" and there never was. And even they used to admit it. Why can't you?

[Jack Rabbit]

181. Because there is Palestinian people

1. There have been Arabs living in the Levant for some time.

2. When the British started calling the land Palestine, they also started calling the residents Palestinian. Prior to that time, they were denoted as, among other things, Syrians. Do you think they're Syrians? Hafez al-Assad may have said something to that effect once, but what did he know? He thought Lebanese were Syrians, too.

3. The Arabs in Palestine identified themselves as Palestinian decades before the PLO was founded. They asserted that they were distinct from other Arabs.

4. The Palestinian Arabs insisted on having determination over their own affairs in the face of British colonialism. They rioted against the British and the Zionists in the late thirties, demanding they that should control immigration to Palestine rather than the British. Therefore, there was Palestinian nationalism prior to 1948 or 1964.

There is a Palestinian people (no quotes needed) and a Palestinian nationalist movement that pre-dates the founding of Israel.

Some of this early Palestinian nationalism was a reaction to Zionism, but some of it was the same nationalism that sprung up in other European colonies at the same time. Do you really believe that the only thing that dives Palestinian nationalism is a resentment of Zionism? Do you think that, if there had been no Zionism, the people of Palestine would not have demanded their independence from the British? Everybody else did. Why wouldn't have they?

[MikeGalos]

184. Nope

By numbered sections

1) Again, so? Nobody disagrees that there have been Arabs in the area of the British Mandate of Palestine for about 1400 years.

2) Again, so? Nobody denies that everyone, Arab, British or Jew living in the British Mandate of Palestine was called Palestinian. Are you saying now that British Colonial officers are part of a "Palestinian People"?

3) Nope. They may have identified themselves as Palestinian in the same sense that Jews or Brits living in the Mandate of Palestine called themselves Palestinian but that doesn't make either a member of the "Palestinian People".

4) Nope. So did lots of people living in the Mandate. Or, again, are you saying that members of the Irgun were members of the "Palestinian People"?

Again. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian People" except as a cynical renaming of the Arab war refugees of the 1948 invasion of Israel who wanted to latch on to the growing support for emerging nationalist movements and found they didn't qualify.

The idea of being an Oppressed Emerging Nation sure sounds better than "Arab refugees denied resettlement for 50 years". Especially to all those Arab nations (all but Jordan) who refused to grant citizenship to these refugees since resolving the refugee problem would mean admitting that Israel wasn't going to be wiped out of existance in the near future.

[Jack Rabbit]

185. Yep

You have been refuted. Admit it.

The Arabs living in Palestine identified themselves as a unique group of Arabs before 1948 and demanded national rights from their colonial masters. There is a Palestinian people and there was a Palestinian national movement pre-dating the founding of Israel.

Case closed.

It may give you some satisfaction to say that there's nothing more here than some pathetic refugees that haven't been resettled and that calling them a people is part of some sinister anti-Semitic scheme, but the facts show that they had national aspirations of their own apart from those of other people in the region during the time of the British Mandate.

You may reply if you like, but that's my last word on the subject.

[bemildred]

187. There is hair-splitting of a high order at work here Jack.

There is a certain logic to the idea that "Palestinian People" as
used in the PLO Charter, was used in the specific sense that they
are a nation in the specific sense used in "nation-state", that
is: a unitary people. After all, that assertion was basic to the
purpose of the Charter.

The notion that because that assertion had not been made before then,
assuming you accept that for the moment, does not mean that the
"Palestinian People" in the conventional meaning of "the people
living in the place sometimes called Palestine" have not always
existed and had their own unique cultural relations.

The larger point is they certainly exist now, how ever that may
have come to pass.

[MikeGalos]

191. No hairs being split

You can attack my posts all you like (and have) but neither you nor anyone else has refuted the fact that the "Palestinian People" is a fiction created for PR purposes to change the tone of discussion of the Arab Refugees from the '48 Invasion of Israel into some sort of "people's nationalist movement" without a people, nation or movement.

That you want something to exist doesn't make it so here in the real world. Just because you believe there is such a thing as a "Palestinian People" doesn't make them any more real than if you wanted to believe that they were really from the planet Krypton.

[bemildred]

193. Well, I'm certainly glad that you are coming to grips

with the difference between imagination and reality.
Perhaps there is hope yet.

[MikeGalos]

194. So

you can't counter my position so you resort to insults.

I think that says a lot about the quality of the arguments and who can't defend their position.

[bemildred]

195. I learn from the master. nt

[the_boxer_]

207. Look who's creating PR purposes!

'48 Invasion of Israel into some sort of...

'48 Invasion of Israel? Who invaded Israel? Israel declared statehood and the Arab armies fought on what was mandated for the Arabs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

209. Who are you kdding?

The Arab armies refused to accept the mandate (that also created a Palestinian state by the way) and sent in armies to enforce it. By so doing it was THEY who destroyed the peace. It was they who destroyed the Palestinian state.

[the_boxer_]

210. I'm not kidding.

By declaring statehood on someone else's land, the Israelis dismissed any opportunities for peace and for mutual recognition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

211. Ah

So you think Jews had no right to any of that land...

I guess Jews hadn't been there for thousands of years. I guess even the UN, which is no friend to the Israeli cause, didn't think the Jews had a right to be there.

[the_boxer_]

214. I don't think that European Jewry had any right to take someone else's

Land. That I have to state. However, they are there now. That can't be reversed. What can be done is for the decendents of the original inhabitants be allowed to return home and live peacefully with their Jewish neighbors.


The UN's own charter dictates that what was done with regard to the partition is illegal. There were proposals at the time for a unitary state that I'm sure would have been more peaceful then what has transpired in the last 55+ years.

[Muddleoftheroad]

216. What can't be done

I really don't understand the amount of effort from the pro-Palestinian cause about the Right of Return. Sure, you might like it to happen, but it has less chance than I have of marrying Tyra Banks.

Less chance because, as one of 3 billion or so men on planet Earth, I at least have a snowball's chance.

The Palestinians have none. Nada. Nicht.

It won't happen. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Not next year. Not ever.

It would destroy Israel and leave it open for the same actions that have marked all the Arab states -- and the Palestinian territories. The destruction of Jewish life.

[the_boxer_]

218. That is nonsense. You can't predict the future.

Have fun with Tyra by the way. Tell her I said "Hey, and sorry for not calling..."

Quick point: ROR does not automatically destroy Jewish life. That is highly inflammatory as if the little brown people moving next door would cause Jews harm. Will Israel have to make adjustments with regard to being a Jewish state? Probably. Will they have to cease and desist with following Halachal orders from the Rabbinate since many citizens (as are now) not of the Jewish faith? Seems appropriate. Will the Palestinians have to be incorporated into Israel with full rights? Seems fair. Will the Palestinians have to accept this? It would be the only way it would work. So it is up to both parties to make changes for the better.

I'm through for the day. I gotta call Tyra, I'm sure she's pissed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

220. Some things about the future I can indeed predict

I will die. So will you in fact.

Sooner or later, the sun will die out, as well.

Sooner or later, so too will the Palestinian quest for the Right to Return. Hopefully, it will happen before the sun.

Yes, Right to Return DOES automatically destroy Jewish life. Israel IS the homeland for the Jewish people. They have seen what happens in other nations as a minority. Even the UN acknowledged that reality.

The issue is not people moving next door. The issue is that in every other Arab or Muslim country, Jews are hated and few remain as a result of persecution. Only a fool would allow that to happen in the homeland for the Jewish people.

Have fun with Tyra. I will accept my three billion to one shot. Too bad the Palestinians or their supporters here don't have the sense to accept they have none.

[bluesoul]

221. We will see about that

ROR....

[Muddleoftheroad]

222. ROR

LOL

[bluesoul]

223. We'll see

who'll laugh at the end.

Right of return!

[Muddleoftheroad]

224. Probably no one

The Palestinian refusal to accept reality has led to perpetual war. Lacking peace, only devastation will result.

[bluesoul]

225. Oh you mean this

:nuke: I am sure some of the RW in Israel does wish it. That some here is just...

[Muddleoftheroad]

226. Why would they wish it?

That is just downright silly.

The groups most likely to toss a nuke are the Palestinian terrorists and when or if that happens, all hell will break loose.

[bluesoul]

227. Nope

Palestinians don't have any WMD, nor combat airplanes, nor a military among top of the world. Israel does. They under a RW wacko like Sharon are the only danger that could bring such annihilation...

[MikeGalos]

190. Don't be silly

there hasn't been any refutation. Period.

It isn't a matter of admitting anything.

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian People" and nobody has shown ANY evidence to the contrary.

There is no such thing as the "historical homeland" of the "Palestinian People" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and nobody has shown ANY evidence to the contrary.

Oh, and I'd like the record to show that NOBODY brought up Anti-Semitism except you. (Before somebody starts screaming that I called someone or something anti-Semitic)

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

197. I suppose you had thought better of me, eh?

Tsk, tsk, life is full of these little disapointments.

[MikeGalos]

198. I had

apparently I was wrong.

[bemildred]

199. Gets to be a habit after a while, doesn't it?

[the_boxer_]

206. There was no such thing as a modern day Israeli prior to 1948.

Yet Israel and Israelis exist. I am really not sure why you are arguing this point to this degree, MikeGalos. Are you then saying, since they "weren't specifically called Palestinian", they have no right to the land they've lived on?

[Lithos]

180. I am going to dicker with you

Though your thesis is unchanged.

The peasants who rose up in Nablus, Hebron and Jerusalem in 1834 fought against the Egyptians led by Ibrahim Pasha and not the Ottoman Turks. Remember that in the 1830's the Egyptians under Muhammed Ali had almost overrun the Ottoman Empire only to be held in check by the machinations of the British and the Russians. Yes you could be picky and say Muhammed Ali was still an Ottoman satrap, but in all intents that was just a fiction created by the European powers to keep the sick man alive just a bit longer to maintain the status quo.

It was also these same peasants who helped the Turks regain control in the 1850's which in turn lead to some badly needed land reforms and local autonomy for several of the leading urban areas. Trade also started to focus more towards the Mediterranean where for instance Oranges which used to be supplied only to Turkey instead went to England. In essence, these new freedoms gave rise to the power of the local fellaheen (peasants) which in turn allowed for increased cosmopolitan contacts. This was the effective start of Palestinian nationalism when people were starting to think in terms of region and not village. It came into bloom in the 1920's with the rise of Christian-Muslim organizations which showed that it was based on true Nationalism and not religion. It was also the 1920's which finally broke what remaining ties to Syria that existed when it became self-evident that Palestine, the Transjordan and Syria had gone their separate ways.

the terms Palestinian and Palestine did not come into modern use until 1917

I argue that it was coming into usage a bit earlier. The Palestine Land Development Company was founded in 1908 to buy land and coordinate development of land for Jewish settlement. In 1911, the large Arabic paper, the Filastin, was established in Jaffa.

As for Professors Kimmerling and Migdal, they wrote a fine book. I would suggest it be supplemented by Ira M. Lapidus' general survey, A History of Islamic Societies as well as C. Ernest Dawn's From Ottomanism to Arabism.

[Jack Rabbit]

182. The revolt of 1834

Yes, your facts about Muhammad Ali and Ibrahim Pasha are correct; I am being picky and regarding them as technically representatives of the Sultan. However, they acted very much as they pleased. It would be better to say that the revolt was against Ibrahim Pasha rather than the Ottomans, since the grievences of the West Bank peasants were acts unilaterally imposed by Ibrahim.

Thank you for the additional information.

[bemildred]

115. No, I think those are ludicrous claims, for the most part.

I would agree that the current notion of "Palestinian" came
into being in reaction to the Zionist effort, that sort of thing
is not unusual in Colonial ventures, native cultures tend to be
tribal or city oriented, they only take up European notions of
nationalism as a reaction or counter-strategy. Many current
nation-states came into being as a result of or reaction to
European colonial ventures.

But that doesn't matter all that much in my opinion. They are there,
millions of them, and unless a coherent answer is given to the
question: "What are you going to do with all those people?" is
given, things will remain in the present screwed up state.

[MikeGalos]

118. So basically

you don't disagree with the facts, don't present any reason why they are not correct but insist on calling them "ludicrous" because you don't like them.

Additionally, your basic premise is that you don't care about whether there is legitimacy in the "Palestinian" "nationalist" claims (which you don't seem to label "absurd" despite offering no justification for their existance.

Since you don't disagree that the "Palestinians" have any special claim greater than that of any other refugee community, you then go on to ignore those facts and insist on their getting special treatment above that given to other refugees.

Care to explain why that is?

The only reason even hinted at by your answer is that you dislike the Zionists (which is, unlike that of the "Palestinians", a legitimate nationalist movement of an oppressed people with cultural and historical ties to that land.

Why do you dislike Jewish Nationalism so much that you'll defend a competing "nationalist" movement that even you can't defend as having a legitimate national identity behind it?

[bemildred]

119. No that's not it.

That's a bunch of stuff you made up.
Has nothing to do with me.

FWIW, I have nothing against Zionists as such, there are plenty
on this board that I consider friends, it was just the right
word in the situation; and I do use that word carefully on this
forum.

And I have nothing against the Jewish Nationalist movement as such.

[MikeGalos]

120. What did I "Make Up"?

You haven't challenged a single fact or shown a single place where the bogus nature of a "Palestinian People" or "Historical Homeland" wasn't absolutely true. Yet, for no given reason, you choose to say it is "made up" and "ludicrous"

Either show your work (document where I'm wrong as I initiall asked) or apologize for the ad-hominem attack designed to denigrate what you can't contradict.

[bemildred]

121. The stuff about what I think and what my premises are.

I happen to be THE authority on that, so no documentation
is required.

[MikeGalos]

122. On your own views

I'll grant you have some expertise. Although you also have a fair amount of personal bias on that as well and can hardly be called an objective, neutral observer!

On calling my uncontested facts, "ludicrous claims", however, you have yet contradict them so all you've done is denigrate what you can't factually argue against.

On that, either an apology or factual explanation is due.

[bemildred]

123. I can be called anything. It is the easiest thing.

I don't understand why you think I should contest facts.
Matters of opinion, on the other hand, are just that, they may be
based on reason or logic, but they are not compelled by them, and
reasonable people, given the same facts, may disagree. It seems to
me I have supplied enough in the way of links and documentation
for the time being.

[MikeGalos]

124. If you don't feel you need to contest facts

then please refrain from gratuitious insults and denigration.

Calling my posting of facts "ludicrous claims" while posting no facts that offer any contradiction and then saying there is no need for you to contest facts demonstrates a debating style of matching data with childish insult and denial that is fairly pathetic and very sad.

[bemildred]

125. How would you contest a fact?

I mean, it's a fact, right? Like it's not contestable, it's
verifiable, repeatable, all that scientific stuff.

However, in reviewing the post in question, there are four
statements, all of which appear to me to be opinions, which
I do consider to be "ludicrous claims", an opinion you asked
me for. Why should I think that if I dredge up enough more
stuff you will then change your mind? I find that highly
doubtful. I'll tell you what, you convince me that those opinions
are facts, and I'll see if I can contest them. How's that?

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

127. I'm sad that you're sad. Sniff. Mindlessly sad. Heavy sigh. nt

[MikeGalos]

131. What a shame

that you're apparently sad as well.

I, at least, am sad over the inaction of another. You, I'd have to guess are sad over the loss of a cherished fiction.

You have my sympathy but be of good cheer, with the loss of fictional beliefs comes the opportunity for growth and learning.

[bemildred]

133. No, I'm sad that you're sad. Didn't you read my post?

[bemildred]

106. This provides some perspective too:

From the 1911 Encylopaedia Britannica entry for Palestine:

Population.The inhabitants of Palestine are composed of a large
number of elements, differing widely in ethnological affinities,
language and religion. It may be interesting to mention, as an
illustration of their heterogeneousness, that early in the 20th
century a list of no less than fifty languages, spoken in Jerusalem
as vernaculars, was there drawn up by a party of men whose various
official positions enabled them to possess accurate information on
the subject.i It is therefore no easy task to write concisely and
at the same time with sufficient fullness on the ethnology of
Palestine.

There are two classes into which the population of Palestine can
be divided the nomadic and the sedentary. The former is especially
characteristic of Eastern Palestine, though Western Palestine also
contains its full share. The pure Arab origin of the Bedouins is
recognized in common conversation in the country, the word Arab
being almost restricted to denote these wanderers, and seldom
applied to the dwellers in towns and villages. It should be mentioned
that there is another, entirely independent, nomad race, the despised
Nowar, who correspond to the gipsies or tinkers of European countries.

These people live under the poorest conditions, by doing smiths work;
they speak among themselves a Romani dialect, much contaminated with
Arabic in its vocabulary.

The sedentary population of the country villages the fellahin, or
agriculturistsis, on the whole, comparatively unmixed; but traces of
various intrusive strains assert themselves. It is by no means
unreasonable to suppose that there is a fundamental Canaanite element
in this population: the hewers of wood and drawers of water often
remain undisturbed through successive occupations of a land;
and there is a remarkable correspondence of type between many of the
modern fellahin and skeletons of ancient inhabitants which have been
recovered in the course of excavation. New elements no doubt came in
under the Assyrian, Persian and Roman dominations, and in more recent
times there has been much contamination.

Followed by a good deal more. The document scan sucks in places,
and the following section on political divisions is also interesting.

http://95.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PALESTINE.htm