NationStates Jolt Archive

A history book in my home describes the Palestinian national identity as a response to the Zionist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries. Specifically, it states that such an identity did not exist prior to the early 20s, and that the events marking it's creation were the pogroms of 1929, in Pre-Israel Palestine (that is, the Arabs tried to kill jews in the area).

Now, a couple of threads below refer to such a national identity. Obviously, the province of Palestine, as including the pre-medevil kingdoms of Israel and Judea, was part of the roman empire. Also, the Ottoman empire had it's own province of Palestine, inclusive of modern-day Jordan and Syria. But was there a Palestinian people? Can we refer to the palestinians of that time as a people, rather than a collection of individuals, who's collective identity had to be taken into account?

This is a question I wish answered, and not with a simple "yes", or "no". All of you who claim that the Palestinian "people" was wronged, prove to me that a national identity of such a people truly did exist, that it's formation was not just a response to the nationalistic elements of Zionism.

As I am trying to ask a question, rather than win an argument, I must also request that you use sources that I would not only consider reliable, but can verify. Sources linked to the Palestinian authority (or to any of the other terror-affiliated organizations such as the tanzeem, the PFLP, et cetera), or to the israeli government, for the sake of balance, will be considered biased, and erronous. However, citations from books I will check with the local library.

Please note that in regards to literary sources, it is demanded not only that the author would be considered palestinians by contemporary thinkers (who might very well annex him to their culture), but also that he/she would recognize their own identity as palestinian (and not, syrian or muslim, for instance), and explicitly so.

Anybody here up to the challange?

There were indeed Muslims living in Palestine pre-Zionism, as well as Christians (to some extent), and a few Jews.

Were they (the Muslims) a genuine "Palestinian people," however? No - pre-1900 I believe the land was under Ottoman Empire control


While they have no ethnic claim to the land IMO, it's still sacred lands to them, and I feel like Israel, just as gesture of goodwill, return some of the land it has amassed over the years.

There were indeed Muslims living in Palestine pre-Zionism, as well as Christians (to some extent), and a few Jews.

Were they (the Muslims) a genuine "Palestinian people," however? No - pre-1900 I believe the land was under Ottoman Empire control


While they have no ethnic claim to the land IMO, it's still sacred lands to them, and I feel like Israel, just as gesture of goodwill, return some of the land it has amassed over the years.
It is irrelevent who controlled them, it is far more relevent to ask the question if occupying the same land since the Jewish People were expelled from there gives them more of a claim then that of the Jews.

This is like a trick question.
The Canaanites were there as were the Philistines. Hebrews and Philistines were among many groups who migrated to the area after the 14th century BC.
Palistine is named for the Philistines, is that what you mean?
"The Canaanites were the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine. During the 3rd millennium bc they became urbanized and lived in city-states, one of which was Jericho. They developed an alphabet from which other writing systems were derived; their religion was a major influence on the beliefs and practices of Judaism, and thus on Christianity and Islam."- Encarta Encyclopedia

This is like a trick question.
The Canaanites were there as were the Philistines. Hebrews and Philistines were among many groups who migrated to the area after the 14th century BC.
Palistine is named for the Philistines, is that what you mean?

But the people who call themselves Palestinians are largely believed to be descended from the Arab Muslims who conquered the region in 638.

As far as the opening thread- I'm of the stance that you can indeed speak of the Palestinian "people"- but am of the opinion that this pertains to the group of people who were living in the "greater Palestinian province" under the Ottomans.

This requires acknowledging that, as far as an ethnic group goes, the Palestinians are of the same "stock" as some of their neighbors in other states- Jordan in particular comes to mind. So the Palestinian "people" does indeed exist- but they are located in plenty of places other than Palestine. Or, if we were to be more nuanced, the people living in pre-Mandate Palestine were all "proto-Palestinians", who eventually developped differing nationalistic (if not necessarily ethnic) identities, including Syrian, Jordanian, and Palestinian.

It is irrelevent who controlled them, it is far more relevent to ask the question if occupying the same land since the Jewish People were expelled from there gives them more of a claim then that of the Jews.

I think the issue of OWNERSHIP is indeed important- otherwise you can argue that Southern black slaves (in some ways analogous to Palestinian serfs under the Ottomans) by all rights should have been recognized as "owning" the South after the Civil War. Merely occupying an area does not constitute ownership- their claim as long-time RESIDENTS should certainly be acknowledged, but the fact that very few Palestinians actually owned the land now designated Palestine is, in my mind, significant. Can you really claim something to be "your" land- your "country"- if it is controlled by a foreign government and you in fact don't own any of it?

I think the issue of OWNERSHIP is indeed important- otherwise you can argue that Southern black slaves (in some ways analogous to Palestinian serfs under the Ottomans) by all rights should have been recognized as "owning" the South after the Civil War. Merely occupying an area does not constitute ownership- their claim as long-time RESIDENTS should certainly be acknowledged, but the fact that very few Palestinians actually owned the land now designated Palestine is, in my mind, significant. Can you really claim something to be "your" land- your "country"- if it is controlled by a foreign government and you in fact don't own any of it?
Irrelevent to the topic at hand, as I doubt that the Jewish people had a deed to the land...

Irrelevent to the topic at hand, as I doubt that the Jewish people had a deed to the land...

You're misunderstanding what I wrote- or rather, what you inferred. I wasn't saying the Jews were the "rightful" owners- merely that the Palestinians did not actually owned the land they lived on.

In any event, I disagree. In my mind, it makes the two claims more comparable- since the Palestinians didn't have a deed, either.

You're misunderstanding what I wrote- or rather, what you inferred. I wasn't saying the Jews were the "rightful" owners- merely that the Palestinians did not actually owned the land they lived on.

In any event, I disagree. In my mind, it makes the two claims more comparable- since the Palestinians didn't have a deed, either.
Well, no, they might have had a deed (to the physical land) but they didn't have a government. That doesn't mean that you can just hand it over to a foreign group of people over the objections of those living there.

Well, no, they might have had a deed (to the physical land) but they didn't have a government.

No, in fact most of them had neither. Most of the land was owned by absentee Ottoman landlords, who also controlled the government. The remainder of the land was divided up into fiefdoms controlled by about half a dozen elite families. The vast majority of Palestinians were landless serfs.

That doesn't mean that you can just hand it over to a foreign group of people over the objections of those living there.

Not saying it necessarily does; however, there was no essential reason why the Palestinians' residency inherently entitled them to statehood in the area. I see two peoples making claims to the land, neither of whom really had solid ownership over it.

Furthermore, the original partition plan did not entail "handing it over"- rather, it divided the area up according to present-day (at the time) demographic patterns.

No, in fact most of them had neither. Most of the land was owned by absentee Ottoman landlords, who also controlled the government. The remainder of the land was divided up into fiefdoms controlled by about half a dozen elite families. The vast majority of Palestinians were landless serfs.

So it comes down to people living there against people who aren't living there. Who has the greater claim to the land?


Not saying it necessarily does; however, there was no essential reason why the Palestinians' residency inherently entitled them to statehood in the area. I see two peoples making claims to the land, neither of whom really had solid ownership over it.

Furthermore, the original partition plan did not entail "handing it over"- rather, it divided the area up according to present-day (at the time) demographic patterns.
Yes, but the Palestinians were there at that time, which gives them a far greater claim to the area then the Israelis, who were far and away in the minority.

I think the issue of OWNERSHIP is indeed important- otherwise you can argue that Southern black slaves (in some ways analogous to Palestinian serfs under the Ottomans) by all rights should have been recognized as "owning" the South after the Civil War. Merely occupying an area does not constitute ownership- their claim as long-time RESIDENTS should certainly be acknowledged, but the fact that very few Palestinians actually owned the land now designated Palestine is, in my mind, significant. Can you really claim something to be "your" land- your "country"- if it is controlled by a foreign government and you in fact don't own any of it?

So the British should have stayed in India and Africa?
Ghandi didn't have any papers proving India belonged to his people...

A history book in my home describes the Palestinian national identity as a response to the Zionist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries. Specifically, it states that such an identity did not exist prior to the early 20s, and that the events marking it's creation were the pogroms of 1929, in Pre-Israel Palestine (that is, the Arabs tried to kill jews in the area).

Now, a couple of threads below refer to such a national identity. Obviously, the province of Palestine, as including the pre-medevil kingdoms of Israel and Judea, was part of the roman empire. Also, the Ottoman empire had it's own province of Palestine, inclusive of modern-day Jordan and Syria. But was there a Palestinian people? Can we refer to the palestinians of that time as a people, rather than a collection of individuals, who's collective identity had to be taken into account?

This is a question I wish answered, and not with a simple "yes", or "no". All of you who claim that the Palestinian "people" was wronged, prove to me that a national identity of such a people truly did exist, that it's formation was not just a response to the nationalistic elements of Zionism.

As I am trying to ask a question, rather than win an argument, I must also request that you use sources that I would not only consider reliable, but can verify. Sources linked to the Palestinian authority (or to any of the other terror-affiliated organizations such as the tanzeem, the PFLP, et cetera), or to the israeli government, for the sake of balance, will be considered biased, and erronous. However, citations from books I will check with the local library.

Please note that in regards to literary sources, it is demanded not only that the author would be considered palestinians by contemporary thinkers (who might very well annex him to their culture), but also that he/she would recognize their own identity as palestinian (and not, syrian or muslim, for instance), and explicitly so.

Anybody here up to the challange?
I think i am well equiped to take up your challenge. It seems quite easy really. Of course there was no such thing as a Palestinian national identity prior to the 1920s because there was no Palestinian State. Similarly, there was no Israeli national identity prior to 1948 because there was no Israeli state. This does not however imply that there was no Palestinian cultural, ethnic or religious identity. I offer reason and references below.

As the reknowned social theorist Alberto Mellucci states "exercise of multiple identities is a normal part of everyday life" (from his book i think of 1995 'Challenging Codes'). It is perfectly normal to exercise political loyalty to the Ottoman state while at the same time exercising an entirely distinct Palestinian cultural identity. Referring to Mabel Berezin who wrote a chapter in Jeff Goodwin, James M Jasper and Francesca Polletta Passionate Politics: Emotions and social movements. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Chicago 2001. Berezin writes "Political identities are public identities and distinct from private identities.....public identities are institutionally buttressed" meaning that political (national) identities recquire formal institutional referrence points - ie the existence of a state. Berezin goes on to state "Cultural identities are based on meanings, shared collective practice and understanding" meaning by this that when a group of people share linguistic religious or other characteristics then they are conforming to a cultural identity. So while the answer to your somewhat narrow question is that no there was no palestinian national identity prior to the 1920's, it is entirely logical that there was a palestinian people. The evidence for this is that the Palestinian people identify themselves as such. This is similar to the fact that there is a Kurdish people and they have a distinct identity, even in the absence of a Kurdish state. Taking this into account, it is possible to refer to wrongs against the Palestinian people, despite the absence of a Palestinian National identity.

Bumped cause i feel like it.

I can't offer anything new to the debate as to whose descendants the modern Palestinians are.

Does it matter? It is quite obvious that there were people living in the land that makes up Israel. The topic easily leads to the question: "Do the Palestinians have any right to live in Israel?"

A similar situation would arise if Russia gave back some of the land areas they were given as part of peace treaties after World War 2. Other examples abound, but WW2 makes a good example because it happened so recently, so quite a few countries have a "claim" on those lands. What would happen to the Russians living in these areas? Most of them doubtless have a proper title issued by the Russian government. Should those titles be respected or would those countries be able to say "Piss off. This is our land now."

there are few if any places on the surface of this earth,
other perhapse then the polar ice caps, that there were not
someone already living prior to 1900; whatever they may or may not have called themselves.

and likewise no modern nation that had not already been settled and occupied before its formation and in nearly all
cases before the influx of the peoples and cultures that formed it.

=^^=
.../\...

I think i am well equiped to take up your challenge. It seems quite easy really. Of course there was no such thing as a Palestinian national identity prior to the 1920s because there was no Palestinian State. Similarly, there was no Israeli national identity prior to 1948 because there was no Israeli state. This does not however imply that there was no Palestinian cultural, ethnic or religious identity. I offer reason and references below.

As the reknowned social theorist Alberto Mellucci states "exercise of multiple identities is a normal part of everyday life" (from his book i think of 1995 'Challenging Codes'). It is perfectly normal to exercise political loyalty to the Ottoman state while at the same time exercising an entirely distinct Palestinian cultural identity. Referring to Mabel Berezin who wrote a chapter in Jeff Goodwin, James M Jasper and Francesca Polletta Passionate Politics: Emotions and social movements. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Chicago 2001. Berezin writes "Political identities are public identities and distinct from private identities.....public identities are institutionally buttressed" meaning that political (national) identities recquire formal institutional referrence points - ie the existence of a state. Berezin goes on to state "Cultural identities are based on meanings, shared collective practice and understanding" meaning by this that when a group of people share linguistic religious or other characteristics then they are conforming to a cultural identity. So while the answer to your somewhat narrow question is that no there was no palestinian national identity prior to the 1920's, it is entirely logical that there was a palestinian people. The evidence for this is that the Palestinian people identify themselves as such. This is similar to the fact that there is a Kurdish people and they have a distinct identity, even in the absence of a Kurdish state. Taking this into account, it is possible to refer to wrongs against the Palestinian people, despite the absence of a Palestinian National identity.

What your words come down to, in the end, is that because there was a Palestinian people after the 1920s, that is proof that such an identity existed prior to that time. Also you argue that for such an identity to exist, it is not required that it be aware of itself as "Palestinian" (in contrast with "southern Ottoman"). Even you admit that the argument is indefinit, claiming that the existance of a Palestinian people is "Possible" - rather than absolute.

I partially agree with Berezin, in that what I am in fact searching are those cultural fragments that are notabelly Palestinians. Since I can easily find early texts which are distinctively Jewish (the nation of Israel was created as a Jewish nation, not an Israeli one, and it still viewd as such by a significant portion of it's population), that refer to a link between the people and it's "promised land", I can easily make the argument that a Jewish identity - even a National Jewish identity - did exist prior to Israel. Proof for it can be found in the Hagada (a jewish religious text used in passover), and I quote: "next year in Jerusalem". I seek similar texts from pre-Palestine Palestinians.

But the general muslim texsts are a different matter, since there is a whole lot of peoples who share the koran, whilst there is only one Jewish people. Thus the muslim faith, as a whole, cannot be more than an indicator of identity - it cannot be proof positive.There are jewish texts which belong to only one sect or two (say, the writings of the Rambam) - did such texts, and their writers, exist in ottoman Palestine?

As for the Kurds, there was in fact a Kurdish nation called Kurdistan, which existed prior to WW1. In WW1, it was divided among three nations - Turky, Iraq and Iran. The Kurdish people (of whom I do not know if they had their identity prior to having their nation) still believes itself to be Kurdish, and defines itself as such. I am not certain that this example is also true of the Palestinians.

just as a footnote, there are two reasons for why I post a nerrow question - first, becuase I want it answered, as the point appears in several threads below, and secondly, because I didn't want to open the door to the "Israel /the-PA are evil" argument.

Irrelevent to the topic at hand, as I doubt that the Jewish people had a deed to the land...

actually, the zionists made a point at actually buying the land. They did indeed have deeds for most of the land, and the rest was state lands, under ottoman law.

Prior to the 1947 war, when Jordan controlled the area Palestine is internationally recognised as, there did not seem to be a Palestinian identity. From what I've read, the 'Palestinian' people did not consider themselves as being an occupied nation. I would go so far as saying that these people are Jordanians, and they wish to separate from Israel but know that Israel would never give the land back to Jordan, as the two countries have already set their differences aside.

Then again, I've always taken the pro-Israel side, as I like to see a country take the upper hand against overwhelming odds and hostility from its neighbours. Israel would have been better off removing hostiles from its land straight after the first war though, because there will be no end to the terrorism/reprucussion problems. While the Jews and Muslims have just as much claim to Israel/Palestine, Israel won the war(s) - the matter is settled. Germany has more claim to Konigsberg [Kaliningrad] than Russia, but I don't see Russia handing it back over.

So the British should have stayed in India and Africa?
Ghandi didn't have any papers proving India belonged to his people...

I don't recall arguing anything of the sort...

Also I was under the impression that a self-ruled Indian state predated British occupation, but then again, I know very little about its history. If you could fill me in, I'd be much obliged.

There were people living in Palestine, but the nation of Palestine was pretty much a military fiat state made by many occupiers over the past 2000 years. Their national identity, or desire to be independant, are relatively new. I've seen no disagreement on this issue.

Whether this means there were or weren't a Palestinian people, though, is harder to answer. However, logically, it should be the same as "were there Czechoslovakians*, Yugoslavians, or Iraqis before 1945? Were there Germans and Italians before 1800? Are there really South Africans now, were there ever Native Americans?" I could argue Poland, but it'd be a pretty shitty case. Half the first world countries around today are fiat-nations created to give buffers around Germany or to deal with the soviets.

*Okay, 1918, but I heard about a year and a half ago that this re-broke up in '93, but nobody had bothered to notice until ten years later. This actually is important to the arguement- Israel was just barely a formal nation, and ceased to exist as one long ago and became a theoretical construct. Like The Czech Republic and Palestine, kinda got made up (more accurate but worse-sounding term for "reconstructed") because "that's the way things should be." People think they belong, then they belong. Same one both sides. Unfortunately, it'll be a while before people "live and let live" becomes popular.

The backup arguement is that, thanks to intermarraige and conversion to Judaism, the Palestinian people probably have more Israelite blood than do current Israelis, and thus would have more claim to the land if they believed in the OT. But, then foreigners are pretty much the ONLY people who the OT doesn't tell you to kill on the spot, and you're taught to respect them & welcome them with open arms. Especially foreign converts, so they'd have to let the Israelis stay...
Sweet Fancy Moses, why the hell has no-one suggested that before?

The people that postulate this generally do so as an excuse to rationalize denying the Muslim residents of that region a homeland. The argument being that since they may not have had autonomy before (for whatever reason) this is somehow indicative of a lack of any cohesive identity as a regional group.

Those that use this argument tend to ignore issues such as the fact that the bulk of Israelis only moved to the region in the past 60 years from disparate world locales and so have an even more limited tie as a identifiable group in general as their primary link is simply a shared religion. Of course, the Muslims equally share a religion as well as regional hereditary roots, but that point is ignored.

The corrolary, I assume, should be that if we set a benchmark date of 1900 then if your population did not have an autonomous political entity at that point then you have no claim to some sort of socio-political heritage tied to your region.

Well, let's look at a map of Europe circa 1900 shall we?

http://www.euratlas.com/big/1900big.jpg

Poles, you don't have a national identity. I know you thought you did - but aparently not. These are the rules after all.

Same for you Czechs, Slovaks, Ukranians, Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Moldovans, .....

Does a man need a historic national identity stretching back 200 years to give him the right to live somewhere?

I have no idea who my great grandparents were, but I don't think that means that someone should kick me out of my house, or even build another house for themself on my lawn.

Israel is some actual soil, and it had actual people living on it, and a lot of those people have been dispossessed and treated shamefully. Doesn't matter what you call them.

I don't recall arguing anything of the sort...

Also I was under the impression that a self-ruled Indian state predated British occupation, but then again, I know very little about its history. If you could fill me in, I'd be much obliged.

There was no recognisable Indian state before the british occupation. There were lots of separate kingdoms. Many of them retained their rulers even during the british raj.

Does a man need a historic national identity stretching back 200 years to give him the right to live somewhere?

I don't think that's what's being argued. It is POSSIBLY relevant as far as determining land RIGHTS, since most of the Palestinians didn't actually own the land they were living ON. But that in of itself certainly doesn't justify saying the Palestinians have no claim or connection to the area in which they lived.

Israel is some actual soil, and it had actual people living on it, and a lot of those people have been dispossessed and treated shamefully. Doesn't matter what you call them.

Yes, but a fair amount of the blame for that lies with actions taken by them and THEIR leaders. It's not ALL about the Israelis, British, and UN.

What your words come down to, in the end, is that because there was a Palestinian people after the 1920s, that is proof that such an identity existed prior to that time. Also you argue that for such an identity to exist, it is not required that it be aware of itself as "Palestinian" (in contrast with "southern Ottoman"). Even you admit that the argument is indefinit, claiming that the existance of a Palestinian people is "Possible" - rather than absolute.

I partially agree with Berezin, in that what I am in fact searching are those cultural fragments that are notabelly Palestinians. Since I can easily find early texts which are distinctively Jewish (the nation of Israel was created as a Jewish nation, not an Israeli one, and it still viewd as such by a significant portion of it's population), that refer to a link between the people and it's "promised land", I can easily make the argument that a Jewish identity - even a National Jewish identity - did exist prior to Israel. Proof for it can be found in the Hagada (a jewish religious text used in passover), and I quote: "next year in Jerusalem". I seek similar texts from pre-Palestine Palestinians.

But the general muslim texsts are a different matter, since there is a whole lot of peoples who share the koran, whilst there is only one Jewish people. Thus the muslim faith, as a whole, cannot be more than an indicator of identity - it cannot be proof positive.There are jewish texts which belong to only one sect or two (say, the writings of the Rambam) - did such texts, and their writers, exist in ottoman Palestine?

As for the Kurds, there was in fact a Kurdish nation called Kurdistan, which existed prior to WW1. In WW1, it was divided among three nations - Turky, Iraq and Iran. The Kurdish people (of whom I do not know if they had their identity prior to having their nation) still believes itself to be Kurdish, and defines itself as such. I am not certain that this example is also true of the Palestinians.

But the point remains that the absence of a state does not invalidate the claim of the existence of a collective identity. The very concept of the 'State' defining identity is in fact very modern and has no historical roots prior to Gramsci's description of social conflict in Mussolini's Italy.

But the point remains that the absence of a state does not invalidate the claim of the existence of a collective identity. The very concept of the 'State' defining identity is in fact very modern and has no historical roots prior to Gramsci's description of social conflict in Mussolini's Italy.

yes, but this does not mean that there was such an identity either.

It simply means that the possebility exists, to be interpreted as our beliefs dictate - if I believe that there was a Palestinian people, and no evidence contradict my views, I may very well hold that belief to be true, and non can tell me otherwise. Such is also the case if I believe that the Palestinian identity - national or otherwise - is an artificial construct, and no evidence point to a different direction.

But it is simpler to believe that a culture - any culture - would leave some evidence to it's existance. Be it garbage, or folklore, or texts, andemic to itself. On the basis of such belief is the determination that without evidence to it's existance, a Palestinian culture did not, in fact, exist. While the possebility is there, the evidence - in asmuch as they appear on this thread - do not support it.

does not invalidate the claim of the existence of a collective identity

Did a palestinian culture claim to exist prior to the 1900ts? We know that they claim now to have existed then. But that in itself does not make their claim true.

So, your argument is that the Judaic texts are indicitive of a culture, but the Muslim ones do not? That the Koran is simply blandly shared by disparate people with no indication of some shared identity while the Torah provides a proof of cohesiveness?

Interesting......

Of course, this would mean that you are postulating the notion that the various tribes of the Isrealites developed no regional traditions or cultural differences as they settled in diferent parts of the world. That the French Jew has no cultural differences from the Etheopian.



This is, of course, bullshit.

Prior to the 1947 war, when Jordan controlled the area Palestine is internationally recognised as, there did not seem to be a Palestinian identity. From what I've read, the 'Palestinian' people did not consider themselves as being an occupied nation. I would go so far as saying that these people are Jordanians, and they wish to separate from Israel but know that Israel would never give the land back to Jordan, as the two countries have already set their differences aside.

Then again, I've always taken the pro-Israel side, as I like to see a country take the upper hand against overwhelming odds and hostility from its neighbours. Israel would have been better off removing hostiles from its land straight after the first war though, because there will be no end to the terrorism/reprucussion problems. While the Jews and Muslims have just as much claim to Israel/Palestine, Israel won the war(s) - the matter is settled. Germany has more claim to Konigsberg [Kaliningrad] than Russia, but I don't see Russia handing it back over.

Well, by the time the Russians took Kaliningrad [Konigsberg] it was little more than a smoldering unpopulated ruin. At least according to my history teacher who I tend to believe. That's how efficient war on the eastern front could be. It was then repopulated with Russians.

So, your argument is that the Judaic texts are indicitive of a culture, but the Muslim ones do not? That the Koran is simply blandly shared by disparate people with no indication of some shared identity while the Torah provides a proof of cohesiveness?

I fear you have misunderstood my words, Zeppistan, by seeing them outside of their context.

Ofcourse the Koran is an indicitive of culture - the muslim culture, to be exact. But it is not an indicitive of the Palestinian culture, because it is not uniquely palestinian. To claim that the Muslim faith is an indicitive of the Palestinian culture, is just like saying that all the Saudis and the Lybians and the Afghans ware Palestinians back then.

The same holds for the Scriptures - who are not in themselves an indictive sign of the Israeli culture, but holding true to them do signify one's jewdaism.

The people that postulate this generally do so as an excuse to rationalize denying the Muslim residents of that region a homeland. The argument being that since they may not have had autonomy before (for whatever reason) this is somehow indicative of a lack of any cohesive identity as a regional group.

Well then, this is exactly the question I am asking. Did they in fact have any cohesive identity? If so, what is the proof?