NationStates Jolt Archive

Who here maintains that Palestinians don't exist and/or there is no such place as Palestine?


Because I've met a few of these (Palestinian deniers) online and it blows my mind.

Should Palestinians have a state? No! Are you kidding me? There are already 22 Arab countries! Why do we need one more? And why does it have to be on acount of Israel which is only one small Jewish State.

So lets go back in history. Before WW1 the Ottoman Empire ruled over Palestine, then after WW1 the British occupied it. Yes there was an area called Palestine, but who ever said that they were a people, and who ever said that there was a state? It's like people who live in Yellow Stone would start saying that they are Yellowstoners and that it's a State. The area "Palestine" was never controlled by arabs! So stop confusing yourselves by thinking that Palestinians are a type of people. They are not! They are Arab muslims, and so is Lebanon, Jordan, Eygpt, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, etc.... If you can tell me the difference in the people who live in those countries and "Palestinians" then I would agree for a Palestinian State, but there is no difference! They are all Arab Muslims.

Now there's only 1 Jewish small state and "Palestinians" are lying that they have the right to have a state and are trying to get it from Israel in hopes for the destrcution of it offcourse. So whoever thinks a Palestinian State is a solution for anything, is just plain ignorent. All the Arab world wants is the destruction of Israel! Just look at facts, Iran's president recently remarks "Israel should be wiped off the map", Arafat's " I will not rest until all the Jews are dead!", suicide bombings, the Arab nations attacking Israel 5 times since its creation in 1948. And also look at what Palestinians said they want, Palestinians said that there are 3 things they "want" 1. for Israel to return Gaza, 2. for Israel to return the West Bank, And 3rd, for Palestinians to be able to live in Israel.

So think about it, Why do Palestinians want to be able to go live in Israel, if what they say they want is a Palestinian state? If you know the arab world and how their brains function then you would realize what that would do. End of story. Palestinians don't exist weather you like it or not. Arabs muslims exist... but Palestinians don't!

Are these people serious? Somehow "Palestinians" don't exist simply because you put "Palestinian" in quotes? That somehow, for some reason, a people need to be a sovereign nation-state in order to be identified as anything other than their ethnicity?

This kind of bullshit pisses me off to no end. It's an insult to my intelligence. And unlike "wiping Israel off the map," this really IS an attempt to re-write history and language, not much different from denying the Holocaust is. It's unreasonable and stupid, but deniers of any kind just keep repeating their unreasoned and stupid claims and hope that it'll just catch on through that alone.

So does anyone here hold this ludicrous view or is this something that I and all my fellow NSGers can just point at and laugh?

Who ever Daniel Pipes is, he is certifiably one stupid mother fucker.

i'm laughing with you all the way. mirthlessly, it's too sad to be truly funny, but laughing all the same.

Who ever Daniel Pipes is, he is certifiably one stupid mother fucker.

Agreed.

So... is this guy trying to say that since there was never an actual state run by the Palestinians that the people themselves don't actually exist? They are actually fictional people?

Palestinians are real!
There's Fatahstanian and Hamastanian kinds I'm aware of.

*Nod*

Well all I can say is that palestine shouldn't have declared war on france and the UK during WWI.

Legally, there is no such nation known as palestine. As such, nobody can claim to be from the palestine state. Therefore, a "palestinian", in so far as that refers to someone from the nation of palestine, does not exist.

Palestine may be a geographic region, and as such a palestinian could be someone from that region, or perhaps an ethnicity and a palestinian therefore could be considered someone of that ethnicity.

But there is no such thing as someone from the nation of palestine, as there is no such legal nation known as palestine.

That being said, there is no such place as the nation of puerto rico, but there are certainly people who can be refered to as puerto ricans, as puerto rico is a regional area. As such "palestinian" is a valid word, in so far as it refers to someone from a region.

If there is a Palestinian people, it has developed since 1967. There is no historic Palestinian nation. Palestine was simply the name for a large territory (including modern-day Israel, Jordan and the West Bank and Gaza) whose supposed boundaries have changed over time. It has seen at least a dozen different rulers in the past 2000 years, and at no point has there EVER been a state there called Palestine.

Palestinians are just Arabs who lived in that territory, that vast majority of which now belongs to Arab states (especially Jordan). There was no distinctive, cohesive culture setting apart the people of this territory from the other Arabs who surrounded them. There is no racial or cultural difference between Jordanians who lived in the former British Mandate of Palestine and ordinary Jordanians.

If there is a "Palestinian people," it has developed since 1967 when Egypt's occupation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan's of the West Bank and other areas (including East Jerusalem) was ended in Israel's defensive war.

To be clear, there has never been a nation or a people called "Palestine" or "Palestinians". That was a name area for a territory, like "Iberia" is for Spain, Portugal and Andorra and "the Balkans" is for Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Monenegro, etc. When the Arabs rejected the 1948 partition plan, which would have split the former British Mandate of Palestine between its existing Jewish and Muslim populations - 80% of it already having gone to Jordan - there was still no Palestine or Palestinian people. The people currently in the West Bank or Gaza identified themselves as Egyptian, Jordanian or simply Arab.

Any sort of Palestinian culture in the West Bank and Gaza has been built up since 1967.

In reality, there is no distinct Palestinian culture. Gaza and the West Bank are completely different. Gaza is backwards and tribal, where the West Bank is more developed and more akin to a normal Arab state. "Palestinians" is a handy term used to refer to the Arab residents of the territories Israel captured in the 1967 war, but they're really no different to Egyptians or Jordanians.

Some people seem to have this odd idea that prior to 1948 there was an Arab Muslim state called Palestine, then all the Jews stole it. In reality, Arabs - no different to any other Arabs in what went to form the other Arab states following the defeat of the Ottomans - and Jews both populated the area, and both had done so historically. From what is essentially bits left over from other Arab states and Israel we have the Palestinian territories.

To say there is no such thing as a Palestinian is wrong, as it is a working definition of the Arab residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But to pretend that there is an historical Palestinian people, with a shared culture and heritage like other peoples, is incorrect. They're Arabs, no different to Egyptians or Jordanians.

Look, it's Mr Pipes.

Legally, there is no such nation known as palestine.

Care to explain why the League of Nations produced a Mandate for British rule over the country of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine) then?

Care to explain why my Grandad's campaign medal* says 'PALESTINE' on it?

Care to explain why the Palestinians have a government, a flag, a national anthem, and so on and so forth?

Or are you equating Palestine to Taiwan and Somaliland...?

All the above also applies to you, too Kalismaier!

Palestine is a country. It existed as a nation-state (albeit as a puppet of the British Empire) between the end of World War One and the 1948 War.

That may not be long, but it's long enough; after all, most of Europe's nations didn't exist as nation-states until the 20th Century. Will you deny the existence of, say, Latvia, given that historically it was Russian?

Regarding Palestinians, those who argue that they are 'just arabs' are saying the same as the Serbs and Croats did of the Bosnians - "they're just Muslim Serbs". We all know how that one ended up.

* Gained for his part in the fighting against Jewish terrorists (who shot him in the hand during an ambush on an ambulance carrying injured Palestinian policemen, so much for that country not existing...) in Palestine before the end of the Mandate.

Care to explain why the League of Nations produced a Mandate for British rule over the country of Palestine then?

I don't believe the league of nations exists any more either.

Care to explain why my Grandad's medal says 'PALESTINE' on it?

I have a medal that says "boy scouts", are the boy scouts a sovereign state?

Care to explain why the Palestinians have a government, a flag, a national anthem, and so on and so forth?

New York has a government, a flag, an anthem, a bird, a flower, a tree, and a lot of other things. New York is not a nationstate either.

Or are you equating Palestine to Taiwan and Somaliland...?

That's a reasonably apt comparison.

Palestine is a country.

No it's not.

It existed as a nation-state (albeit as a puppet of the British Empire) between the end of World War One and the 1948 War.

The ottoman empire ONCE existed. The Bystantine empire ONCE existed. The Roman empire ONCE existed. The Holy Roman Empire ONCE existed. A lot of things ONCE existed, they don't anymore.

That may not be long, but it's long enough; after all, most of Europe's nations didn't exist as nation-states until the 20th Century. Will you deny the existence of, say, Latvia, given that historically it was Russian?

What it WAS is not relevant, what it IS, however, is. Legally Palestine doesn't meet the full legal definition of an independant nationstate.

Care to explain why the League of Nations produced a Mandate for British rule over the country of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine) then?


Do they get British East Africa back then too?

Speaking of which, where are all the Rhodesians?

Some people seem to have this odd idea that prior to 1948 there was an Arab Muslim state called Palestine, then all the Jews stole it. In reality, Arabs - no different to any other Arabs in what went to form the other Arab states following the defeat of the Ottomans - and Jews both populated the area, and both had done so historically. From what is essentially bits left over from other Arab states and Israel we have the Palestinian territories.

To say there is no such thing as a Palestinian is wrong, as it is a working definition of the Arab residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But to pretend that there is an historical Palestinian people, with a shared culture and heritage like other peoples, is incorrect. They're Arabs, no different to Egyptians or Jordanians.

that's not the argument as i've ever heard it used. the argument is that jews have no more right to control the land than the arabs who already lived there and their holy land excuse is just bollocks considering the number of non-religious people who claim the jewish identity. if the territory must be marked off from the surrounding states then it ought to be maintained by a secular and non-ethnically aligned government. seeing as it was referred to as palestine pre-1948 then it seems a reasonable name to use now. maybe it has an ethnically specific meaning i don't know (if it does then think of something else), but the name israel certainly does and is an inevitable point of contention.

The ottoman empire ONCE existed. The Bystantine empire ONCE existed. The Roman empire ONCE existed. The Holy Roman Empire ONCE existed. A lot of things ONCE existed, they don't anymore.
Right, right, so there is no such thing as Romans?
Fuck man, how can you be so BLIND to not see that Palistineans are a people?
For example; in the Netherlands there is a province called "Friesland", and in that province live the Friezen. They are there own people and (most) will sooner see themselves as Fries' than as Dutch. But they don't have their own state, so therefor they don't exist?


CURSES ONTO YOU INTARWEBS! YOU HAVE PRODUCED TOO MANY RETARDS!

Right, right, so there is no such thing as Romans?


Not as a sovereign entity there isn't.

Right, right, so there is no such thing as Romans?

There is no such thing as a person from the nation of rome.

Fuck man, how can you be so BLIND to not see that Palistineans are a people?
For example; in the Netherlands there is a province called "Friesland", and in that province live the Friezen. They are there own people and (most) will sooner see themselves as Fries' than as Dutch. But they don't have their own state, so therefor they don't exist?

I'm going to do you a favor. i'm going to repeat for you EXACTLY what I said, and just for you, I'm going to bold the important parts. Do try to read it this time, k?

Legally, there is no such nation known as palestine. As such, nobody can claim to be from the palestine state. Therefore, a "palestinian", in so far as that refers to someone from the nation of palestine, does not exist.

Palestine may be a geographic region, and as such a palestinian could be someone from that region, or perhaps an ethnicity and a palestinian therefore could be considered someone of that ethnicity.

But there is no such thing as someone from the nation of palestine, as there is no such legal nation known as palestine.

That being said, there is no such place as the nation of puerto rico, but there are certainly people who can be refered to as puerto ricans, as puerto rico is a regional area. As such "palestinian" is a valid word, in so far as it refers to someone from a region.

So um, I'm really not sure what the fuck point you're trying to prove give that the argument you're trying to fight against isn't one I've made. I suggest before you work yourself into a drooling frenzy of righteous indignation you try very, VERY hard, to make sure you know what the fuck you're actually responding to, ok?

CURSES ONTO YOU INTARWEBS! YOU HAVE PRODUCED TOO MANY RETARDS!

I fear the irony of this statement may be lost on you, so let me at least say, I agree, but in your case, there might yet be hope.

Legally Palestine doesn't meet the full legal definition of an independant nationstate.

Might that be because it's occupied, perchance?

Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan were all created at the same time. All are nations. Palestine is illegally occupied and considerably reduced (again illegally, for the most part); it remains a nation-state with a distinct population with their own culture - although a distinct culture is not a necessary component for a state. To deny the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians is to deny not only history but reality, cowering behind dry words and racist eulogies to a regional superpower whose state-adopted shield of martyred persecution enables their government to ignore and deflect criticism, to act in contravention of UN resolutions and international laws, to brutalise and oppress and murder and, above all, encourage the creation of a cycle of violence which maims and kills their own citizens as well.

Palestine is a nation, the Palestinians are its people. Like the Serbs, the Croats, and the Bosnians - among others - they have a right to national self-determination free from foreign interference. Denying them this right is based on the same ultra-zionist expansionism which brought us the infamous statement that Palestine was "a land without a people for a people without a land."

Thankfully, there are Israelis who recognise this, and who return honour to their country by standing up for, and defending, the Palestinians.

Regrettably, they are outnumbered across the world by those Zionists - most of whom are Christians - who would see the Palestinians crushed and their memory destroyed. Those people are kin to the destroyers of Lidice, and it is a great and sad irony that the Jewish state is responsible for ethnic cleansing of its own and a 'defensive' policy that is built on occupation and destruction.

What is it that drives your - and others' - denial of Palestine?

Is it simply a view of the world that is dusty, dry, and legalistic?

Is it a radical-expansionist ultra-nationalist or ultra-religious outlook that wishes to see Greater Israel?

Is it a neo-conservative ideology which would rather not give those damn sand-****** terrorists any scraps of self-determination at all?

Or is it something else, something which I'm missing?

As far as legalistic determination goes; this from Wikipedia:

"...a nation-state is a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation, and which derives its legitimacy from that function. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that they geographically coincide"

The political entity is provided, it seems, by either the democratically elected Hamas, the unity government (now dissolved) of Hamas and Fatah, or the government of Fatah and the PLO. The nation is the cultural and ethnic identity of the Palestinian Arabs who live there.

Interestingly, both the political and national identity of the Palestinians geocraphically coincide in Palestine.

Looks like it meets the definition, then...

...unless, of course, you are using a different definition?

Looks like it meets the definition, then...

...unless, of course, you are using a different definition?

Nah, let's use your definition, but once again, I'll bold the important part for you.

"...a nation-state is a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation, and which derives its legitimacy from that function. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that they geographically coincide"


Whoops, palestine doesn't have sovereignity does it? Guess it aint a nation then, by your own definition. I'm going to skip the rest of your rhetoric as someone discussing international politics without the most fundamental grasp of international legal theory is really not worth my time.

Whoops, palestine doesn't have sovereignity does it?

Er.

Wait, so Belgium under the National Socialists wasn't a country and the Belgians weren't a people because they didn't have sovereignty? :confused:

'cause that's what your logic would have...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Palestine-recognition-map.png/800px-Palestine-recognition-map.png

But this is all a buncha bullshit arguments anyway. Southern California doesn't exist as a sovereign nation-state, but guess what? I'm a fuckin Southern Californian. Eat that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Palestine-recognition-map.png/800px-Palestine-recognition-map.png

But this is all a buncha bullshit arguments anyway. Southern California doesn't exist as a sovereign nation-state, but guess what? I'm a fuckin Southern Californian. Eat that.

*GT wins thread*

The irony is not lost on me, fear not.
Anyway, my reading and typing skills are seriously impaired, I am writing 3:34 AM here. Long story short, check it: I might have been slightly confused as the Dutch word natie (-> nation) means "people", not necessarily with an actual state. It wouldn't surprise me if in English there was also a difference between state, nation and people. I'd cite my book but I fear I've lost it after the exams. Point is, there are a lot of peoples (you know) that don't have their on state. But that doesn't make them any less of a people (I can't find any other words atm so you'll have a word-echo 'round here) because they don't have their own state. Like I said, the frysians are a people without a state. There's hundreds of tribes in Africa that are all a different people but that don't have their own state. Etcetera. Anyway, why shouldn't the Palestineans have their own country/state? Like, before they were illegally occupied some decades ago?

Shit I'm really tired, see you tomorrow.

Might that be because it's occupied, perchance?

Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan were all created at the same time.


No they weren't.

And by your logic, Palestine should be the jewish homeland. But I doubt that is what you are driving at.

No they weren't.

Whut? Yes they were - all arose from European pens after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

EDIT:

You're partly right - Jordan is not one of the four Mandates which carve up Ottoman territory in the middle east. However, Palestine, along with Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, were - all in 1919. All were, and still are, nation-states.

And by your logic, Palestine should be the jewish homeland. But I doubt that is what you are driving at.

Indeed - In a better world Palestine would be a secular state with all religions and ethnicities represented within its borders.

However, this isn't a better world. As such, I favour the two-state solution, as Israel has just as much right to exist as Palestine does. Thus, while Palestine is rather smaller than it once was, it still is; and should be accorded all the rights of its neighbours.

Er.

Wait, so Belgium under the National Socialists wasn't a country and the Belgians weren't a people because they didn't have sovereignty? :confused:

'cause that's what your logic would have...

If you don't like the logical conclusions that can be drawn from your own definition I suggest you try to find a new one.

It was YOUR definition that YOU supplied that defined sovereignty as a necessary element of a national identity.

Whut? Yes they were - all arose from European pens after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.


Ah. No, they weren't. They all came around between 1917ish and 1924 in various incarnations (as I recollect). The idea that they were a few bold cynical strokes on a map at the conclusion of WWI is incorrect. Indeed, it took many broken promises, a change of government in france and the UK, and a whole bunch of lies to come up with the current asshat state of affairs. It didn't happen overnight.

That said, I imagine the idea of Palestine as originally conceived, was something along the lines of a jewish governed dominion/homeland within the british empire. It also would have been far larger than isreal is today.

And really, it is hard to make a case for the Palestinians as a sovereign people. Especially since Palestine would not be viable as a state. (Assuming that you acknowledge the right of isreal to exist).

If you don't like the logical conclusions that can be drawn from your own definition I suggest you try to find a new one.

It was YOUR definition that YOU supplied that defined sovereignty as a necessary element of a national identity.

Um. No it doesn't. It defines the nation state as being a political body (the state) and an ethnic and/or cultural existence (the nation) combined. Sovereignty is the aim of the nation-state.

The nation-state "exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation"

Therefore, Palestine exists to provide a sovereign Palestine for the Palestinians. This does not mean that for Palestine to exist it must be sovereign, merely that sovereignty is the reason for it to exist.

And really, it is hard to make a case for the Palestinians as a sovereign people. Especially since Palestine would not be viable as a state. (Assuming that you acknowledge the right of isreal to exist).

So Israel can't exist with Palestine existing as well? :++

Ah. No, they weren't. They all came around between 1917ish and 1924 in various incarnations (as I recollect). The idea that they were a few bold cynical strokes on a map at the conclusion of WWI is incorrect. Indeed, it took many broken promises, a change of government in france and the UK, and a whole bunch of lies to come up with the current asshat state of affairs. It didn't happen overnight.

See my edit. ;) Palestine, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were all created in 1919 by the League of Nations which mandated the British to temporarily rule Iraq and Palestine, and the French to rule Lebanon and Syria.

Iraq was indeed created by a few "bold cynical strokes", by an Englishwoman whose name always escapes me.

That said, I imagine the idea of Palestine as originally conceived, was something along the lines of a jewish governed dominion/homeland within the british empire. It also would have been far larger than isreal is today.

The idea of Palestine as originally conceived varies depending on who you talk to! :p The issue in question is, however, whether it exists - and you are not denying that, it seems. :)

And really, it is hard to make a case for the Palestinians as a sovereign people. Especially since Palestine would not be viable as a state. (Assuming that you acknowledge the right of isreal to exist).

No state is self-sufficient, many states have been split by other states - such as, for an obvious example, Germany and the Polish Corridor. Israel's right to exist behind the 1967 borders is undisputable except by lunatics; Palestine's right to exist in the territory defined by the 1967 borders is also undisputable except by fools.

It seems, then, that the problem is the abundance of lunatics and fools...

This thread is made of stupid.

This thread is made of stupid.

Which is what makes it fun! :D

See my sig for an example of this kinda bigotry around here.

Ooh yeh. Yeh, I remember that gem of a post. *shudders*

"THE JEWS AREN'T READY FOR PEACE! THEY'RE NOT A REAL PEOPLE!"

That's the other side of that argument - who agrees with that? I don't.

Regrettably, they are outnumbered across the world by those Zionists - most of whom are Christians - who would see the Palestinians crushed and their memory destroyed. Those people are kin to the destroyers of Lidice, and it is a great and sad irony that the Jewish state is responsible for ethnic cleansing of its own and a 'defensive' policy that is built on occupation and destruction.


1st, i think you have it wrong, most of the world supports an independent palestine. I mean you have all of the Muslim world that does(1 billion and counting) and most of Europe does(near 900 million i believe), a great majority of the "new world" and so on. only a small minority support zionsim. Furthermore, its idiotic on your part to assume that Christians want to crush palestinians, as there is a sizable amount of palestinian christians, you know living in bethlehem and so on.

As we know, refusing to recognize a specific group as human beings makes it a lot easier to dehumanize them and not worry about their plight. Kinda like what the Sudanese government is doing in Darfur.

Of course the only difference is that Omar Bashir isn't allowed to set foot on U.S. soil while Ehud Olmert gets invited to the White House now and then.

that's not the argument as i've ever heard it used. the argument is that jews have no more right to control the land than the arabs who already lived there and their holy land excuse is just bollocks considering the number of non-religious people who claim the jewish identity. if the territory must be marked off from the surrounding states then it ought to be maintained by a secular and non-ethnically aligned government. seeing as it was referred to as palestine pre-1948 then it seems a reasonable name to use now. maybe it has an ethnically specific meaning i don't know (if it does then think of something else), but the name israel certainly does and is an inevitable point of contention.

I'm not going to wade into this very much except to say that the holy land excuse is indeed bollocks, and it's a shitty reason for putting a country somewhere. The whole formation of the state of Israel was a colossal fuckup, and there's no question about that. However, it's done now, and there's not much to be done. Most of the people living there now had nothing to do with the 1948 to do, and harming the people who live there now for the sins of their forefathers would be like making someone who bought a house in Georgia ten years ago give it to the descendants of Cherokees who were killed off during the forced relocation during the Jackson administration.

1st, i think you have it wrong, most of the world supports an independent palestine.

The Israelis who defend Palestine are outnumbered by zionists in the rest of the world. That is what I meant, implied, and assumed was clear. Obviously not. My apologies.

Furthermore, its idiotic on your part to assume that Christians want to crush palestinians, as there is a sizable amount of palestinian christians, you know living in bethlehem and so on.

Oh indeed there are - some of the oldest Christian communities on the planet. However, Pat Robertson and his chums would prefer to see them eradicated to make way for the biblical prophecies in which all the Jews return to the Holy Land where they then convert to Christianity and the Rapture happens; or some such rubbish.

The fact is that many of the most rabid zionists are not Jewish, but Christian - specifically fundamentalist protestants.

If there is a Palestinian people, ......or Jordanians.

I have questions two. Firstly, if this only happened since 1967, why do we have references to a "Palestinian people" in 1911 and calls for a Palestinian state in the mid 1920's?

Secondly, whose sock-puppet are you?

If the Palestinians aren't a people then the 'Israelis' certainly aren't.

so by your logic on Monday the Timorese didnt exist as a group until they got independence on Tuesday which made them exist for thousnds of years?!?

there are dozens of ethnic groups demanding national status all over the world, the basques, catalans, corsicans, kosovans, kurds etc.

and as an Irishman im profoundly offended at the though that my 'people' only came into existance in 1921.

and the ironic thing is the same people arguing that the Palestinians arent a 'real' nation are the same ones who will blindly defend the synthetic nation that is israel on the grounds that the jews as a people are a nation. confused zionists at it again.

I wonder if anyone's thought to point out to the guy whose article was quoted, that his whole "unlike Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, the 'Palestinians' are 'just' Arab Muslims" argument isn't internally consistent. By his reasoning, there shouldn't be an Iraq, or Iran, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia either, because they're all 'just' Arab Muslims, and if that's the only defining feature of each of them then their states are as illegitimate as he says Palestine is. What's more, his reference to hypothetical "Yellowstoners" calls into question the legitimacy of the United States, because the 'Americans' were essentially Britons who decided for themselves that they were sufficiently different from other Britons to constitute a distinct state. What made the American colonials' claim to distinctiveness, to soveriegnty or statehood, any more legitimate, besides the success of their revolution? And would America be any less an occupied territory than Palestine is if, like Israel today, Britain then had had a vastly superior power backing up their authority?


Who here maintains that Palestinians don't exist and/or there is no such place as Palestine?

Because I've met a few of these (Palestinian deniers) online and it blows my mind.

Are these people serious? Somehow "Palestinians" don't exist simply because you put "Palestinian" in quotes? That somehow, for some reason, a people need to be a sovereign nation-state in order to be identified as anything other than their ethnicity?

This kind of bullshit pisses me off to no end. It's an insult to my intelligence. And unlike "wiping Israel off the map," this really IS an attempt to re-write history and language, not much different from denying the Holocaust is. It's unreasonable and stupid, but deniers of any kind just keep repeating their unreasoned and stupid claims and hope that it'll just catch on through that alone.

So does anyone here hold this ludicrous view or is this something that I and all my fellow NSGers can just point at and laugh?

So Israel can't exist with Palestine existing as well? :++
In the end, there can only be one?

But there is no such thing as someone from the nation of palestine, as there is no such legal nation known as palestine.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

If the Palestinians aren't a people then the 'Israelis' certainly aren't.

That's actually a very good point.

If the Israelis, who except as Jews (an entirely different category) had no common national identity until recently, can meaningfully be referred to as a people, then the Palestinians can surely claim the same.

Care to explain why the League of Nations produced a Mandate for British rule over the country of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine) then?

SNIP.

Class A mandates

The first group or Class A mandates were areas formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire deemed to "...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate

I think "provisionally" is the key word there. Was it really a country for that very short period of time?

Ze stupidity, it burns!

Daniel Pipes, was it? He's lacking in the logic and brains-department.

The Palestinian people exist. To deny it is just silly ignorance.

It has seen at least a dozen different rulers in the past 2000 years...


So, they have the fountain of youth I take it?

Latvians, Lithuanians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians, and Bulgarians are all Slavs, like Russians. I don't see anyone deny their existence.

"Where do these explosions keep coming from? They just appear all of a sudden!"

Legally, there is no such nation known as palestine. As such, nobody can claim to be from the palestine state. Therefore, a "palestinian", in so far as that refers to someone from the nation of palestine, does not exist.

Palestine may be a geographic region, and as such a palestinian could be someone from that region, or perhaps an ethnicity and a palestinian therefore could be considered someone of that ethnicity.

But there is no such thing as someone from the nation of palestine, as there is no such legal nation known as palestine.

That being said, there is no such place as the nation of puerto rico, but there are certainly people who can be refered to as puerto ricans, as puerto rico is a regional area. As such "palestinian" is a valid word, in so far as it refers to someone from a region.

I like the cut of your jib

I agree with what Neo Art seems to be saying, but really, it makes no difference at all.

Wasn't it Glenn Beck who said that Palestine was a conspiracy to allow Syria to annex parts of what should be Israel?

Care to explain why the League of Nations produced a Mandate for British rule over the country of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine) then?

Region!

Care to explain why my Grandad's campaign medal* says 'PALESTINE' on it?

Theater of operations!

Care to explain why the Palestinians have a government, a flag, a national anthem, and so on and so forth?

As do most if not all of the States in the United States. Only thing missing there is a currency and the right to enter into foreign alliances.

[Or are you equating Palestine to Taiwan and Somaliland...?

Not a bad comparison actually.

Palestine is a country.

Wrongo. It has not nor ever been a country.

It existed as a nation-state (albeit as a puppet of the British Empire) between the end of World War One and the 1948 War.

Yea right. It has been under the Ottoman Empire for a heck of a long time and the Brits took it over after World War I. Does that mean that Manchuko was a nationstate?

That may not be long, but it's long enough; after all, most of Europe's nations didn't exist as nation-states until the 20th Century.

False. Most nations formed a lot earlier than that. Germany was a nation in the 19th century and Italy began to form as well.

Will you deny the existence of, say, Latvia, given that historically it was Russian?

I would not tell the Latvians that.

Regarding Palestinians, those who argue that they are 'just arabs' are saying the same as the Serbs and Croats did of the Bosnians - "they're just Muslim Serbs". We all know how that one ended up.

With NATO saving millions of Muslims in the region. :eek:

Right, right, so there is no such thing as Romans?

Someone from either the city of Rome or from Romania :D

Fuck man, how can you be so BLIND to not see that Palistineans are a people?

As an ethnicity sure but as someone from a state? No.

For example; in the Netherlands there is a province called "Friesland", and in that province live the Friezen. They are there own people and (most) will sooner see themselves as Fries' than as Dutch. But they don't have their own state, so therefor they don't exist?

And I am a Pennslyvanian! I identify with both my state and my country. It makes no difference.

CURSES ONTO YOU INTARWEBS! YOU HAVE PRODUCED TOO MANY RETARDS!

:rolleyes:

Lolz @ Daniel Pipes

I would not tell the Latvians that.
Oh right, because somebody doesn't want to hear it, it's not true?


With NATO saving millions of Muslims in the region. :eek:
With a war. Almost got it right :)

:rolleyes:
I already replied to that.

Hmmm, ... i'd also say that Israelites don't exist as well, on the account the same argument.

Clearly this a rather cultural/religion issue rather than a political/border one.

If there is a Palestinian people, it has developed since 1967. There is no historic Palestinian nation. Palestine was simply the name for a large territory (including modern-day Israel, Jordan and the West Bank and Gaza) whose supposed boundaries have changed over time. It has seen at least a dozen different rulers in the past 2000 years, and at no point has there EVER been a state there called Palestine.

Palestinians are just Arabs who lived in that territory, that vast majority of which now belongs to Arab states (especially Jordan). There was no distinctive, cohesive culture setting apart the people of this territory from the other Arabs who surrounded them. There is no racial or cultural difference between Jordanians who lived in the former British Mandate of Palestine and ordinary Jordanians.

If there is a "Palestinian people," it has developed since 1967 when Egypt's occupation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan's of the West Bank and other areas (including East Jerusalem) was ended in Israel's defensive war.

To be clear, there has never been a nation or a people called "Palestine" or "Palestinians". That was a name area for a territory, like "Iberia" is for Spain, Portugal and Andorra and "the Balkans" is for Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Monenegro, etc. When the Arabs rejected the 1948 partition plan, which would have split the former British Mandate of Palestine between its existing Jewish and Muslim populations - 80% of it already having gone to Jordan - there was still no Palestine or Palestinian people. The people currently in the West Bank or Gaza identified themselves as Egyptian, Jordanian or simply Arab.

Any sort of Palestinian culture in the West Bank and Gaza has been built up since 1967.

In reality, there is no distinct Palestinian culture. Gaza and the West Bank are completely different. Gaza is backwards and tribal, where the West Bank is more developed and more akin to a normal Arab state. "Palestinians" is a handy term used to refer to the Arab residents of the territories Israel captured in the 1967 war, but they're really no different to Egyptians or Jordanians.

Some people seem to have this odd idea that prior to 1948 there was an Arab Muslim state called Palestine, then all the Jews stole it. In reality, Arabs - no different to any other Arabs in what went to form the other Arab states following the defeat of the Ottomans - and Jews both populated the area, and both had done so historically. From what is essentially bits left over from other Arab states and Israel we have the Palestinian territories.

To say there is no such thing as a Palestinian is wrong, as it is a working definition of the Arab residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But to pretend that there is an historical Palestinian people, with a shared culture and heritage like other peoples, is incorrect. They're Arabs, no different to Egyptians or Jordanians.

Bad logic.

Prior to around 1000 AD, there was no France. Hence, the French are not a real people because before that they did not exist.

Prior to the late 1800's, Italy did not exist as a state. Thus, the Italians are not a real unified people because they have not always existed.

Prior to the late 1700's, the US was only a group of colonies, not actual states or nations. Thus, the US shouldn't be a sovereign state.

Flawed logic-no country has existed forever, they all began somewhere.

Everyone seems to forget this whole thing is Britain's fault.


Promising the same land to two peoples... *chuckle*

Who here maintains that Palestinians don't exist and/or there is no such place as Palestine?
Up until the 60s they called themselves and I quote
"Southern Syrians".
Let me spell it out for you. Southern Syrians, as in "We want to be part of Syria, not "We want our own country."

Up until the 60s they called themselves and I quote
"Southern Syrians".
Let me spell it out for you. Southern Syrians, as in "We want to be part of Syria, not "We want our own country."

That's complete bullshit. Even if I accepted the premises, the conclusion has jack shit to do with my point. Whether they are, or want, their own country, they are called Palestinians. Ya know, kind of like how I'm a Californian even though California isn't it's own country?

Nice try though, maybe you can tell me up is down because in 60s, people said "what's goin down" instead of "what's up."

That's complete bullshit. Even if I accepted the premises, the conclusion has jack shit to do with my point. Whether they are, or want, their own country, they are called Palestinians. Ya know, kind of like how I'm a Californian even though California isn't it's own country?

Nice try though, maybe you can tell me up is down because in 60s, people said "what's goin down" instead of "what's up."
They called themselves Southern Syrians, Not "Palestineans", It seems they only started bitching for Palestine when they realized that the Arabs weren't going to be able to kill off Israel.

End of story.

They called themselves Southern Syrians, Not "Palestineans", that's clear enoguh for me, they only started bitching for Palestine when they realized that the Arabs weren't going to be able to kill off Israel.

End of story.

Israel calls 'em Palestinians and calls the place Palestine, as does most of the world. So, you can pretend they don't exist, you can use archaic terms if you want, but your argument fails.

You can live in the 60's if you want. I heard they have some lovely race riots you might be interested in.

Up until the 60s they called themselves and I quote
"Southern Syrians".
Let me spell it out for you. Southern Syrians, as in "We want to be part of Syria, not "We want our own country."


They called themselves Southern Syrians, Not "Palestineans", It seems they only started bitching for Palestine when they realized that the Arabs weren't going to be able to kill off Israel..End of story.


Really?

Even before the end of Ottoman administration, Palestine, rather than the Ottoman Empire, was considered by some Palestinians to be their country. One of the earliest Palestinian newspapers, Filastin founded in Jaffa in 1911 by Issa al-Issa, addressed its readers as "Palestinians".[9] Evidence of Palestinian conceptions of Palestine as a distinct country within the Ottoman Empire can be found in another Palestinian newspaper, al-Karmel, which on 25 July 1913, wrote: "This team possessed tremendous power; not to ignore that Palestine, their country, was part of the Ottoman Empire."[10]


"Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine". Similarly, the Second Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (December 1920), passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine; they then wrote a long letter to the League of Nations about "Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions", demanding, amongst other things, that a "National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament elected by the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Arab

1911, 1913, 1920........
Care to comment? Or will you adopt your usual "run away" tactic....

Israel calls 'em Palestinians and calls the place Palestine, as does most of the world. So, you can pretend they don't exist, you can use archaic terms if you want, but your argument fails.

You can live in the 60's if you want. I heard they have some lovely race riots you might be interested in.
And people can continue living in the dream where Israel ceases to exist.
Which, by the way, became impossible after the 60s.

Personally it's the case of

Arabs:"Well... Since you can't seem to freaking die, can you share the land with us?
Israel:You wanted us dead! Screw you.
Arabs: **** you also!
*Insert pattern of terrorism and Overkill military response.*

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Arab

1911, 1913, 1920........
Hmm... Wikipedia... That can be edited by anyone.
By the way the article is called "Palestinian People" not arabs. Not as in a group, as in a regional group. AKA Israelis are "Palestinians" in this case.

The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians.

Care to comment? Or will you adopt your usual "run away" tactic....
I'm insulted.
Since when do I run away? Many of these sort of threads have ME as the last poster.
Would you like me to list them?
Hmmm?
Perhaps it is your kind who like to run.
You must have me confused with someone else Idiot.

Right, right, so there is no such thing as Romans?
Fuck man, how can you be so BLIND to not see that Palistineans are a people? Get a grip, and a better handle on your reading comprehension.

By the way...point me to the nearest Roman, thanks.

And people (....)response.*

Are you going to address the refutation of your "1960's" claims in post 65?

And people can continue living in the dream where Israel ceases to exist.
Which, by the way, became impossible after the 60s.

... what does this have to do with anything? See my comments were relevant, because you insist on speaking as people (reportedly) did in the 60s. I'm not the one with any dream about Israel ceasing to exist so that comment is irrelevant.

Personally it's the case of

Arabs:"Well... Since you can't seem to freaking die, can you share the land with us?
Israel:You wanted us dead! Screw you.
Arabs: **** you also!
*Insert pattern of terrorism and Overkill military response.*

I think it's more like

Palestinians: You're killing us. We kill you!
Israelis: We kill you. You're killing us!
The Lone Alliance: Why, Palestinians are so evil they don't even EXIST!
Israelis: Nah, they exist... hello, they're killing us.
Palestinians: Nah, we exist. And we're killing you.
The Lone Alliance: Yeah but Palestinians were once called Southern Syrians. Therefore they don't exist. La la la.

Hmm... Wikipedia... That can be edited by anyone.

lolz. The standard response whenever a wikipedia article refutes your point. Yes, wikipedia can be edited by anyone... so by all means, if something in it is incorrect, go edit it and make it better.

Wait, you mean you won't?

Cuz you can't?

Cuz you're out of your league here and you know it?

Yeah.

Oh right, because somebody doesn't want to hear it, it's not true?

Or could it be that it never belonged to Russia in the first place? Read up on the History of Latvia. After Livonia collapsed, it was part of the Polish-Lithuanian rule. :eek:

With a war. Almost got it right :)

A war was going on and NATO was doing its best to protect the people that were being massacred.

I already replied to that.

*shrugs*

Hmm... Wikipedia... That can be edited by anyone.
By the way the article is called "Palestinian People" not arabs. Not as in a group, as in a regional group. .

Its normal to refute the information, then slag off the source. Its supplies references. I suggest you go to it.

Its Palestinian 'Arabs' referring to themselves as a people, and abandoning the "southern Syria" notion that you said they held up to the 1960's- all in the first 20 years of the 20th Century.


Since when do I run away? .

It was over the amount of land that had been purchased by settlers pre 1948. You avoided the facts for a considerable period of time.


You must have me confused with someone else Idiot.

'Some other idiot' would be more apt, and no, I don't think I am.

Region!

No... country. Nation. Check the wording of the mandates; they refer to countries "temporarily" governed by foreign powers until such time as they can rule themselves.

Theater of operations!

Correct; in this case that theater was the country of Palestine.

As do most if not all of the States in the United States. Only thing missing there is a currency and the right to enter into foreign alliances.

Interestingly, Palestine has a currency and the right to enter into foreign alliances. It is also recognised as a country in its own right by most of the planet's other countries.

Not a bad comparison actually.

For once, I agree, in hindsight my examples were flawed...! Try, instead, the pirate state of Fiume. ;)

Wrongo. It has not nor ever been a country.

Wrong. The British Mandate of Palestine existed as a country from 1923-1948, and the modern Palestinian state since 1988 although it has been illegally occupied for all its existence.

In addition, there has been nationalist sentiment for Palestine as a distinct entity since at least 1911, which provides historical support for Palestinian nationalists.

Yea right. It has been under the Ottoman Empire for a heck of a long time and the Brits took it over after World War I. Does that mean that Manchuko was a nationstate?

Yes, it does indeed mean that Manchukuo was a nationstate. See the very informative Wikipedia article on the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo).

False. Most nations formed a lot earlier than that. Germany was a nation in the 19th century and Italy began to form as well.

Albania - independence from Ottomans in 1912.
Bosnia-Herzegovina - independence from SFR Yugoslavia in 1992.
Croatia - independence from Austro-Hungary 1918.
Czech Republic - created from Czechoslovakia (itself appearing in 1918) in 1993.
Estonia - independence from Russia and Germany in 1918, re-declared from USSR in 1991.
Finland - independence from Russia in 1917.
Ireland - independence from the UK in 1916.
Latvia - independence from Russia and Germany in 1918.
Lithuania - independence from the USSR in 1990.
Macedonia - independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.
Moldova - independence from the USSR in 1990.

That's 11 states so far that were created in the 20th Century, shall I go on? No, instead I will link you to the eponymous wikipedia list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_independence_of_European_countries) which, I note, contains no less than two nations - Serbia and Montenegro - which became independent in 2006!

I would not tell the Latvians that.

From the wikipedia entry on Latvia: "The Duchy of Courland became a Russian province (the Courland Governorate) in 1795, bringing all of what is now Latvia into Imperial Russia."

I also say again, Latvia gained its independence as a nation-state in 1918 - from Russia and Germany!

With NATO saving millions of Muslims in the region. :eek:

Indeed, thank you for deliberately missing my point. The Bosnian war began because Serb and Croat nationalists did a deal to split Bosnia between them on ethnic lines - Serb regions to become Serbia, Croat to become Croatia. Bosnia was populated not by Bosnians but by "Muslim Croats" or "Muslim Serbs" - that is exactly the same mentality that is on display in the article quoted by the OP: "They're not Palestinians, they're Muslim Arabs".

If there is a Palestinian people, it has developed since 1967. There is no historic Palestinian nation. Palestine was simply the name for a large territory (including modern-day Israel, Jordan and the West Bank and Gaza) whose supposed boundaries have changed over time. It has seen at least a dozen different rulers in the past 2000 years, and at no point has there EVER been a state there called Palestine.

Palestinians are just Arabs who lived in that territory, that vast majority of which now belongs to Arab states (especially Jordan). There was no distinctive, cohesive culture setting apart the people of this territory from the other Arabs who surrounded them. There is no racial or cultural difference between Jordanians who lived in the former British Mandate of Palestine and ordinary Jordanians.

If there is a "Palestinian people," it has developed since 1967 when Egypt's occupation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan's of the West Bank and other areas (including East Jerusalem) was ended in Israel's defensive war.

To be clear, there has never been a nation or a people called "Palestine" or "Palestinians". That was a name area for a territory, like "Iberia" is for Spain, Portugal and Andorra and "the Balkans" is for Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Monenegro, etc. When the Arabs rejected the 1948 partition plan, which would have split the former British Mandate of Palestine between its existing Jewish and Muslim populations - 80% of it already having gone to Jordan - there was still no Palestine or Palestinian people. The people currently in the West Bank or Gaza identified themselves as Egyptian, Jordanian or simply Arab.

Any sort of Palestinian culture in the West Bank and Gaza has been built up since 1967.

In reality, there is no distinct Palestinian culture. Gaza and the West Bank are completely different. Gaza is backwards and tribal, where the West Bank is more developed and more akin to a normal Arab state. "Palestinians" is a handy term used to refer to the Arab residents of the territories Israel captured in the 1967 war, but they're really no different to Egyptians or Jordanians.

Some people seem to have this odd idea that prior to 1948 there was an Arab Muslim state called Palestine, then all the Jews stole it. In reality, Arabs - no different to any other Arabs in what went to form the other Arab states following the defeat of the Ottomans - and Jews both populated the area, and both had done so historically. From what is essentially bits left over from other Arab states and Israel we have the Palestinian territories.

To say there is no such thing as a Palestinian is wrong, as it is a working definition of the Arab residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But to pretend that there is an historical Palestinian people, with a shared culture and heritage like other peoples, is incorrect. They're Arabs, no different to Egyptians or Jordanians.And? They are Palestinian Arabs. But this conflict is not about anyone's ethnicity, but about homes. There never was any need to remove Arabs from their homes to make room for a Jewish state.

... what does this have to do with anything? See my comments were relevant, because you insist on speaking as people (reportedly) did in the 60s. Nope, I'm saying what they said in the past STILL has reference to what they say today. It's called history.

I'm not the one with any dream about Israel ceasing to exist so that comment is irrelevant. So is your comment. I'm not talking about "How people spoke" I'm talking that In the past they did not call themselves Palestinans and how it's strange how they only start calling themselves Palestinans (again) when they realized that Israel isn't going anywhere...


Palestinians: You're killing us. We kill you!
Israelis: We kill you. You're killing us!
The Lone Alliance: Why, Palestinians are so evil they don't even EXIST!
Israelis: Nah, they exist... hello, they're killing us.
Palestinians: Nah, we exist. And we're killing you.
The Lone Alliance: Yeah but Palestinians were once called Southern Syrians. Therefore they don't exist. La la la. Name where I said they were evil? I didn't. I'm not talking about their morals or Israels morals, this is about the NAME.

lolz. The standard response whenever a wikipedia article refutes your point. I've seen it state that Johnson merged the Social Security Budget into the nation budget when that never happened.

Yes, wikipedia can be edited by anyone... so by all means, if something in it is incorrect, go edit it and make it better. Those pages are so disputed it wouldn't even matter.


Wait, you mean you won't? Because I don't have enough sources and I know if I did someone could revert it in seconds.

Cuz you can't? Cause I don't have the time or the patience.

Cuz you're out of your league here and you know it? Not likely, You're only a 7 out of 10.

Are you going to address the refutation of your "1960's" claims in post 65?
Gladly.

So they had their own nation planned out then dropped it because they wanted other nations to wipe out Israel for them? Cause that's what I'm getting at. How noble.

Now do I believe they need their own nation?
Yes.

Do I believe that everything is the EVIL ZIONISTS fault? Hell no.

I'm tired of this "It's all one sided" Israel is the only evil Blah blah blah.
Israel has it's reasons, it doesn't make the actions okay, but they do have their reasons.

Do I believe that everything is the EVIL ZIONISTS fault? Hell no.Not everything in general, but everything concerning the creation of a Jewish state in Arabian lands and thus the subsequent conflicts that rose from their greed for statehood.

I'm tired of this "It's all one sided" Israel is the only evil Blah blah blah.
Israel has it's reasons, it doesn't make the actions okay, but they do have their reasons.What reasons?

Get a grip, and a better handle on your reading comprehension.

By the way...point me to the nearest Roman, thanks.
Yeah, uh, I already replied to this twice. Please read the topic before trying to be a wise-ass. Cheers!

Seriously though, I mean sure there would be some nice land in Europe or elsewhere for the Israelis, why can't they just move their, talk about plonking own holocaust-burned ass on a controversial place.

Seriously though, I mean sure there would be some nice land in Europe or elsewhere for the Israelis, why can't they just move their, talk about plonking own holocaust-burned ass on a controversial place.

Because it's not the Holy Land, birthplace of Judaism which is the reason for the existence of Isreal...? :rolleyes:

I have no problem with Israel existing where it is at the moment; I DO have an issue with people not extending that same courtesy to the Palestinians and Palestine.

Because it's not the Holy Land, birthplace of Judaism which is the reason for the existence of Isreal...? :rolleyes:

I have no problem with Israel existing where it is at the moment; I DO have an issue with people not extending that same courtesy to the Palestinians and Palestine.

On that logic every Christian majority European nation could claim Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

Justifying a modern nation on religious grounds ftl.

On that logic every Christian majority European nation could claim Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

Justifying a modern nation on religious grounds ftl.

Quite. However, the 'Jewish nation' has clearly been around in the Holy Land for a long time prior to the diaspora caused by the Romans (failing) to exterminate them. Jews are after all the first of the three main religions and their claim to the region is beaten only by pre-monotheistic tribes...

The point I was trying to get across is that the people who thought up, and who created, Israel, chose Palestine as the location because it has great significance as a nationalist rallying point. Nationalism is what creates the nation-state (oddly enough), and its influence is neither rational nor small.

Israel has as much of a right to exist as does any other nation, what it does not have a right to do is to illegally occupy another nation. Denying the very existence of that nation and its people is an insult and something many people, myself included, object to.

No... country. Nation. Check the wording of the mandates; they refer to countries "temporarily" governed by foreign powers until such time as they can rule themselves.

Thank you for refuting your own post. It was a pleasure debating you. If it was under foriegn occupation, that means they did not have independence. You have been served.

Correct; in this case that theater was the country of Palestine.

Wrong. It was in the Palestinian Theater. The nation of Palestine did not exist. Ergo, you cannot say country in this case.

Interestingly, Palestine has a currency and the right to enter into foreign alliances. It is also recognised as a country in its own right by most of the planet's other countries.

Indeed however, by International Law, Palestine is not a nation nor is it regarded as such. I suggest you look up what constitutes a nation. Palestine DOES NOT fit the definition of a nation.

For once, I agree, in hindsight my examples were flawed...! Try, instead, the pirate state of Fiume. ;)

Gonna have to look that up.

Wrong. The British Mandate of Palestine existed as a country from 1923-1948, and the modern Palestinian state since 1988 although it has been illegally occupied for all its existence.

Except for the fact that soveriegnty was never handed over to the Palestinians. That is what you are failing to recognize. As to 1988, I am not going to deny their version of the Declaration of Independence but until such time as soveriegnty is granted, it is not a nation.

In addition, there has been nationalist sentiment for Palestine as a distinct entity since at least 1911, which provides historical support for Palestinian nationalists.

Can you show me where anyone here has denied nationalism? The US had nationalist prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution but we were not a seperate nation until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

Yes, it does indeed mean that Manchukuo was a nationstate. See the very informative Wikipedia article on the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo).

I will get to this sometime to you in a telegram in the middle of August.

Albania - independence from Ottomans in 1912.
Bosnia-Herzegovina - independence from SFR Yugoslavia in 1992.
Croatia - independence from Austro-Hungary 1918.
Czech Republic - created from Czechoslovakia (itself appearing in 1918) in 1993.
Estonia - independence from Russia and Germany in 1918, re-declared from USSR in 1991.
Finland - independence from Russia in 1917.
Ireland - independence from the UK in 1916.
Latvia - independence from Russia and Germany in 1918.
Lithuania - independence from the USSR in 1990.
Macedonia - independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.
Moldova - independence from the USSR in 1990.

I suggest you eliminate all of the nations you named here because they were under *gasp* occupation and actually look at the histories of said nations. Especially Lithuania, Finland, Ireland, and Estonia. Failing your historical studies is never a good thing.

That's 11 states so far that were created in the 20th Century, shall I go on? No, instead I will link you to the eponymous wikipedia list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_independence_of_European_countries) which, I note, contains no less than two nations - Serbia and Montenegro - which became independent in 2006!

Go back and study history my friend. It is quite obvious you do not grasp what is being discussed here.

From the wikipedia entry on Latvia: "The Duchy of Courland became a Russian province (the Courland Governorate) in 1795, bringing all of what is now Latvia into Imperial Russia."

Again, you failed to study the history of the nation as a whole. You cannot pick and choose what parts of history to suite you. You have to study all of it. Ergo, you failed 101.

I also say again, Latvia gained its independence as a nation-state in 1918 - from Russia and Germany!

Again, occupation. :rolleyes: It was occupied for a couple hundred years but when looked at overall, it was a nation prior to being taken over after the collapse of its prior government. Does this constently have to be explained?

Indeed, thank you for deliberately missing my point.

Sorry but the point was not missed. I promptly pointed out precisely what happened historically.

The Bosnian war began because Serb and Croat nationalists did a deal to split Bosnia between them on ethnic lines - Serb regions to become Serbia, Croat to become Croatia. Bosnia was populated not by Bosnians but by "Muslim Croats" or "Muslim Serbs" - that is exactly the same mentality that is on display in the article quoted by the OP: "They're not Palestinians, they're Muslim Arabs".

And the person is a fool. Just like your posts are turning into foolish notions. Good night.

Nope, I'm saying what they said in the past STILL has reference to what they say today. It's called history.

No one calls them "South Syrians." It's called the PRESENT DAY. Where, you know, we live in; not the past.


So is your comment. I'm not talking about "How people spoke" I'm talking that In the past they did not call themselves Palestinans and how it's strange how they only start calling themselves Palestinans (again) when they realized that Israel isn't going anywhere...

So it's "strange." You know, some thought it was strange that Negroes get changed to Colored get changed to Blacks get changed to African-Americans. Does that mean we should all use the word "negro" now?

Name where I said they were evil? I didn't. I'm not talking about their morals or Israels morals, this is about the NAME.

And their name is Palestinians. They are from Palestine. I am a Californian. I am from California. How difficult is this to understand?

I've seen it state that Johnson merged the Social Security Budget into the nation budget when that never happened.

And so gladly, point out just where the wiki article in question is wrong. Can't be too hard, or are you just going to blurt out "lolz wikipedia!" and hope that that alone will stand up in your defense?

Because I don't have enough sources and I know if I did someone could revert it in seconds.

Cause I don't have the time or the patience.


Ah. Well, get some sources, and then you won't be grasping at straws so much. If you can't be bothered to back up what you say, best not to say anything at all. Kthxbye. :)

So it's "strange." You know, some thought it was strange that Negroes get changed to Colored get changed to Blacks get changed to African-Americans. Does that mean we should all use the word "negro" now?

The timing is strange. I mean shortly after Israel soundly beats the heck out of the surrounding nations they all of a sudden stop calling themselves natives of those countries and state that their now "Palestine" again.

I guess the two things had nothing whatsoever to do with each other right? All just a huge concidence right? :D


And their name is Palestinians. They are from Palestine. I am a Californian. I am from California. How difficult is this to understand? In that case Israelis are Palestinians. ;)

And so gladly, point out just where the wiki article in question is wrong. Can't be too hard, or are you just going to blurt out "lolz wikipedia!" and hope that that alone will stand up in your defense? I'm not saying it's wrong I'm saying that I can't trust it to be accurate. Heck anything about that location will be biased one way or another.

Ah. Well, get some sources, and then you won't be grasping at straws so much. If you can't be bothered to back up what you say, best not to say anything at all. Kthxbye. :) See above.

-------

Not everything in general, but everything concerning the creation of a Jewish state in Arabian lands and thus the subsequent conflicts that rose from their greed for statehood.

What reasons?
That up until a few decades ago the "Palestinans" were wishing for their complete Anniliation. And that some are STILL wishing for their complete Anniliation.
It's hard to be nice to someone whom you think would stab you in the back if they could have the chance.

Especially in the Middle East.
Even the different Arabic groups hate each other like that.

Oppressing people they don't like is NOT an Israel exclusive system in the Middle East.

So they had their own nation planned out then dropped it because they wanted other nations to wipe out Israel for them? Cause that's what I'm getting at. How noble.


. I mean shortly after Israel soundly beats the heck out of the surrounding nations they all of a sudden stop calling themselves natives of those countries and state that their now "Palestine" again.


No. In message 61 you stated, in emphatic terms, the following -

Up until the 60s they called themselves and I quote
"Southern Syrians".
Let me spell it out for you. Southern Syrians, as in "We want to be part of Syria, not "We want our own country."

Yet I've shown examples from 1911 and 1913 which refer to the idea of Palestine as a distinct and seperate region, and a call for a Palestinian state seperate from any idea of Southern Syria in 1920. Therefore your claim re the 1960's and 'abandoning' the notion of statehood are clearly wrong. Now, are you going to address the facts, or go for the old well poisoning again?

Indeed however, by International Law, Palestine is not a nation nor is it regarded as such. I suggest you look up what constitutes a nation. Palestine DOES NOT fit the definition of a nation.
...may I suggest you take your own advice? You seem to be talking about states, not nations. International law does not define what nations are, only states (and thusly nation-states). I bring this up due to the rather ambiguous nature of the terms, and the importance of seeing the difference between tha palestinian nation and the palestinian state.

The timing is strange. I mean shortly after Israel soundly beats the heck out of the surrounding nations they all of a sudden stop calling themselves natives of those countries and state that their now "Palestine" again.

I guess the two things had nothing whatsoever to do with each other right? All just a huge concidence right? :D
No. No coincidence, you're just mistaken (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3!OpenDocument). If they thought of themselves as natives of the surrounding countries, why struggle for the independence of Palestine instead of the return of the land to those coutries?

Even the cristian and jewish palestinians have been working towards an independent Palestine before the wars.

And? They are Palestinian Arabs. But this conflict is not about anyone's ethnicity, but about homes. There never was any need to remove Arabs from their homes to make room for a Jewish state.

Just like there is no reason to destroy Israel to make room for a Palestinian State.

Quite. However, the 'Jewish nation' has clearly been around in the Holy Land for a long time prior to the diaspora caused by the Romans (failing) to exterminate them. Jews are after all the first of the three main religions and their claim to the region is beaten only by pre-monotheistic tribes...

The point I was trying to get across is that the people who thought up, and who created, Israel, chose Palestine as the location because it has great significance as a nationalist rallying point. Nationalism is what creates the nation-state (oddly enough), and its influence is neither rational nor small.

Israel has as much of a right to exist as does any other nation, what it does not have a right to do is to illegally occupy another nation. Denying the very existence of that nation and its people is an insult and something many people, myself included, object to.

Well said and accurate. Well done

*hands you a cookie*

...may I suggest you take your own advice? You seem to be talking about states, not nations. International law does not define what nations are, only states (and thusly nation-states). I bring this up due to the rather ambiguous nature of the terms, and the importance of seeing the difference between tha palestinian nation and the palestinian state.

Sorry. Old habit of saying nation instead of state. Forgive me.

Denying the very existence of that nation and its people is an insult and something many people, myself included, object to.

so you are denying the existance of the palestinian nation instead? :confused:

bizzare logic, but we are used to intellectual dishonesty from the zionists.

Sorry. Old habit of saying nation instead of state. Forgive me.

Thou art Forgiven, my Son! :D

Common mistake to make, but of significance in this debate. Carry on ;)

Thou art Forgiven, my Son! :D

Common mistake to make, but of significance in this debate. Carry on ;)

Yea i know and I will try harder next time.

Who here maintains that Palestinians don't exist and/or there is no such place as Palestine?


Because I've met a few of these (Palestinian deniers) online and it blows my mind.



Are these people serious? Somehow "Palestinians" don't exist simply because you put "Palestinian" in quotes? That somehow, for some reason, a people need to be a sovereign nation-state in order to be identified as anything other than their ethnicity?

This kind of bullshit pisses me off to no end. It's an insult to my intelligence. And unlike "wiping Israel off the map," this really IS an attempt to re-write history and language, not much different from denying the Holocaust is. It's unreasonable and stupid, but deniers of any kind just keep repeating their unreasoned and stupid claims and hope that it'll just catch on through that alone.

So does anyone here hold this ludicrous view or is this something that I and all my fellow NSGers can just point at and laugh?

If you'd believe this guy, then you could easily say there is no Belgium, because they talk dutch, french and german so is just parts of three countries (netherlands, france an germany) put together, nor is there a USA, because they speak english and so they belong to the UK, what a stupid guy

The timing is strange. I mean shortly after Israel soundly beats the heck out of the surrounding nations they all of a sudden stop calling themselves natives of those countries and state that their now "Palestine" again.

I guess the two things had nothing whatsoever to do with each other right? All just a huge concidence right? :D

Others have already pointed out the flaws in your premise, and I fail to see how it's relevant even if true. So it's "strange." Big fuckin' deal.

In that case Israelis are Palestinians. ;)

Some are. What's with the winky emoticon? Are you coming on to me?

I'm not saying it's wrong I'm saying that I can't trust it to be accurate. Heck anything about that location will be biased one way or another.

Well, if you can't say it's wrong, and you can't say in what way it's accurate, try some STFU so you don't waste our time with non-refutations and non-explanations of your non-rebuttals.

I think the argument is a furphy.

Instead of arguing over names of people or nations, please consider these 2 points.

Most of the people in refugee camps in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would like to return to their homes. Those homes are now in the state of Israel.

Daniel Pipes would like to see the refugees absorbed into the surrounding Arab states.

Quite. However, the 'Jewish nation' has clearly been around in the Holy Land for a long time prior to the diasporaYep, five centuries at the most. Although there had never been something like a homogeneous 'Jewish nation' in ancient times, that's only something the bible tells you but not archaeological and historical records.

Jews are after all the first of the three main religions and their claim to the region is beaten only by pre-monotheistic tribes...Jews number only 15 million or so people. They are not a main religion, they are just a tiny bunch of weirdos.

Israel has as much of a right to exist as does any other nation, what it does not have a right to do is to illegally occupy another nation. Denying the very existence of that nation and its people is an insult and something many people, myself included, object to.What constitutes Israel's right to exist? The Jewish wish for it to exist?

IDaniel Pipes would like to see the refugees absorbed into the surrounding Arab states.

....thus freeing the West Bank for unresisted colonisation. Daniel may place that idea in his pipe and smoke it.

No. In message 61 you stated, in emphatic terms, the following - The majority did. The Gaza ones called themselves Egyptions. And I think a small amount called themselves Jordanians.


Yet I've shown examples from 1911 and 1913 which refer to the idea of Palestine as a distinct and seperate region, and a call for a Palestinian state seperate from any idea of Southern Syria in 1920. Therefore your claim re the 1960's and 'abandoning' the notion of statehood are clearly wrong. Now, are you going to address the facts, or go for the old well poisoning again? No I will not deny they had plans in 1911, but it seems that after the formation of Israel they put 'Nationalism' on the back burner to try and convince others to destroy Israel for them.

So in conclusion, I'll admit there is a Palastine people... But only when it's to their advantage.

AKA I believe they'll call themselves whatever the hell they can if it means Israel gets removed.

Jews number only 15 million or so people. They are not a main religion, they are just a tiny bunch of weirdos.

Precisely, otherwise why would they wear those funny hats?

What constitutes Israel's right to exist? The Jewish wish for it to exist?

I can't think of any right Israel might have that trumps Palestine's. If there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' then there certainly is no such thing as an Israeli; after all, the ancestors of many Israelis first immigrated from the US and rich European countries where they enjoyed far more luxurious lives than the present-day Palestinians' ancestors, who were suffering under British rule.

I have never made the argument that the Palestinians don't exist as if they aren't people.

They obviously are people. I do see the grounds for the argument that they aren't a nation.

The majority did. The Gaza ones called themselves Egyptions. And I think a small amount called themselves Jordanians..

Evidence? Poll results, surveys?



No I will not deny they had plans in 1911, but it seems that after the formation of Israel they put 'Nationalism' on the back burner to try and convince others to destroy Israel for them. .

According to you. The truth is that theres always been a strong "pan-Arab" movement with a presence in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Are they not really Egyptians,Jordanians, Iraqis, Syrians?


So in conclusion, I'll admit there is a Palastine people... But only when it's to their advantage.

AKA I believe they'll call themselves whatever the hell they can if it means Israel gets removed.

I think it truer to say that some will only admit theres a Palestinian people when it suits their purposes.