Welcome to PatsFans.com

There was Never a Country Called Palestine

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Jan 11, 2009.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,181
    Likes Received:
    481
    Ratings:
    +1,080 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    Found this opinion piece. The general theme is why should a new state called Palestine be created? His theory is that if there never was a state called Palestine then why should the Palestinians have their own state?

    Just another side to an argument that we all know will probably never be settled.

    You're all been had... there are no "Palestinian People!

    Like I said ... another opinion to a battle that won't end anytime soon.
     
  2. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,676
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +389 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    I brought this point up in another thread. You're right, the Palestinian people have never had a country of their own. Nobody ever took their land...at least as a nation. If all groups of people who felt they were separate from the country they lived in demanded their own country, we'd have more countries than states. Even in Iraq, each "tribe" would demand a separate country to call their own.

    Religion makes the situation all across the middle east unmanageable. It has for centuries.
     
  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    It is historically accurate that there never was a country called Palestine. It is incorrect, however, to say that there is no Palestinian people.

    The formation of a Palestinian national consciousness goes to the subject of shared historical existence, and the subject of a much more layered identity than we accustom ourselves to in the West.

    The Palestinians are the people who survived the 1948 War, on the Arab side. So far, so good. But they are also the ones who were not allowed to become Egyptians or Jordanians after that war -- and so the Egyptians and Jordanians told them in no uncertain terms, they were without a country.

    They are the people who were occupied by Israel in 1967, an occupation that continues in part of the West Bank, and continued in Gaza until 2005, to be replaced by external control of the borders.

    The Palestinian has a different life experience and a different historical experience from that of an Egyptian, a Syrian, or a Jordanian.

    Historically, however, the argument quoted here was precisely what was claimed on the behalf of the Arab Palestinian population: Arabs were only artificially divided at any rate, and even if they accepted the division of Syria from Egypt, for example, it was unconscionable to accept the notion of an Arab Palestine, because that was presented in the context of the existence of a Jewish Palestine (later named Israel.)

    It should be pointed out, however, that Hamas embraces Palestine as a particular subdivision of Islam in general. Palestinian nationalism is a matter of practical pursuit from the Hamas point of view, but they die and kill not for country but for God.

    Of course, it is a tremendously threatening thing to the Palestinian cause to declare that the identity of a Palestinian is identical to that of an Egyptian, a Jordanian, or a Syrian. If it is part of one undivided Arab continuum, Palestine need never win independence -- just as the idea of Palestine was threatening to Arab leadership there many decades ago.

    As to layered identity, I don't think we have this to as great an extent here in the U.S., nor do they have it in Europe. One is a German if one is a German of German (gentile) descent. Remember though, the West is where the modern nation-state was born. Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, etc., started existing around the end of the middle ages. We Americans adopted the idea as well whole-hog. But realize we imposed it on many regions of the world, including the several provinces of the Ottoman Empire after WWI.

    One's identity there may include that of extended family (or "tribe" as the Western media style it,) layered over nation, layered over ethnicity, layered over religion, layered over one or another religious subdivision (although Islam is by and large much more unified and less schismatic than Christianity.)

    Just my .02,

    PFnV
     
  4. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,181
    Likes Received:
    481
    Ratings:
    +1,080 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey


    You're 2-cents is always a good 2-cents PFnV
    ;)
     
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    Except perhaps on the subject of Jordanians granting Palestinians citizenship. I know Egypt did not. Seeing this countered in your source, I wonder if I have this right -- I am going from memory.

    It's a fact, however, that Palestinians are a majority in Jordan, something the royal family is acutely aware of. In the early 70s, there was a civil war there, in which the Palestinians attempted (and failed) to sieze control.

    That kind of goes to the idea of the Palestinian consciousness being somewhat different from surrounding Arab nations' consciousness.

    In fact, were we simply to define Palestinians as "Arabs with a grudge because Israel ended up in their homes or occupying them," we would have exactly the same thing. It's a matter of how one looks at the facets. I do think Palestinians today think of themselves as Palestinian. I may be wrong.

    PFnV
     
  6. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    there were a people called native americans, they were nomads. they claimed no ownership of the land.

    i guess this comes down to people wanting one piece of land
     
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    From the time of Roman occupied Judea to the late 19th Century, only a small Jewish population remained in what's now Israel... those who wanted to move in couldn't very well just put up homes wherever they wanted. So the wealthier among them purchased land from landholders.

    Here is where much of the trouble began. It was evidently customary in Ottoman times to allow a tenant to always stay on the land under the same (or materially the same) terms, when land changed hands. It was expected.

    The purchasers, however, had in mind the Western concept of landownership, to which such a custom was completely alien. The law was on the side of the purchasers in such a conversation, and custom was on the side of the tenant. It was not illegal to replace a man who had lived on land he did not own for years (or even for generations,) but it was gauche. Add to that fact that the purchasers were Jews who intended other Jews to work the land rather than the existing tenants, and the first frictions began.

    It is certainly the case that there was an immigration of Arabs that proceeded apace with the immigration of Jews, but that is not to say there was no indigenous population, the majority of whom were Arab when Zionism first began.

    So the comparison to the American Indians isn't spot on but there is a similar connection... I think one difference is, the American Indians said in essence, of course we don't own the land, but neither do you. How can you own it, when you are part of it, and it of you?

    In Palestine it was more like, anybody can own land but you. But again, that seemed "just" from the point of view of a tenant farmer whose family had worked the land for generations. Every other landholder respected this cultural "squatters' right."

    The labor Zionists, in particular, tied the renaissance of their people to a right and a willingness to work the land. We can all thank Tolstoy for popularizing a mystical idea that there is a bond with the land itself, holy or otherwise, and I believe the early Zionists read way too much of him. Whether or not his writings seeped into their thoughts, the moshavim and the kibbutzim are no longer the lion's share of the economy of the Israel we know today. But then again... with what eventually came to pass, Israelis could thank labor Zionists for the fact that they did not have to sweat their food supply. Fuel supply, maybe. Food supply, no.

    PFnV
     
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +380 / 11 / -28

    :yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

    This very complicated situation, becomes even more complicated when looked at from a historical perspective.
     
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    The more the sides know each others' narrative, the better off they'll be. But you can't start with the premise that the other side doesn't or shouldn't exist. The OP's link is basically from the hard-line Israeli perspective, and like the hard-line Islamist perspective on the other side, it doesn't contemplate peace... knowing the history is necessary precisely to discard the hard-line rhetoric. I think the hard liners have won for the time being on both sides. I also think the U.S. is always capable of swaying both sides toward coexistence, and the possibility of peace.

    That said I just do not see Hamas as a possible negotiating party... I do see Fatah that way, and they paid dearly for their transformation; they lost the much-tracked "Arab Street" for a period of time. I am not sure whether that condition will continue to pertain.

    Until there's peace, Israel lives with terror and Palestine lives with poverty and misery. Only the politicians and terrorists win. The People know that on one side, but also hate their enemy on the other side.

    We'll see.

    PFnV
     
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I think he's making it up.....:D
     
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Good post, as usual Mr. Smartiepants.

    I am uncomfortable about the tone of this thread because, as usual, we are taking one side of the issue without discussing the other side. That's been the problem with the Palestine / Israel dynamic - vehement polarity in regards to POV. Not saying you, but the discussion in general. It speaks to the level of religious fervor and indoctrination that our culture and understanding of history is burdened with.

    I guess I would be more comfortable with more dialogue that is balanced and considerate of the history of how we arrived at this point, since it seems that history and not reality, is the basis of all arguements from both sides.

    I agree with your evaluation of the justification that Palestinians have (or don't have) to an establishment of a formal state in the "Land of Judah", but to balance those claims, it has to be noted that Israel itself had no nationhood between the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC until 1948. That's 2535 years without any "nationhood" at all. Israelis were referred to as Jews and only when they were allowed to live. There were periods when Jews abandoned Palestine because of extermination by such lovely characters as Pope Urban. (I think it's ironic that Israel has put its chips on Christians to have their backs when they were actually treated best - as far as conquerers go - by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent).

    "Nationhood" in itself is an arbitrary term. It's like "literacy" and "consciousness" - not very useful unless we're speaking in strictly arbitrary terms where no real consensus on definition is required. That's the root of the problem, IMO. There can be no solution to any problem as long as we're unable to agree on the meaning of the terms we're using. What would we do if the Six Nations of the Iriquois demanded the return of their land? There has never been a dispute of the existence of their democratic council and alliance. They lost their independence a mere 200 years ago. What right do we have to claim the northeast part of what we call America? Is it because they don't have a book of myths posing as a sort of Magna Carta?

    My point is that we continue to go round and round spewing half-truths and treating the Bible as if it were an actual history book (doubtful that any other version of the region's history were allowed to survive during Urban's reign of terror) when we should only be looking forward if we're giong to come up with a resolution. Reliance on mythology and "we were here first" rhetoric is not reasonable. There needs to be a very serious meeting of all the involved parties, brokered by perhaps Turkey, Norway, Mongolia or Australia (whoever) and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel need to redraw the map and move some people and call it quits. I wish it were that easy, but , IMO, until something like that happens, the "Holy Land" (I love that one!) will continue to be a weapons playground for proxy wars and bragging rights for puff-chested regional despots.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    Gotta get to work in a sec, but the Hasmoneans say "Hi."
    My Jewish Learning: The Hasmonean Era

    The second temple period was actually an era of expansion of a Jewish state in Judah/Judea up until it allowed in Roman influence in the 1st or 2nd century BCE. So your "2535 years without a state" is more like 1700-odd years (to 1948) , since occupied Judea was a real deal until the second Jewish revolt in the 2nd century CE ("AD"). But what's 800 years between friends... the point is taken that the land was occupied by invaders of various nationalities after the Jews were scattered. We all know this.

    Where/when do such claims end? Threatening question, for we Americans.

    I don't think historic claim was as important to Zionists as was the absolute necessity for a Jewish nationalism, as dictated by treatment of the Jewish minority in all non-Jewish states.

    PFnV

    Still
     
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Thanks for the link. I learned a lot from it. Never heard of the Hasmoneans and I'm into ancient civs. I thought this was an intresting paragraph (pardon the cherry-picking):

    "In this sense, Hasmonean identification with biblical precedents entailed also the adoption and implementation of certain biblical views, especially those spelled out in Deuteronomy that emphasize the religious dimension of political power (and vice versa). Deuteronomy's ban on idolatry and hostility toward the indigenous gentile nations is absolute. On repeated occasions, Deuteronomy (7:1-6, 16. 25-26, 20:15-20) commands the conquering Israelites to destroy all sanctuaries and idols and to annihilate all traces of the heathens."

    Deut is one sick book from the so-called "Good Book". I'm guessing it would be banned from schools if it came out as a newly published work today. That's why I find the neocon rant about the Koran urging Muslims to kill all infidels to be amusing. Cherry-picking is never honest or useful.

    Also agree with your last statement, too. I just wanted to shoot down those who use the "Israel belongs to the Jews" arguement. It doesn't. The American experiment clearly shows how people can make new homes in new places while maintaining important parts of their culture while evolving into a distinct new culture overall. I wonder why the Jews weren't seriously offered Arizona.
     
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,242
    Likes Received:
    197
    Ratings:
    +674 / 2 / -9

    This is to deep for me, people in Cambridge have fist fights over a parking space.

    GET OFF MY LAWN
     
  15. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,242
    Likes Received:
    197
    Ratings:
    +674 / 2 / -9

    This is to deep for me, people in Cambridge shoot each other over a parking space.

    GET OFF MY LAWN
     
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    The question isn't whether there are atrocities chronicled in the Hebrew bible (and the Greek bible.) There are. That is one reason for my own view of religion, that it must be seen as an attempt to express a spirituality, but stuck doing so in the language of the times. This view of religion, or life in general, presupposes progress, and evolution from early roots.

    Are there nutty groups in Israel who proclaim they must fulfill the words of Deut. 20:15-20 or whatever? Maybe... I don't know, I know the Temple Mount group is pretty extreme.

    But in Gaza, such a group -- though Islamic, not Jewish -- has total power.

    So I do not say "Look at those terrible Muslims! Do you know what's in their holy books???" That would be hypocritical, and stupid too. There are a LOT of things in the various sacred texts of various peoples. As those peoples grow they learn to interpret and to sift out. They learn that the environment of a time shaped the writings of a time.

    But when a group in power takes the most hate-filled sayings of their creed (religious or political) and amplify them to the point of genocidic rhetoric, and form a government based on that hate, and then act on that hate and attribute their actions to said sayings, that government's emphasis (whether religious or purely political), the motivation becomes all too clear.

    Hell, Americans weren't sure if they wanted immigrants from anywhere, never mind making a Jewish nation in Arizona. A few other odd projects here and there sprang up at the same time Jews were settling in what would one day be Israel. I think there was one in Argentina. I know the Soviets tried to stem their population's response to Zionism by sponsoring the idea of a Jewish territory out in the middle of nowhere (I think siberia somewhere, not sure.)

    Surely had one of these experiments thrived the way the projects in the Palestine mandate did, we would today be talking about Jews stealing their community from native Russians (or whatever nationalilty was there) or Argentinians.

    The trouble was that the communities within other nations were repeatedly wiped out. Ultimately, survival was really the issue that caused Jews to flock to the Zionist experiment. That's a powerful motivator.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2009
  17. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I'm gonna bail on the deuteronomy thing...just threw that out as an example of some posters here who justify bombing the sh!t out of Muslims wherever by citing the "threats" picked from the Koran. I think that there might be some truth to it, but it's no justification for paranoia. I think foreign policies of many nations come from an idea derived from religious and mythological footings, even if they're not overtly proclaimed as outright policy.

    It's almost a subliminal thing in some cases. Many evangelist and apocalypse-yearning groups use the Book of Revelation to color the policy of our own government, and I think it came out strongly in the Iraq debacle and the rhetoric coming from the White House, Rush, and some TV outlets...not to mention websites and books about America being God's chosen enforcer of the will of Prophesy. We have done the same thing as groups who outright say they are going after one group or another, but here in America and other "civilized" countries, we do it gently with even more devastating results that the loudmouths of the world could ever imagine. I keep hearing the junk about the Founding Fathers being directed by God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Mother. You heard it in Northern Ireland. You see it in Israel. The Nazis made a living out of ultra-nationalism based on the legends of the Teutonic Knights fakrissakes! The Japanese in 1940 had an official mysticism that centered around the worship of their Emperor who was considered divine. Don't even get me started on Texas.

    You get my point yet?

    I wouldn't know how a different homeland experiment and location for the Jewish people would have worked. I don't know how you can be so sure that the same result would have been necessary in Argentina or Arizona. Could it have been worse than today's situation?

    I do see how Jews can't rely on the kindness of others given their history, but how do you explain the largest population of Jews in the world concentrated in NYC? I think America would have been a perfect home for all Jews if they had the plane fare. Explain the Marx Brothers, Benny Goodman and Kiss! We got WAY better Jews than Israel ever did!:D
     
  18. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    LOL, Wistah. Well, from my point of view, America's been a fine and dandy home for Jews. I do see your points, and some are better than others. Certainly religious justifications, to me, seem weaker than nationalist justifications, as regards Israel's founding.

    I suppose your question as to how I can be sure Jewish nationalism would meet with the same conflict elsewhere is an interesting one.

    Here's some of my reasoning:

    1) Communities of Jews, whether or not pursuing nationhood, have a history of being persecuted just for being communities of Jews;

    2) The whole point of conglomerating communities of Jews in one place, was that there would be a Jewish nation (if not necessarily a Jewish state.) There would be at least the possibility of mutual self-defense, places where farmers and fighters and mayors were Jews, rather than lenders and tax-collected (by law, in many places in Europe for a very long time.) Let's throw in nationhood and stipulate a Jewish army, and a Jewish head of state.

    3) People who try to destroy small communities of Jews have often believed that the local Jews are secretly conspiring against the "real" Germans, or French, or whoever. (See the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the Dreyfus trial, for a couple easily remembered examples of this phenomenon.)

    4) All these forms of hate against small communities of Jews are repeated among opponents of Jewish nationhood.

    Palestine in the 19th century was not thickly populated; true, it was not utterly empty, but it was also not bustling. Although an optimist may have hoped that the inhabitants at the time would not end up hating the Jews, in retrospect, perhaps that is not particular to the Palestinians.

    If a true Jewish nation were formed in Arizona, how long would it be before every anti-semite in America trooped over to its borders with a few pipe-bombs?

    I like to think that wouldn't happen here, but I know it's happened in various other places all over the world. People don't like people who are different. There is a special problem in the religions of Christianity and Islam, regarding the belief of each that it supercedes Judaism, which has been at the root of much anti-Jewish sentiment and action in the past.

    Eh well, tired, tired, tired.

    Interesting discussion though.

    PFnV
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>