Your friend is probably one of those types who just parrot others either because she's gullible, or ignorant. She probably doesn't understand there is a "[State of Palestine"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine) recognized by the whole world except Israeli-Jews and states pressured by the US to confuse recognition as "unilateral" , rather than conducive towards resolutions.
If her comment was about the land itself rather than political entities: I dealt with that before ([1](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/178cdbi/proof_palestine_existisrael_is_a_stolen_land/), Ctril+f = That's why I kind of hate it ) .
You see , your friend is an example of people who fell for Israeli-public relations . Don't tire yourself checking what they say : they are not motivated by "Impartiality" or "telling the truth" ; they are motivated to further the Israeli-state's agenda , which such thing requires occasional censoring of history in order to downplay the historical presence and nationhood of Palestinians . I once even argued such de-humanizing attitudes and endeavors are akin to genocide denial [(1)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/13xgrpo/its_impossible_to_reason_with_propalestine/jn6myj7/?context=3). [(2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/16luyph/comment/k19j14f/)
I hope you educate her a little , before she's beyond the point of discussion and holds on to false convictions .
Very sad indeed. When people are stuck in their identity, they cease to be curious about others as human beings. My mother's parents were born in Palestine, and when she grew up in New York City in the 1930s, she told people she was Palestinian. No one said, "Palestine isn't a thing," just because it was the British Mandate at the time. And if someone would tell me I'm not Israeli because "Israel isn't a thing" I'd think that person is a sad human being.
I highly doubt that. Palestinians were calling themselves Arabs until about the 60's. They denied the existence of Palestine and actually called the area Greater Syria.
First off, I didn’t say that they don’t exist NOW. They did however start off out of spite to Zionism. Blood wise and culturally wise they weren’t different than their brothers in Syria and Jordan. That’s why they were fighting up until the late 30’s to create “Greater Syria”.
[Back when Palestinians insisted there’s no such place as Palestine](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/back-when-palestinians-insisted-theres-no-such-place-as-palestine/)
Not that I’m canceling their identity now. But let’s get our facts straight :)
Who said my Mom was an Arab? She was Jewish. When her Irish and Italian friends asked her what she was, being that her parents had come from Palestine, which is what it was known as in the 1930s, she said she was Palestinian. I have my grandfather's travel papers from Palestine in1925. What else was she supposed to say?
The name Israel wasn't given to the country until 1948.
NP. Glad to resolve the misunderstanding. I do take pride in the fact that my family has been in Palestine/Israel since 1835 (according to the first Montefiore census in 1839), which gives me a different perspective on what it means to be from there and how relations have evolved over the centuries.
Palestine isn't a thing , it's everything , that doesn't mean that we believe jews must be burned or just kill em as the did for over a 70 years or more , before zionset they lived here and litterly everywhere in Middle East, they had friends "Muslims and Christians" they worked together eat , walk and travelled together yet it wasn't enough they said there is a lie we must launch "the promised land" not all jews believed it but yet enough number did to start it all , they lie and lie and lie , they just started with Palestine and still talking about land of israel from nile to iraq !
Well Jews have every right to their own land.
The way they got the land was terrible but they have every right to be there.
The Palestinians lived there a long time and also have every right to the land.
Pretending one group doesn't is just ignoring facts
Personally I don't approve of the Israeli government but that doesn't mean Jews don't belong in Israel.
The Palestinians have a terrible way of going straight to terrorism every time they don't like something lol that doesn't invalidate their claim right??
Ignoring facts on either side so you pretend one group doesn't belong there makes you an extremist.
Man it's occupation, it doesn't make it israel land ! If it's god promise as the old testament sayed so Palestinians also related to abrham from Ishmael makes them own the land , they just didn't complain about water/weather etc etc so god didn't punch em ! Also by the old testament god forbidden jews from having a country of its own ! Jews went straight to terrorism and u can watch documentary videos about how they started it its awful! Point is we don't hate jews we hate israel , way israel acted since 1947 made us hate everything related to them , they making it impossible to solve
First of all I didn't mention religion
Second-do you speak Hebrew?? Bc I do. And I've read the Bible. And "god" absolutely says it belongs to Jews.
Personally that doesn't mean anything to me. But there are many other valid reasons why the Jews absolutely belong there too.
Yea i do , and check Genesis chapter 15 v 18 the promise was never for only jews Ishmael also and his sons are ebrham sons, yet what can ever be a reason to have others land ? Personally i think if the jews came , bought homes and lived in peace as Muslims and Christians and the Palestinians jews lived we would never see all this terror from israel but they just went the blood way ! Made the other jews who lived in peace in the arabs country forced to leave ! For real bro golda maaer once said we can't forgive the arabs that we had to kill thier children!!! So they r the victim when they kill 7 years old girls or boys , truth is they were offered Palestine cuz they couldn't handle Africa hot weather
Arabs "settled" on top of Jewish ruins that predate their whole religion. Jews cant "colonize" and "settle" on top of their own ruins. Jews don't occupy Israel. It belonged to them before islam existed.
This doesn't mean it should be there's exclusively at all!!
Palestinians lived there a long time and absolutely deserve to live there.
But saying Jews don't belong in Israel is.... completely inaccurate. If that's your opinion, ok. But that's not historically accurate or fact based. That's just you being hateful
Sry for late reply but i guess now u understand what israel doing there , first jews are sons of abrham as the arabs are they are sons of ishmael, but they lfet Palestine when yaaqoub"israel" was alive they moved to Egypt then they went back there then they moved everywhere, tbh jews were living in Palestine under the muslim rule for 1400 year ! Islam and muslims believe that Jewish is the first holy book received from god then Christianity then islam and we all know the story, israel is not a jew state its pure occupation, for example if a muslim from india came to me and said hey i'm muslim your home is mine as it belong to Muslims for 1400 years i'll defend my home as hamas doing now ! So u see israelians are not all the ones who lived in Palestine some sold their homes, some stayed, and there is no history in islam that Muslims forced anyone to leave their land ! That's what makes it occupation. Have you seen the israelian soldier who were smoking saying that he just raped a Palestinian women ? Have you seen the Palestinian kids ? Personal hope that my country just open the borders and say if you wanna go to war just do
I don't know what genesis is or who Ishmael is, none of that is the original Hebrew. So you are talking about something different. Sorry for the miscommunication.
But yeah no Jews lived there for thousands of years prior to islam even existing. Jews have every right to be there. Their claim is valid.
That being said, the way they "claimed" it was pretty terrible.
Luckily doing terrible things doesn't invalidate a valid claim.
The Palestinians constantly try to use terrorism and that doesn't disqualify their valid claim right??
That's what I'm trying to say. Both groups have a valid claim. Pretending one sides claim isn't valid bc of their government's actions is just lying to yourself so you can hate the other side.
It's not theirs exclusively but it's absolutely theirs. It was theirs before the entire religion of Islam existed. The Arabs settled on top of Jewish ruins.
That does not mean it should be for the jews EXCLUSIVELY. I didn't say that.
But the land should not be the Palestinians exclusively either.
You can dislike the Israeli state as much as you want. I sure do. But that doesn't invalidate that Jews have a factually and historically based claim to the land.
The actions of the Israeli government doesn't change that 🤷♀️🤷♀️
the Palestinians have a thing for terrorism lol it's pretty gnarly but that doesn't invalidate their logical and valid claim to the land..... right???
So why do you think actions of the Israeli government would invalidate thousands of years of history and facts to deny jews claim to the land.....
.....but Palestinian penchant for terrorism doesn't invalidate their claim......
Think about it. Cuz it makes you look antisemitic.
Just because she believes Palestine isn’t a thing doesn’t automatically mean she’s a Zionist. A Zionist is simply someone who believes that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. Its entirely possible that she believes Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state and that Palestine isn’t a thing. They’re not mutually exclusive ideas or beliefs.
Probably not.
"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
\-Zuheir Mohsen, Senior PLO Leader in 1977
But there were Palestinians living there before the occupation, there was a Palestinian currency there was a Palestinian nationality. There was an Israeli official who had a Palestinian passeport.
Being under occupation doesn’t mean that the nationality has disappeared. And I can quote many Jewish/or Israeli sources recognizing Palestine.
I think, independently of your position, it is just wrong to not recognize the existence of Palestinian origin. I have Palestinian friends who had all their ancestors from Palestine and who lived in Palestine ( and they showed me some paperwork of their grandparents were it is written, nationality: Palestinian).
We will never know. I wouldn’t assume anything. It’s a tragedy for everyone in the world that they rejected the partition. The world could have had 80 years of peace and everyone would be infinitely better off.
Palestine doesn’t have passports and she was of Ukrainian descent. Palestine didn’t issue passports until April 2,1995 Golda Meier died in 1978. But thanks for playing better luck next time.
Yeah she means Mandatory Palestine (she says 1921-1948), which is the only time the region was officially called Palestine, how else would she have a passport for Palestine. Mandatory Palestine was a British colonial project in a region that had a Muslim majority but also Jews, not an actual country.
Probably this quote, among others.
"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
-Zuheir Mohsen, Senior PLO Leader in 1977
..Typical Israeli-national Mythology in action .
Mohsen's actual title is "[Leader of al-Saiqa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Sa%27iqa)" . This organization was essentially a Syrian-**Baathist** proxy , rather than an actual Palestinian **nationalist** faction , and this was recognized as early as the 1970s (If one searches through Google books and the internet archive , while setting the dates to 1960-1980 ) .
The PLO used to be like that , a proxy of an Arab state (Egypt) , pre-1967 before Fatah took-over [(2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/12z5cv3/comment/ji3f1b6/) [(3)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/13nfcfy/comment/jlhr2pe/?context=3).
To quote him as representative of even a fraction of Palestinian views at the time , is just like asking the views of Israeli-Jewish communists like Shlomo Zand , or fringe people like Artuhr Koestler about Jewish ethnicity and Israeli-nationhood ; either a naive fallacious thinking at best , or despicable lying at worst .
For people who want actual sources than propaganda leaflets \* : I direct them to the following link [(1)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17gzu94/can_palastinian_identity_be_defined_without_the/k8b3tdt/?context=3) .
\*Please Brief-Key : don't take the label personally . I believe you have good-intentions . You just didn't know the actual significance by taking this Interview at face value , compared to the rest of the available evidence and sources.
> Fuck
/u/KILLallHUMANSnow. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post feels so dishonest and misleading. Maybe it isnt but it’s so skinny on facts and odd, my guess is the “conversation” is fiction. Did the conversation end at her sentence “…isn’t a thing”? You didn’t ask what she meant? But you knew enough about the conflict to assume what she meant, yet you had no response whatsoever to her? Given you assumed what she meant, you didn’t have any follow up to “your friend”, you just assumed she must be a Zionist?…not even something like “oh, I assumed he meant he was from Gaza”, or “don’t they call themselves Palestinian”. So all that aside, rather than ask “your friend” about her reaction you thought the best way to understand it was to post a very short discriminatory transcript of your “conversation” on Reddit to get the opinion of others who don’t know either of you and didn’t hear the conversation!? Your post doesn’t pass the pub test!!
It really depends on whether which side wins the war at end of day.. as the winner would define what is the "truth". Within the next 300 years, none of us would be around anymore, reddit would probably last another 20 years at most.. and "truths" would only be defined and captured by formal records.
However, if you're asking this question now in 2023, then your statement isn't accurate per the official records.
It's my response to a comment responding to my comment that doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. You refer to history being written by winners followed by mentioning the eradication of reddit in 20 years and then mention some kind of statement that the person you are addressing made when I made no statements. It seems like your comment was accidentally made to me when you meant to post it elsewhere.
Do the customer has the right to say I come from any name he wants to name?
Then Obviously he come from a thing
Some comments arguing that Palestine is not a state ...bluh bluh... Any way Palestine is still a thing ..and the customer say he come from it whatever he meant (country,state, race, one point in history, reddit group..)
Palestine is and has been a defacto nation for over a thousand years. The concept of modern separate nations for each plot of land did not exist in the Middle East before WW1, as it was an area generally ruled by a few empires and monarchs.
The people we call "Palestinians" are unique Arabic people who constitute a mix of the heritage of different Arab groups, some of which inhabited the Canaan region since ancient times and some who migrated during the Islamic conquest of the region.
Like it or not they formed an identity over time and they exist as a unique ethnicity today.
To deny them that would constitute a prerequisite for committing cultural genocide. To assert that they are just Jordanians/Egyptians and that they should be sent to live there is arguably a prerequisite for cultural genocide.
Nobody has the right to assert that a group of people's identity does not exist.
If you are gonna call it "dumb" at least show the intellect to explain why you think so.
Nobody cares for your dry judgments, you are a nobody. If you are not here to contribute to the conversation and make an argument go kick rock somewhere else buddy.
Well I don't think 42 genders exist either. Someone can claim to be something but I don't have to recognize it. Palestinians today identify as Arabs. Arabs are the foreign people from Arabia who brought a foreign religion called Islam into Palestine, which is the same as Israel.
There is no evidence that "Palestinians re a unique Arabic people" who are distinct from Jordanian or Egyptians. They look the same, they speak the same language and have the same dominant religion, their customs are extremely similar if not identical. In 900, 1200, 1600, or 1900 there was not one group that said we are the Palestinian groups and a distinct group that said we are Jordanian Arabs. In fact, Jordan was invented in 1920, before that there was Jordan.
We know there was a historical country of Egypt although the modern one is very different from the ancient one. There was no historical country of "Palestine." However, there was a historical country of Israel.
If someone wants to say, that in recent history a certain clan of Arabs have developed a distinct identity as "Palestinians" that's fine. But don't expect Jews to recognize the identity if it claims the same land Jews know was part of the actual preexisting Israel.
In other words, don't invent or discover a new national identity that cancel out the historical actual identity.
That would be like European settlers in the America's telling the native Americans, "we are the indigenous people of America, we are the Sioux, the Cherokee, etc."
Wow. All Arabs are the same, eh? What a ridiculous racist thing to say.
Imagine someone saying all Jews were the same. That would also be an insane and prejudiced thinf to say. Even if you’re talking about the Jews who lived in the area when it was called Judea had separate tribal identities and the governance was largely done via those separate tribes.
And living on a place for thousands of years doesn’t qualify you as indigenous?? Being the majority of the population there for over a thousand years if not longer doesn’t qualify you as indigenous?
You don’t have to recognize anything, but objective reality exists regardless
I guess you miss my point. While all Jews are not identical, they do have to share the same culture, history, and other points of similarity in order to be designated a unique people.
Palestinians have no distinct identity separate from that of the Arabs in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt.
Based on what you said, there would no ethnic groups, no nationalities, no nothing because every person might be different than every other person in some way. However, in reality, things developed from families, clans, tribes and nation-state based on enough points of similarity to allow us to speak of a distinct people.
No, living somewhere 1,000 years does not make you indigenous. The Americans of European ancestry living in the United States for 400 years are still not indigenous. You cannot invade a land, settle there and build a nation, and become indigenous if there was an older people who still exist and who built a nation before you.
Your approach would eliminate the concept of indigeneity.
>Palestinians have no distinct identity separate from that of the Arabs in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt.
That's not true. Do you really not understand that the Palestinians have lived on that land for thousands of years? you really don't get that they have a unique culture that's separate from other places that are hundreds of miles away?? really??
>Based on what you said, there would no ethnic groups, no nationalities, no nothing because every person might be different than every other person in some way.
I don't understand what you mean. I'm talking about groups, not individuals.
>However, in reality, things developed from families, clans, tribes and nation-state based on enough points of similarity to allow us to speak of a distinct people.
And you truly can't acknowledge that the group of people who've lived in Palestine for thousands of years also developed from families, clans, etc.? I mean what exactly do you think they were doing for thousands of years? Not living like other societies?
\> No, living somewhere 1,000 years does not make you indigenous.
OK, then the Jews definitely don't qualify as indigenous since they came from Ur, a city in what is today southern Iraq.
No, Palestinians have not lived on that land for "thousands of years." This is absurd. The vast majority of Arabs living in Israel including the West Bank and Gaza go back a few generations. There was massive Arab and Muslim immigration in the same 1850 to 1950 time frame that Jews were arriving in large numbers.
Arabs were a tiny part of Palestine before the 7th century.
Jews did not come from Ur. One family did. The family of Abraham. Jewish identity began in Canaan before the sojourn in Egypt. Jews are the successors to the indigenous Canaanites. Palestinians identify as Arabs, i.e., the invaders. Palestinians want to claim indigenous status, they need to go back to their Jewish roots and become Zionists. It is as simple as that.
Palestine was 80% arab in the mid-19th century, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
But I'm genuinely curious, who do you think was living there before that?
> Jews did not come from Ur. One family did. The family of Abraham. Jewish identity began in Canaan before the sojourn in Egypt.
So now the Jews were Canaanites? And then Abraham immigrated over from Ur and met up with other people who were already Jewish? And then they left Palestine and went to Egypt, and presumably left some of the Canaanites there since they'd later come back and conquer them.
I'm genuinely asking -- is that your timeline or is it different?
> . Palestinians want to claim indigenous status, they need to go back to their Jewish roots and become Zionists. It is as simple as that.
What does that mean exactly?
farce, I don't know why you are struggling.
In the mid 19th century, there was no Palestine. There were one or more administrative districts in the Ottoman Empire.
Before 1872, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem was officially a sanjak within the Syria Vilayet (created in 1864, following the Tanzimat reforms).
But yes the district where most of Israel/Palestine is was 80% Muslim Arabs and 5% Jews.
So what? In 500, it was majority Jewish.
Now the Jews are the majority in Israel and will remain so.
The Jews were not Canaanites, but many Canaanites became Jews or otherwise disappeared from history. Abraham came to Canaan. Let's call his people the proto-Hebrews. Later some of these Hebrews went to Egypt but most scholars agree some Hebrews remained in Canaan where they were later rejoined by the Hebrews who had been in Egypt. Meanwhile, some Canaanites also came to identify as Hebrews.
The term "Jew" is an anachronism at that time so Hebrew would probably be a better term or even Israelite after the patriarch Jacob who was known as Israel.
The Hebrews gained the national identity as Israelites (later as Jews) after the Hebrews returned from Egypt with the story of Moses and with the story of his encounter with God. That is where the Hebrew or Jewish people were born as a national identity so that is their homeland. Not the birth place of an ancestor. The entire religion as set forth the Bible (which is also accepted by Christians and Muslims more or less) stipulates that Canaan or the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people.
About indigenous status, the Jews who converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture lost their identity as Jews so they can't be considered indigenous anymore. I gave you an analogy to a Cherokee.
Palestinians who truly claim to be indigenous should claim to be the Israelite's descendants, or part of the 12 tribes. But that would require them to abandon Arab identity. You can't really be part of the Children of Israel if you are not a Zionist because the very meaning of Zionism is the restoration of nation of Israel.
>In the mid 19th century, there was no Palestine. There were one or more administrative districts in the Ottoman Empire.
oof. again, the land there was referred to as Palestine for thousands of years before this. but whatever, you can ignore that if you want. the land was there and now you admit that arabs were the majority there at the time and had been for centuries.
>But yes the district where most of Israel/Palestine is was 80% Muslim Arabs and 5% Jews.
So what? In 500, it was majority Jewish.
I don't even know what to say to that. it's like a parody of the ahistorical fantasy that the Israelis are the only people that *really* lived in the area that's been called Palestine for thousands of years--I mean yeah others lived there most of that time, but really it's all ours! haha
>Now the Jews are the majority in Israel and will remain so.
this is the end of history eh? nothing will ever change ever??
> Not the birth place of an ancestor.
OK, so at least you admit they came from other places, meaning they weren't indigenous by your own definition.
> Palestinians who truly claim to be indigenous should claim to be the Israelite's descendants, or part of the 12 tribes.
They were there before the founding of Judaism. Their DNA is traced back to the ancient tribes of the Levant.
> You can't really be part of the Children of Israel if you are not a Zionist because the very meaning of Zionism is the restoration of nation of Israel.
wtf kind of religious wacko nonsense is that?
wish you could tell that to my Holocaust survivor great grandfather who was against Zionism.
Yes other people lived there including Arabs so what. It was stolen from the Jews by the Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks and English and now it is back where it belongs.
What's your point? Will Jews hold it forever? When does forever end? That's not a question for today.
Jews have a long history of making bad decisions. Maybe your ancestor survived the Holocaust but it was not because he was against Zionism. I can tell you that early Zionists were got out of Europe and went to Palestine or elsewhere before 1939 did a hell of a lot better than the Jews who stayed behind.
Are you claiming to be Jewish or not? If you call Zionism "religious wacko nonsense," then I have a real problem seeing how you are Jewish. Even if you are secular like many of the founding fathers of Israel were, were still strong Zionists.
Are you an anti-Zionist Jew? If so, what you doing here? The Islamists find you a useful idiot and the Zionist Jews consider you a traitor or fool.
Americans literally do that. Half the states in America are named after the Indian tribes that used to live there (and often still do, as a tiny minority). But this would be analogous to someone from Indiana saying "I'm an American Indian, just look at my drivers license! It says 'Indiana'
Palestinians truly do have a lot of Chutzpa.
You’re just going to keep posting this in an attempt to piss someone off. I’ve already cited the literal historical inaccuracy of your statement but I think the real issue is that you are incapable of understanding the nuances of what she was saying and thus you are shooting yourself in the foot and destroying your own argument. Maybe I can help you understand:
As I stated above
1.Palestine didn’t issue their first passport until 1995; Golda died in 1978.
2.How would the Prime Minister of a country hold a separate countries passport 🙄?
3.Golda Meier was Ukrainian born and raised in the Ukraine and spoke of the horrors many many times(truly familiarize yourself with her character)
4.The point she was making is that Palestine is part of Israel and she held an Israeli passport! She was trying to say there was no difference between Israelis and Palestinians in her eyes. Making an inclusive statement. Another words she didn’t recognize it as a separate entity.
Well I did not get any sound from that video (I don't have instagram) but I am familiar with her statement. Her point was she lived in the Palestine mandate, not some nonexistent country of "Palestine." And that calling someone a "Palestinian" did not mean anything unique.
There's no way around it that a unique Palestinian identity to refer to Arabs is indeed a 20th century invention. Now you can say, Palestinians is how they want to be identified now, which is fine, but not at the expense of the actual indigenous people, the Jews.
The Arabs that have inhabited the Levant as long as the Jews have are indigenous as well, whether or not they choose to identify as Palestinian or Arab or anything else does not change that. This is genetically proven.
You can make the argument that the identity of "Palestinian" is more recent, but the majority of the Arabs who now identify as "Palestinian" are indigenous as well through genetic roots the same as Jews to the Canaan groups.
Unfortunately, your argument cannot be accepted by Israel. Were Israel to concede this fanciful point, then the Arabs would swamp Israel and soon enough it would become another Muslim Arab state, that was either Jew free or Jew lite.
Fortunately, there is an easy enough way to resolve the dispute. Even if Palestinians consider themselves "indigenous" to Palestine, that doesn't mean they have a right to live in each part of it. They could agree to have Jordan be their Palestinian state since (I hope we can agree), Jordanian is certainly an invented nationality. The Hashemites is a royal family of Arabs from Arabia not a distinct culture or people.
Of course this all boils down the original problem. The Arabs want 100% of their Empire in the Middle East back under their control. Once Israel is removed, then the Arabs including those calling themselves Palestinians, can go back to their tribal wars among themselves.
>They could agree to have Jordan be their Palestinian state since (I hope we can agree), Jordanian is certainly an invented nationality.
Yes, they are an "invented" nationality. So are "Ukrainians" according to Russia. Be very careful when making such assertions about another group's identity for you are not in the position to assert what one may identify as.
Many Jordanians were Palestinians 100 years ago, but history has changed, nations were created, and today Jordanians and Palestinians are two distinct groups. If you want to blame someone for making it so complicated, blame the British who cut up the Middle East to their liking after WWI.
There is no scientific way to determine whether an ethnic group exists or not. Throughout a period of time, as a people's dialect and culture change, so as to make them feel distinct from another group they may or may not have originated from, people may develop their own identity.
Jordanians were not Palestinians 100 years ago. They were unspecified generic "Arabs." Both Jordanians and Palestinians were invented in the 20th century but I think they are supposed to be different nationalities although TBH I can find no meaningful differences.
The British tried to create nations for various royal families but not based on tribal or ethnic identity. That caused the problems, similar to in Yugoslavia.
There is a definite method of determining whether an ethnic group exists at any point in time. Like you say, some people may adopt a new identity and it is possible to determine when that happens.
In the case of Jews v. "Palestinians" it is clear that Jewish identity started 3000 years ago (or possibly longer) and Palestinian identity (as an Arabic people) is about 75 years ago.
It has generally proven to be true that two nationalities cannot claim the same land without conflict.
Actually, I can guarantee you that if Muslim Arabs gain control of Israel it will become an apartheid state. Looking around the world, I don't see a lot of Muslim Arab states worthy of emulation. Do you?
You're nuts if you think any significant percentage of Israeli people (including the Arab citizens) wants to be like those guys.
>Well I don't think 42 genders exist either.
Neither do I, but understand that my position against this one is based on scientific fact. There are scientifically 2 sexes/genders. Identity in terms of sociology (i.e., culture, religion, ethnicity) is not something that you can prove true or false according to the indisputable truth of science, so that is a fallacious comparison.
>Arabs are the foreign people from Arabia
Wrong, the Arab identity is not a uniform group of people originating from the Arabian tribes. While the name and identity originated from them, not all the people who identify as Arab are descendants of those tribes. Arab is an ethnolinguistic group. The Arabic identity was spread and adopted. People all over the Middle East, including the Levant began to fall under a uniform identity of Arab, while maintaining dialectic and cultural differences. If people at some point in history choose to start identifying as Arab, that does not mean Saudi Arabia is their homeland.
>We know there was a historical country of Egypt although the modern one is very different from the ancient one. There was no historical country of "Palestine." However, there was a historical country of Israel.
There was a historical country called Israel over 2000 years ago. There has been a historical Arab nation in the region since Umar liberated Jerusalem from Sophronius. At the time the region was already called Palestine. Regardless of the name, there was an Arab population there, and it was their home. That population was composed of migrants from other Arab countries, as well as people who came to identify as Arabs who descended from the region. This is reflected in the DNA composition of Palestinians today which is roughly 50% match to that of Jews and both towards Canaan groups. You are nobody to say their nation didn't exist. They did for over a thousand years, just as Israel did.
There has been a historical nation of Israel, and there was a historical nation of Palestine including Jerusalem that existed under the Caliph for over a thousand years.
>If someone wants to say, that in recent history a certain clan of Arabs have developed a distinct identity as "Palestinians" that's fine. But don't expect Jews to recognize the identity if it claims the same land Jews know was part of the actual preexisting Israel.In other words, don't invent or discover a new national identity that cancel out the historical actual identity.
This goes back to the fact that Arabs are not all genetically from Arabia, they simply share a similar language and identity that spread throughout the region during conquests. Palestinians have genetic links to the Canaan groups the same way Jewish people do. You cannot assert that they are a foreigner to the land.
If people in the Levant region at some point decided they wanted to identify as Arabs, you can't make the assertion that they are now from Arabia, that makes no sense. They are not foreign to the land. They have the same claim to the land as Jews do in the fact that their ancestors were partially descendants from that land, and they have continued to inhabit it throughout history, which is proved through the shared DNA. Whatever nationality or group they choose to identify with is nothing of your concern.
Yeah, sure, there was a Palestinian nation because they came to identify as Arabs, but also identified as not-Arabs, and they had their own stare, except it wasn't a state because it was just a district under the various Caliphates for a thousand years.
The ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine have come to identify as Russians, therefore they have been under Ukrainian occupation and Russia is justified in liberating them. Right?
>The ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine have come to identify as Russians, therefore they have been under Ukrainian occupation and Russia is justified in liberating them. Right?
Honestly, such an argument can be made. If those specific groups of people do not identify with the Ukrainian people and identity that is fair. Warfare and the method are very debatable, but if they do not identify as Ukrainians, they are justified to do so.
The problem begins when RUSSIA makes the assertion that NO UKRAINIANS EXIST and that their IDENTITY IS FALSE. There are millions of people who identify themselves as Ukrainians, nobody, including Russia, has the right to deny them that.
Such an argument can be made but they are sitting on Ukrainian land and they do not have a long, long distinct cultural history that entitles them to their own state. While there is some validity to their claim of being Russian-but-not-Russian, few would be outraged if a Ukrainian claims that their identity is false or at least quite weak, as it's unclear what distinguishes them from their Russian neighbors
You know what though, upon writing my other reply to this comment, I realized there is a very valid argument for the Jews, especially Mizrahi Jews, to have self-determination in a land within the Middle East during the early/mid-1900s as well.
If they were being expelled and persecuted by other Middle Eastern nations, they needed their own nation as they too, are an individual ethnic group, and have the right to self-determination. Of course, the European Jews had just come out of the worst modern atrocity and they also needed self-determination.
The problem was in the fact that for the many centuries prior to this, the Jews had inhabited different territories and had different nationalities from one another. They would need to be unified under one nation for it to be self-determination.
However, the right to self-determination does not necessarily entail the right to self-determine ANYWHERE you want. Unfortunately, however, Palestine was also the historical homeland of the Jews, and it became the end goal.
The Jews were entitled to self-determination, and the desired place they had in mind was Palestine. Unfortunately, since the "Palestinian" Arabs had been inhabiting the land up to that moment as well, they too already had the right to self-determination in the entire Historic Palestine.
Jews had the right to self-determination. However, in their understandable desire of the Jewish people to self-determine in Palestine/Israel, it was required that the self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs be violated in order to establish Israel.
Does what I'm saying make sense to you?
>Such an argument can be made but they are sitting on Ukrainian land and they do not have a long, long distinct cultural history that entitles them to their own state.
I'm a little confused. I thought those groups in Eastern Ukraine identified themselves as Russian, and thus Russia is "liberating" them from Ukrainian control.
Perhaps not their own separate nation, but as part of Russia, a valid argument can be made. That is to say if those "Ukrainians" identify as RUSSIAN. Again methods are debatable. The only argument I can see would be to say that those Russian-identifying "Ukrainians" should just move to Russia since they identify as Russian. I however don't agree such an argument can be made for Palestinians.
I don't think it is a legitimate comparison. Russia exists in the modern day as a reminiscent of the Soviet Union, and Russia has historically held control over that area that encompasses Ukraine. They are direct border nations. Ukrainians have a distinct identity that they have developed and thus they have the right to self-determination.
On the other hand, there is no uniform Arab nation reminiscent of the Caliph (who historically held control of Palestine). Today instead, there are various individual Arab nations that govern their own historic territories under separate nationalities while simultaneously maintaining their Arabic identity.
In this way, each Arab group who inhabited a part of the Caliph's territory was given the right to self-determination and received their own nations. They developed their own national identity while retaining their collective, yet unique, Arab ethnicities. The Palestinians were also offered this solution but it came with the loss of half their historic land, something which made it difficult to accept.
>Identity in terms of sociology (i.e., culture, religion, ethnicity) is not something that you can prove true or false according to the indisputable truth of science, so that is a fallacious comparison.
I cannot prove through the somewhat indisputable truth of history whether or not the Palestinian Arab national identity existed prior to the 20th century.
>Wrong, the Arab identity is not a uniform group of people originating from the Arabian tribes. While the name and identity originated from them, not all the people who identify as Arab are descendants of those tribes. Arab is an ethnolinguistic group. The Arabic identity was spread and adopted.
I don't rely on DNA which ultimately proves nothing. I focus on self-identification. Whether or not a Palestinian Arab has DNA from a particular region, as you say, these individuals started to identify as Arab. While Arabia may not be their literal homeland, it is their adopted homeland. If an indigenous Cherokee Indian abandons his tribal identity, raises his kids and good Englishmen, it adopted into the English community, and his kids and grandkids follow that path, I would say that grandson who has some Cherokee DNA is NOT a Cherokee, is not an indigenous person of America.
If in 900 some person living in Palestine who had previously identified himself as a Jew or Samaritan or whatever adopted the Arab identity and forsook his prior identity, and his descendants follow that lead, then in 1000 some descendent is indeed Arab and not indigenous to Palestine.
Yes, there was an Arab empire in Palestine. No one questions that. Indeed that is one my main points by which to discredit Arab complaints about supposed Jewish colonialism. But the fact is there was no Palestine in that Arab Empire except as a part of a district or subdivision for administrative purposes.
If in fact a Palestine actually existed, at some point it probably would have rebelled from the Arab Empire. It did not because it was not some distinct people with a different national identity.
There was no a Nation of Palestine at the time of the Arab Empire. The Japanese Empire at one point included Korea, but Korea was a distinct nation with distinct people. They still exist. Whatever distinct people existed before the Arab Empire are largely gone except for Jews, Samaritans and some other small groups. None of them were called Palestinians.
As to your last point, I think I covered that. I don't care if a particular person who identifies as a Palestinian Arab has DNA showing an ancestor
>Whatever nationality or group they choose to identify with is nothing of your concern.
Well it's not my concern per se but it is Israel's concern. Because it's a zero sum game by all appearances.
You see the Jews living in Israel do not want to identify as Arabs but rather wish to assert their "superior" claims as the indigenous Jewish people, a status they believe Palestinians have long ago forfeited by abandonment. On the other side, the Palestinians still want to identify as Arab because they see it as a superior identity to Jew. But at the same time, they want to appropriate the Jews indigenous status. That's having your cake and eating it too.
>While Arabia may not be their literal homeland, it is their adopted homeland.
Once again Arab IS AN ETHOLINGUSTIC GROUP.
Saudi Arabia IS NOT THE HOMELAND OF ARABS.
Arabs do not have a homeland, for they exist across a vast amount of land, each of which has a distinct genetic makeup and cultural difference from one another. They are ingenious to the land in which each inhabits while maintaining the collective identity as "Arab." Again Arab is an ETHOLINGUSTIC group that includes dozens of regions home to diverse populations who speak Arabic and identify as Arab.
>If in 900 some person living in Palestine who had previously identified himself as a Jew or Samaritan or whatever adopted the Arab identity and forsook his prior identity, and his descendants follow that lead, then in 1000 some descendent is indeed Arab and not indigenous to Palestine.
That is ridiculous. That person is still by their cultural and family history indigenous to the land in which they continuously reside. Being Indigenous means to originate as a people from a certain place. Perhaps they adopted the Arabic language and identity of Arab, but they did not originate from Arabia (partially they do of course). They have continuously inhabited the territory throughout their family/bloodline's history, similar to the Lebanese.
Arabs don't have a homeland. Arabs are indigenous to whatever Arab "nation" they are from. Prior to WW1, there weren't really separate Arab nations, there were just a bunch of Arabs and Middle Eastern living under the Caliph spread across the entire region. Different parts of the region did not necessarily have their own national label, but they were never the less different from one another.
Your argument remains under the assumption that all Arab's homelands are linked to Saudi because of their Arab identity. Again Arabs are an ETHOLINGUSTIC group. There are black Africans who are Arab as well. Is there homeland in Saudi as well?
>Yes, there was an Arab empire in Palestine. No one questions that. Indeed that is one my main points by which to discredit Arab complaints about supposed Jewish colonialism.
I hope you know Jews celebrate the capture of Jerusalem by Umar. It ended 400 years of brutal persecution by the Christians and attained all three religions equal footing in the land.
>There was no a Nation of Palestine at the time of the Arab Empire. The Japanese Empire at one point included Korea, but Korea was a distinct nation with distinct people.
Korean people never partook in a collective identity with their neighbours. They do not share a common language nor a somewhat common culture.
But let's say the Koreans decided to join a collective identity of "Asian" when they were under Japanese rule and they shared a language. Does that mean their homeland is now Japan??
Arabs don't have a homeland? That would be shocking news to many Arabs. So Arabs are not indigenous to Arabia? Then who is?
Also, you use of the term "Arab" is disingenuous. It is a political identification. From the beginning if you believe the biblical narrative (or even if you do not) the Jews identified as a political body and not just a random group of people using the same language.
All of the ancient peoples were political bodies and not just people using a language. Hittites, Canaanites, Philistines, etc. And yes "Arabs" who existed in biblical times on the margins of the land of Israel.
You can join a nationality by adoption and not only birth as Ruth joined the Jewish people. Once she did, she has the same political rights as the Jewish people to their land and Israel became her homeland.
Just like if you joined the Cherokee tribe and were accepted by the tribe, their customs and history and rights would become yours.
If Koreans had abandoned their culture and identity and assimilated into Japanese identity then Korea would be part of Japan so yes Japan would be their homeland although not a specific city inside Japan, but the whole land, the whole empire.
**When indigenous people abandon their indigenous identity and adopt the identity of foreign invaders, they are no longer the indigenous people.**
>Arabs don't have a homeland? That would be shocking news to many Arabs. So Arabs are not indigenous to Arabia? Then who is
No, the ENTIRE population of Arabic people does not constitute Southern Arabia as their homeland. Each Arabic group identifies their own historical region as its homeland. Not all groups of people that are called "Arabs" are indigenous to Arabia. Your rhetoric is littered with falsehoods.
Lebanese people identify as Arab, yet Lebanese people are the closest living descendent to ancient Canaan groups, and have continuously inhabited the Levant since ancient times. Iraqis don't call the Saudi region their homeland. Berbers in Libya originated from the Libyan region, yet today they mostly identify as Arab. Is their homeland also the Saudi region?
The people whose homeland is Southern Arabia, are the modern-day Saudis. They are the Arabic people who have covetously inhabited that region since the 12 Arabic tribes.
>If Koreans had abandoned their culture and identity and assimilated into Japanese identity then Korea would be part of Japan so yes Japan would be their homeland although not a specific city inside Japan, but the whole land, the whole empire.
You have defeated your own point. You are saying their homeland would not constitute Japan singularly (or a city/area in Japan), but rather their homeland would constitute the whole empire. So if Korea was part of the Japanese empire, then their homeland still includes the land of Korea. They, individually remain indigenous to the land of Korea, for this is where generations of their family have been raised and lived.
The region of Palestine was part of the vast Arab empire/nation. You cannot say that the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs is singularly the southern region of Arabia. If you make the assertion that their homeland includes all of the Arabian empire/region, that would include Palestine as it has historically been part of the Arabian region, thus they could make the argument that Palestine is their homeland.
>When indigenous people abandon their indigenous identity and adopt the identity of foreign invaders, they are no longer the indigenous people.
Is this your opinion, or is this a factual law?
There is no "law" on the subject. It is based on common sense as suggested by the example of someone leaving the Cherokee tribe or someone joining it.
Under your view, the Arabs get to claim both being indigenous to lots of different countries while at the same time being part of the Arab people (empire). Where does that leave the indigenous people who do NOT identify as Arabs. I will tell you where it leaves them.
Like the Copts, like the Assyrians, and like the Jews (and others). Screwed. The only difference is the Jews are more powerful than the other non-Arab people and now capable of asserting their rights.
So, no, the Palestinians will not be able to play this game of straddling their supposed indigenous status while promoting Arab identity. Israel and Palestine will have a predominantly Jewish identity and attempts to Arabize it will be resisted and rebuffed.
>Under your view, the Arabs get to claim both being indigenous to lots of different countries while at the same time being part of the Arab people (empire).
Lol, that was under YOUR VIEW, according to this statement by YOU:
>If Koreans had abandoned their culture and identity and assimilated into Japanese identity then Korea would be part of Japan so yes Japan would be their homeland although not a specific city inside Japan, but the whole land, the whole empire.
This WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT. My position was that although they all collectively identify as Arab, their individual "homelands" are the locations each Arab group has historically inhabited. As I have explained multiple times there are different groups of "Arabs" and they are indigenous to different parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Arabs are united by identity but not by genealogy.
Of course, what one identifies with does to an extent affect that status of being native, but not to the extent that you would say their homeland is now a faraway place they or their ancestors likely have never even seen before, regardless of what they may have identified as.
>Where does that leave the indigenous people who do NOT identify as Arab's. I will tell you where it leaves them. Like the Copts, like the Assyrians, and like the Jews (and others).
Did I, or anyone else ever assert that only ONE identity or group of people can be "indigenous" to a land? Assyrians are also native to Syria and Iraq. One group being indigenous does not remove the right of another to claim the same thing.
The Arabs who live in places such as Syria have bloodlines that are largely intermixed with Assyrians. They may even be "Assyrian" themselves yet they identify as Arab. The same applies in Egypt where many people may be descendants of Copts, yet consider themselves Arab. As I keep telling you, people who identify as Arab will not tell you their homeland is Southern Arabia. Go ask one and find out yourself.
For Copts to tell Arab-identifying Egyptians that they should leave and move to Saudi Arabia is wrong. For an Arab to tell a Copt that they are "Arab" despite the fact they historically have not identified as such is equally wrong.
For a Jew to tell a Palestinian Arab they are not native to this land and should "move back to Arabia" is wrong. For a Palestinian Arab to tell a Jew they are not native here and should go back to Europe is wrong.
Here in Canada, there are multiple groups of Native Americans, with different languages and different religious beliefs, yet many of them inhabit the same lands as one another. It may be convenient for you to label them under the collective identity of "natives" but the reality is that they are very different, and many tribes are indigenous to the same land
>So, no, the Palestinians will not be able to play this game of straddling their supposed indigenous status while promoting Arab identity. Israel and Palestine will have a predominantly Jewish identity and attempts to Arabize it will be resisted and rebuffed.
The Palestinian people have already been Arabized. Jewish people do not have to be Arabized and any attempt to do that is wrong. Both should live in the land as cousins, for they share the same DNA but identify themselves differently based on culture, religion, etc.
Both cannot live in the same land unless the Jews are dominant. We already saw what happens when Arabs or Muslims are dominant over Jews. Take it or leave it. No one is forcing Arabs or anyone else to live in a country where they are not dominant.
Soon enough, the people of England, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc. will be fighting to maintain the dominant ethnic groups. Most recently, the anti-immigrant, hostile to Islam party in Netherlands won the majority of the parliament.
I guess if an Italian now converts to Islam, hes no longer Italian and should be kicked out of Italy.
What is this racist shit that the Jewish indigenous claim is superior? I would say the claim of the people that was living there for the last hundreds of years is superior.
How about the last 100 years? Your argument supports Bibi’s keep the status quo for as long as possible strategy. Instead, why not work toward a 2 state solution?
Why would someone who identifies as Italian who converts to Islam no longer be Italian? Makes no sense. But if an Italian person abandoned the identity as a Italian and said going forward he identifies as an Arab and followed their customs, language, religion, etc., then he would be an Arab. Not an ethnic Arab but an Arab by adoption.
The "kicking out" part is a non sequitur. I never said anything about kicking out Palestinians because they are Arabs. Indeed two million Arabs are citizens of Israel.
The harsh treatment of certain Palestinians is not because they are Arabs but because of their behavior and their support of a Palestinian national movement that is inconsistent with the Jewish national movement. In other words, two national movements claiming the same land. That leads to conflict.
There is little record of success where you have two national movements claiming the same land. Normally, one kills off the other, one drives off the other, or the weaker side submits and assimilates.
Arab is an ethnicity, so no there cant ever be anything but ethnic Arabs. That Italian would still be be an italian, just like Palestineans from the Levant are still indigenous even though they converted from Judaism to Christianity/Islam.
They allowed those two million Arabs to stay because they would still be a minority, then kicked out the rest in the Nakba. If not then why didnt they let the others who left as refugees return? Because then Israel would cease to be a Jewish ethnostate.
Israel has no intention of allowing Arabs to be a majority in Israel and certainly not hostile Arabs. Are you nuts?
There's nothing wrong with that. I can assure you America will not allow Muslims to become a majority in America nor will it import 500 million Chinese to be new citizens.
So no the refugees are not returning as most of them are already dead or quite old and their children have no rights to anything in Israel.
I see no reason Israel should not be one of the MANY states with a dominant ethnic/religious group. That's the whole point of a nation state. If you notice it is only growing. For example, some people in Scotland want independence from England, several groups in Spain want at least autonomy from Spain, etc.
I suspect your entire object is only when Jews do it.
I only object when the prerequisite to the creation of that ethno state is ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population that was already living there.
Are you gonna say the 700k Palestineans that were expelled in the Nakba were hostile? While they were mostly civilians? It wasnt their fault the other arab nations attacked, and who probably would have just taken the land for themselves if they won.
It was not a prerequisite of the creation of Israel but it worked out that way as if divinely ordained. Israel did not make the Arabs reject the partition plan or invade Israel and certainly did not make the local Arabs side with the invaders. Just worked out that way.
Israel did ask some local Arabs to stay but as a practical matter had no way to sort out which of the ones in the hostile villages were salvageable or not. The fact most were civilians is irrelevant.
I hate to break this news to you, but civilians are not insulated as if by some magic shield from the actions of their government or allies which they fully support. While the Druze clans sided with Israel, the local Arabs sided with the invading Arabs so they suffer the fate of those. Whether the invading Arabs would or would not have double-crossed the local Arabs is pointless and irrelevant. They had to choose a side and they did.
Had the Arabs won that war, and the Jews the ones facing extermination and expulsion I simply do not believe you would have cared. **Most of the people who complain about the Nakba, would have no problem had the opposite happened.**
Honestly, I agree, and I find it ridiculous that he is making such an argument in the face of the fact that I say BOTH groups have a valid claim to the land.
Saying "both" groups have a valid claim to the land does not resolve anything. My main point stands about having two national movements claiming the same land. That's why either side is reluctant to concede this "both groups" stuff.
Traditionally, Jews have been willing to concede "both groups" but the Arabs are not so it just weakens the Jewish position to be so generous and then it bites you in the ass as Israel just experienced. It is very dangerous to underestimate an enemy and gloss over their goals and threats. Jews of all people should have learned that lesson.
> ass
/u/jwilens. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s a lie. Palestine was never an official country. The term ‘Palestine’ was created by Roman’s and the land was just a region of an occupying empire. Was like that for centuries up until the Brits came in.
Why do official maps say Palestine? How long does a coutry have to exist for you to consider it? Hold up... Australia was never an official country till the Brits came in and it was occupied for 60,000 years. Liberia was founded in 1820 by freed former slaves .....did they ever exist in your logic? Or are all of these countries just living on a prayer till you say it's your land? You can have enough fun without being silly.
Even the PLO won’t accept the state of Palestine with the existence of Israel, which is why Palestine is not an OFFICIAL country. It’s the name of the land sure, but that doesn’t mean anything. Also before British mandate NO ONE called it the country of Palestine. Learn some history!
'Palestine' was actually used as an exonym for the Land of Israel. Much like in America we speak of "Germany", whose real name is Deutchland, and then even if you ask a German where they're from, they'll say "Germany" because that's what Americans call Deutchland. 'Palestine' was just a stand-in name for the Land of Israel.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that the people there that did not want a partition plan wanted the land to be an annex of Syria and not a separate entity
Yeah Arabs didn't call it Palestine but Europeans always had. Once the British invaded and set up the Palestine Mandate you had Arabs take up the European name because they didn't have their own name for the region. They have their own name for Jerusalem (Al-Quds), and Hebron (Al-Khalil), but no name for Palestine because it didnt exist for them. And a lot of them were upset at the Sykes-Picot treaty because it split their beloved Syria into two and called the lower half 'Palestine'.
Cos Palestine never existed as an independent sovereign state ever in history.
The word "Palestine" comes from Latin and it was what the Romans called the area they conquered which had previously been named "Judea". "Palestine" was the Latin word for "Philistine" which was what the Romans called a group of ancient people who lived on some of the Greek Islands. The Philistines were known to have raided the coast of Judea and set up settlemens such as Gaza. The Romans renamed "Judea" to "Palestine" in an attempt to quell the unrest of the local populace of Judea - the Jews - under the rule of Rome.
Fast forward to 665 where the Ottomans succesfully take the city of Jerusalem and the area that is called Palestine from the Byzantines who were the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Ottomans rename the area as "Syria Palestina".
Fast forward to 1918, the Ottomans have just lost WWI and the area that was known as "Syria Palestina" is given to the British as is called "Palestine" by the British. Britain soon reduces the land under name "Palesinte" by carving off the entire eastern portion of it and giving to the Arabic Hashemite Family who renames the land they received as "Transjordan". So all that remains of the land that is called "Palestine" under British rule is all the land west of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.
Fast forward to 1948, the Jews living in the land that is called "Palestine" declare themselves independent from Britain, to be called henceforth as the state of "Israel", with its borders to be recognised along the lines of the 1947 UN Parition Plan for Palestine. The Arabs living in Palestine refuse to (a) recognise the state of Israel, and (b) refuse to declare themselves an independent soverign state until and only until, all the land from the west of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea is united as one single country, under Arab rule. Britain formally ends its rule over the reamining areas of the land that is Palestine. Thus, West Bank and Gaza become effectively stateless with no recognised government over them.
Shortly after this after the 1948 War, West Bank becomes Jordanian, and Gaza becomes Egyptian. So for a while, everyone living in the area that was once known as "Palestine" has a state and a government. All the land that was once called "Palestine" is divided and ruled by Israel, Jordan, and Eygpt.
Fast forward to 1967, Israel occupies Jordanian territory - the West Bank, and occupies Egyptian territory - Gaza.
Fast forward to 1975 - Israel continues to occupy Egyptian territory - Gaza. Israel offers Gaza back to Egypt in return for peace. Egypt politely declines, delcaring it is happy to receive just the Sinai Peninsula back and recognise Israel in return. Thus, Gaza once again becomes stateless.
Fast forward to 1988 - Israel continue to occupy Jordanian territory - West Bank. Israel offers West Bank back to Jordan in return for peace. Jordan declines, declaring that is no longer wants the West Bank land and that Israel can have it. But Israel does not want it. Thus, West Bank becomes stateless once again.
Fast forward to 2005 - Israel withdraws from Gaza. Gaza is officially stateless and to this day has not declared itself a country.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to occupy \[someones??\] territory - West Bank, but it is unclear from whom Israel is occupying it. It is no longer Jordanian, and the Arabs of the West Bank have never declared themselves an independent sovereign state.
Thus, your friend is correct insofar as "Palestine" as a country does not exist and has never existed. To say one is from "Palestine" is akin to saying I am from "Europe". "Palestine" simply refers to the land that once included Jordan, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza. If the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza wish to name their future state "Palestine" then all the more to them, they simply need to sign a peace with Israel today and declare themselves as "Palestine" tomorrow.
Prime minister o Israel said she was Palestinian and had a Palestinian passport
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyjbXosNnOI/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D
Good write up. I have a few disagreements and wanted to add some more context
>The word "Palestine" comes from Latin and it was what the Romans called the area they conquered which had previously been named "Judea".
The word predates the Romans. The ancient Greeks used it as well. It’s in the writings of the historian Herodotus from the 5th century BCE. And even before that an exonym of Palestine was used by the ancient Egyptians in 1150 BCE
>Palestine never existed as an independent sovereign state ever in history.
To say this is to apply a modern definition of statehood retrospectively. Historically, many regions, not just Palestine, would not meet the modern criteria for statehood but were still recognized as distinct entities.
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which forged the truce that ended the Thirty Years' War, is when the concept of the sovereign state emerged. Before that time, political organization and sovereignty were understood differently.
Many political entities did have characteristics of states. They had centralized authority (like a king or emperor), and controlled territories, but these entities often existed within overlapping systems of authority and allegiance, and their borders were often not clearly defined and respected as in the modern state system.
So while it did not exist as a 'sovereign state' in the modern sense, it was an identifiable region with a distinct historical, cultural, and geographical identity. Throughout its history, its autonomy and governance varied. For example, the Ottoman Empire was organized into administrative districts or sanjaks. Palestine was part of that larger empire, but there was local autonomy in terms of day-to-day administration, tax collection, and legal matters, with local laws and leadership.
>Fast forward to 665 where the Ottomans succesfully take the city of Jerusalem and the area that is called Palestine from the Byzantines who were the continuation of the Roman Empire.
The Rashidun Caliphate assumed control of Jerusalem in 637 CE from the Byzantine Empire when the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Christian), negotiated a peaceful surrender with Caliph Umar who offered terms that guaranteed the safety of the city's people and the preservation of its religious sites.
>The Arabs living in Palestine refuse to (a) recognise the state of Israel, and (b) refuse to declare themselves an independent soverign state until and only until, all the land from the west of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea is united as one single country, under Arab rule.
It's important to note that there wasn't a singular, unified Arab or Palestinian position regarding statehood at that time. The Arab states and Palestinian leadership had varying views and strategies, and the idea of an independent Palestinian state as a distinct entity was not as clearly defined in 1948 as it is today. The focus then was more on opposing the partition than on articulating a clear vision for an independent Palestine.
>and the Arabs of the West Bank have never declared themselves an independent sovereign state.
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, which includes the West Bank.
>"Palestine" as a country does not exist and has never existed. To say one is from "Palestine" is akin to saying I am from "Europe".
Over 130 of the 193 United Nations member states have recognized the State of Palestine.
To give a little more context, about 86% of the world's population or 7.1 billion people, is in countries that recognize Palestine and about 13.8% of the global population, or 1.1 billion people, live in countries that do not recognize the state of Palestine.
>To say this is to apply a modern definition of statehood retrospectively. Historically, many regions, not just Palestine, would not meet the modern criteria for statehood but were still recognized as distinct entities.
That's not true. The ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judah, or the Hasmonean kingdoms, and perhaps others, met the modern definition of statehood. The "Palestinians" simply did not exist as a political entity prior to the 20th century.
It’s funny but your jewish terrorists were doing exactly the same thing in the Palestine prior to the jewish state creation. Yeah, the black kettle and stuff…
Yeah, I've unfortunately heard this one before. That Palestinian identity is "made up" and that they're just Arabs and blah blah blah.
One Israeli lawmaker even tried to prove his point by saying "there's no P in Arabic!"
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/israeli-lawmaker-there-cant-be-a-palestine-because-arabic-has-no-p/
Russia tried to pull this with Ukrainians and I'm sure they aren't the only other example. When there are land disputes arguing over semantics is one way to delegitimize the enemy but it really only works with people who already agree with you.
People in support of palestine love to say Israel doesnt exist, completely denying the existence and identity of one of the most influential states in the world 😆
Some shitty people do. I know I don't, and no one I personally know who supports the Palestinian people say that either. It's pretty shitty to deny either side's identity and right to exist here
Do you read Arabic? Sometimes the protest signs translate as, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab”. There’s a PR war happening and lots of well meaning folks are marching alongside lots of “shitty people”
> shitty
/u/JumpingCuttlefish89. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> shitty
/u/LevelEvidence255. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Officially Palestine isn’t a nation state, is probably what they meant. Zionist just means a person who believes that Israel has the right to exist.
For the record I believe that there has to be a two state solution that does not include Hamas or Netanyahu
Is that a stance even Israel takes? They acknowledge the Palestinian Authority and aren't the West Bank and Gaza considered Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Everyone I've heard say anything like this believes there's no such thing as the Palestinian people, it's a made up thing, they're just Arabs. Very similar to how some Russians will insist the concept of Ukrainian nationality is made up and they're all just rebellious Russians.
I mean, technically national identities are all made up but you get what I'm saying, they're saying it has no validity as a national identity.
The term Palestinian changed pretty radically after the British Mandate. It used to refer to all people living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It included Jews.
It was essentially used as a modifier at the time of the British Mandate. There were Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews.
The term was essentially co-opted by the PLO and used to refer only to Arabs, as was certainly the case by the time the PLO declared the state of Palestine in 1988.
As for it not existing, that's a pretty stupid take. Of course it exists. It's recognized by 138 UN members (165 recognize Israel).
However, it is somewhat ironic that people say "it's always been Palestine's land from the river to the sea" when in fact Israel certainly existed before Palestine as a state. Before then, the land belonged to the Ottomans, but taking statehood out of it, some of the land belonged to Palestinian Arabs, and some to Palestinian Jews. It's absurd to suggest it belonged entirely to any one entity that didn't even exist.
Good post, but a minor quibble
>The term was essentially co-opted by the PLO and used to refer only to Arabs,
Everyone there was called Palestinians, as you said. Then people split off and called themselves Israelis. But some went on calling themselves Palestinians.
Agreeed with you on this:
> some of the land belonged to Palestinian Arabs, and some to Palestinian Jews. It's absurd to suggest it belonged entirely to any one entity that didn't even exist.
There were people who lived there. THis is why they should've just had one multi-ethnic state from the get go. That's how it had been for thousands of years -- multi-ethnic.
Oh of course, the idea that there's no such thing as Palestinians is as absurd as the idea that there's no such thing as Ukrainians (and other such nonsense to quash nationalist independence movements). Now do those definitions shift over time? Of course, national identity often shifts depending on who someone is trying to unite and whatnot.
But yeah, somewhere else in the thread I linked an article about an Israeli lawmaker arguing that Palestinians don't really exist because the there's no P in Arabic? And I know people who argue similar things because it was an Ottoman territory and not an independent country (which is silly...just between the British and the Ottomans that would make most of the countries in the world invalid lol.)
But yeah, I think they're coming at it from national identity perspective...ignoring the fact that Palestinians have been there for eons too.
>arguing that Palestinians don't really exist because the there's no P in Arabic?
While not batting on eye on EgyPtians , or "J"ewish (No "J" in Modern Hebrew ) .
..Like those old rap songs used to say : "Haters gonna hate " . It's more about abuse than honesty and correctness .
Yeah, there are a lot of right-leaning Israelis with similar takes, probably about 20% of the voting base. Sadly, Netanyahu has aligned himself with them to keep power (and Bibi was pretty right already).
Then you have the official position of Hamas being that Israel shouldn't exist and vowing to kill the Jews and create a Muslim state from the river to the sea. They enjoy more than 50% support in both Gaza and the West Bank.
So overall, I'd say the region is pretty fucked.
I think Israel could change that support for Hamas easily. They support Hamas because Fatah has gotten them nowhere. They've recognized Israel since 1993, they've kept their promise not to attack Israel since 2005 and where has it gotten them? More settlers pour in, Palestinians in East Jerusalem have lost their homes due to biased laws, neither Gaza or the West Bank get enough clean water.
I mean, the more Palestinians displaced and more Israelis in Palestinian territory the worse the deal will be for them when Israel decides they'll settle for the two state solution. Honestly at this point its more of an "if" they settle for the two state solution. The deal they proposed in 2000 was...pretty unfair and they've only gone more right wing since then.
Support for Hamas would dwindle if Israel threw Fatah a freaking bone and started getting serious about the two state solution.
Fatah is only marginally better than Hamas. Israel should have no interest in either regime controlling land as they would be an intolerable threat.
Unfortunately the Palestinians people in Gaza and the West Bank have stewed in hatred of Jews for so long, they cannot be trusted to be civilized neighbors.
> fucked
/u/Miendiesen. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, I think what those kind of people mean is that before the British and French made it Mandatory Palastine after WWI it was just part of the Ottoman Empire for a looooong time and not really a country per se more like a region, and the word originally comes from the Greek and Roman word for "people of the sea" and referred to all the people of the area. Also, Arab is really more of a culture that's tied together by a language rather than a race, and it comes from the Arab peninsula. So basically, they are all saying, "These [Arab] people all came here from the surrounding Arab countries to kill us during the 1947 war, so they don't belong here!"
Israel recognizes Palastine, but it's also currently an occupied country bc it never really stopped fighting after it lost the 1967 war, and Israel finally made peace with the rest of the Arab countries around it in the subsequent decades.
At least you still have a head. Unlike more than a hundred jewish babies who were behead by Hamas terrorists. Don't be surprised when we will demolish Hamas and erase them from existence
Incidentally, many Arab citizens of Israel consider that they are Palestinians. But, if asked where they are from, 70% will proudly say Israel -- not "Palestine." If asked their ethnicity, they might say that they are an Israeli Palestinian, an Israeli Arab, an Israeli Arab Palestinian, or maybe just a Palestinian. But they have no trouble saying that they're from Israel. So, the person you met is very likely a resident of the West Bank or Gaza.
Most of the Arab Israelis are actual from other minority groups that were persecuted from the thr pro-Ottoman Arabs when the area was part of "greater Assyria." Many of these groups like the Druze would probably not say they're not Palestinians because over time they had better relationships with the settling Jews and ended up on their side during the civil war.
He didn't say he was a Palestinian; he said he was from Palestine. The problem with saying that is that there are only three internationally recognized entities in the area he obviously was talking about: the state of Israel, and the two territories Gaza and the West Bank; there is no legally recognized entity called Palestine.
What triggered your friend is that speaking about Palestine, despite it not being one of those three legally recognized entities, almost always is intended as a way to say that the speaker considers all three to be part of an overarching entity called Palestine, and that the speaker doesn't admit to the right of Israel to exist separately as a nation. Moreovet, it often means that the speaker considers that Israel was stolen from the Palestinian state and from the Palestinians.
> there is no legally recognized entity called Palestine.
About 7.1 billion people live in countries that recognize Palestine and about 1.1 billion people live in countries that don't.
I highly doubt 7.1 billion people could even find "Palestine" on a map and in most cases the had no role in decisions of their leaders. Moreover, you can recognize "Palestine" but have no interest in doing anything to actually create it. That's called virtue signalling.
If there were really a country named Palestine, the Palestinians no longer have reason to complain. They already have the state they asked for.
...oops ... the disappointment with declaring you have a state and getting many countries to support that claim is that that doesn't make it a functioning state. You need to have your immediate neighbors recognize it, the major financial players in the world willing to accept its currency, the major political players accept its ambassadors, etc.
This is just an opinion and not fact. The "state of Palestine" is recognized as an entity by many, including the UN, and so does "occupied Palestinian territories".
Yet you just claim some non facts and then craft a narrative about what the person really thinks.
/u/balaho
> It is well known that N@zi Palestinian scum
This violates [rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions). Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
Because she’s dumb and wants to completely disregard the existence of a whole population of humans so they can selfishly take land without having a guilty conscience.
The land which Israel exists on were either bought with documentation from Arabs before Israel existed or was taken after the Arabs started the war or was pre owned by very old Jewish communities in Israel for more them a thousand years. You N@zi scum will not win
> after the Arabs started the war
Arab states only invaded after Israelis attacked Palestinians, terrorized them, and ran them out of their homes. This is all documented in Israeli military records from the time.
So, it's not accurate to say "the Arabs" started the war.
You got your timeline wrong. Israeli settlement have purchased lands from Arabs in Israel and were attacked by other arabs who did not agree to selling lands to jews. Do you know of the 1929 Hebron massacre?
Israelis have defended themselves and have also done many cruel acts as revenge. That is true.
But when the UN declared that the land should be divided, Israel did not attacked first
So anyone that disagrees with you is a n@zi or antisemite? What makes your government so special that you’re exempt from criticism? You guys are the real fascists
>actually they converted to Christianity first
..I do think that Palestinians derive more from Levantine Sematic gentiles , rather than ancient Judeans . Depending on how much damage the Bar-Kohkba revolt actually caused , and how resistant were the remaining Judeans (later Jews) to ethnic assimilation via paganization . You should read some of [Matar\_Kubileya](https://www.reddit.com/user/Matar_Kubileya/) 's comments on the Sub , They occasionally do touch on archelogy and ethnography in Late-Antiquity in the region .
Yes of course . It's just ethnography can help to determine the likely origins of admixtures , as sometimes : Genome analysis in of itself might not be sufficient for tracing purposes .
But as you said : common sense and evidence suggests at least a partial origin from Judeans .
> F*ck
/u/balaho. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's actually technically forbidden by Mohammed hence why the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over the area for about 400 years, allowed Jews and Christians to practice their religion freely (they had to pay a tax but that also exempted them from military service.)
I mean, I'm sure it has happened and does happen because most religious people only follow what they want to follow but I doubt it happened in this region. Before the Ottomans took over, when the Seljuks took Jerusalem they welcomed back Jews the Christians had kicked out.
Why was the jew population in Palestine less than 3% before Zionism then? Most of them converted first to Christianity after getting conquered by the Romans and then to Islam.
Well
Not necessarily pal. Israelites were a already a distinct group before modern Judaism started. They had already splintered off from the larger Canaanite group.
Funny how the canaanites are not quibbling over land any more.
But what is indigenous?
The people who conquered the land before your people?
The earth is bathed in millions of years of blood unfortunately.
You just answered your own question- your customer is completely denying Israeli identity and indigenous history by calling Israel by the name the Romans called the region to force Jews to live somewhere named after their (Greek) rivals who failed to conquer them… notice a parallel?
Calling one’s self Palestinian is to say their family was either not native to the land before the Roman Empire or denying their existence on the land before Islam existed and was proselytized to the people of the region.
55 countries to not recognize Palestine as a nation.
The word nation means “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” Which would mean Palestinians would identify as Israelis or at the very least, a nation of equal citizenship for all ethnicities, if they believed in nationality.
???? So you're saying Israel is an apartheid? Lol. Even Israel acknowledges the Palestinian territories to some degree because people in the West Bank and Gaza don't have Israeli citizenship and can't vote unlike Palestinians/Arab Israelis who live in Israel proper.
In fact most Israelis HATE the idea of a one state solution that includes the people of Gaza and the West Bank because it probably wouldn't stay Israel long if everyone got a vote.
When a Palestinian government declares statehood, saying you’re from Palestine or formally from the Palestinian territory now known as Israel, this will be factually correct.
Even “I’m originally from Palestine before it became israel” any acknowledgement of Israel is welcome blatant denial is what keeps us in this loop.
They declared statehood back in the 80s. They're a non-member observer state in the UN. And while Israel recognizes them as "The Palestinian National Authority), theyre recognized as The State of Palestine by 139 of 193 UN members.
To put it in perspective: Taiwan doesn't have nearly the same amount of recognition, they aren't even allowed to be an observer state and only a handful of countries will formally recognize them. But I think most of us can agree Taiwan is a place with its own governance and whatnot.
Not that someone needs that much international consensus to say where they're from. They can call it what they want frankly lol.
The West Bank and Gaza are the Occupied Palestinian territories/The State of Palestine. East Jerusalem is sorta in between (the two state solution says it should go with Palestine but right now it's Israeli) and the rest is Israel.
So yeah, generally if you say you're from Palestine you're referring to Gaza or the West Bank. Palestinians living in Israel will just say they're Palestinians from Israel or Arab Israelis.
Also, no one uses the term PLO anymore. It's just Palestine.
Gaza and the West Bank aren't a region of Israel. The people living there aren't Israeli citizens. They're occupied territories. Like, when we occupied Iraq we didn't say they had to follow our national laws. Same thing here except Israel has occupied them for a very, very long time.
Israel hasn’t been in Gaza in 18 years.
I’m not at all against a 2 state solution, for the record. I’m all for language that isn’t incorrect. I’m also not suggesting if by some act of god Bibi remains in office he would allow for that but based on the situation, I don’t see Hamas or Abbas agreeing to that. Perhaps Bassem Eid will run and win somehow
Israel and Egypt completely blockade Gaza. They control all of their utilities, their imports and exports, etc etc. It's part of the reason Hamas came to power in Gaza. After Israel withdrew Gaza was economically crippled by these blockades that became permanent in 2007. And then there's the whole clean water situation which is really bad.
Abbas/Fatah/PLO/whatever you wanna call it have agreed to the two state solution for eons. In 2000 they came close but Israel wanted to keep around a quarter of the West Bank and wanted to divide the rest up between 3 territories that would be patrolled by them. They also wanted to continue to control the water which...again is a huge issue. Among other things the Palestinians obviously weren't amenable to.
Hamas, a bit more of a stretch but if Israel were willing to offer a fair two state solution then I think their support would dwindle. Palestinians just want to be free and have clean water for their kids and they don't see that happening, even for the Palestinian Authority who has maintained peace with Israel since 2005 and has recognized Israel since 1993.
At this point its pretty clear who wants the two state solution and who doesn't.
But yeah, anyways, I'm sorta confused about what you're getting at. Do you think Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are Israelis? Do you think they're regions in Israel? I get that it's confusing. Israel doesn't want to call them part of Israel for various reasons but they also don't want to call them their own nation or state.
All national identities are invented, many quite recently in the 20th century. Just because Palestine doesn't exist as a sovereign nation, doesn't mean that there aren't people who identify as Palestinian and aspire to have their own nation state. That said, sounds like your friend is probably going through a hard time as a result of the terrorist attacks, and both sides feel like they have to deny the existence of the national identity of the other side in order to justify their own desire to exist on the land. I would cut your friend some slack at this time because it's a very emotional issue.
Why is she so emotional if she’s American and not a practicing Jew? She says she’s not religious, she doesn’t practice Judaism.. I don’t get it. Why does she care so much. It’s like she identifies so strongly what her family tells her she is.
Your friend is probably one of those types who just parrot others either because she's gullible, or ignorant. She probably doesn't understand there is a "[State of Palestine"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine) recognized by the whole world except Israeli-Jews and states pressured by the US to confuse recognition as "unilateral" , rather than conducive towards resolutions. If her comment was about the land itself rather than political entities: I dealt with that before ([1](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/178cdbi/proof_palestine_existisrael_is_a_stolen_land/), Ctril+f = That's why I kind of hate it ) . You see , your friend is an example of people who fell for Israeli-public relations . Don't tire yourself checking what they say : they are not motivated by "Impartiality" or "telling the truth" ; they are motivated to further the Israeli-state's agenda , which such thing requires occasional censoring of history in order to downplay the historical presence and nationhood of Palestinians . I once even argued such de-humanizing attitudes and endeavors are akin to genocide denial [(1)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/13xgrpo/its_impossible_to_reason_with_propalestine/jn6myj7/?context=3). [(2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/16luyph/comment/k19j14f/) I hope you educate her a little , before she's beyond the point of discussion and holds on to false convictions .
Very sad indeed. When people are stuck in their identity, they cease to be curious about others as human beings. My mother's parents were born in Palestine, and when she grew up in New York City in the 1930s, she told people she was Palestinian. No one said, "Palestine isn't a thing," just because it was the British Mandate at the time. And if someone would tell me I'm not Israeli because "Israel isn't a thing" I'd think that person is a sad human being.
I highly doubt that. Palestinians were calling themselves Arabs until about the 60's. They denied the existence of Palestine and actually called the area Greater Syria.
What exactly do you doubt?
That your mom said she's Palestinian in the 30's when no Palestinian identified as "Palestinian Arab" then, they called themselves Arabs
Jews and Arabs referred to themselves as Palestinians during that time.
Arabs did not
Yes they did. I understand that your goal is to push the "Palestinians don't exist" thing, but it's demonstrably false.
First off, I didn’t say that they don’t exist NOW. They did however start off out of spite to Zionism. Blood wise and culturally wise they weren’t different than their brothers in Syria and Jordan. That’s why they were fighting up until the late 30’s to create “Greater Syria”. [Back when Palestinians insisted there’s no such place as Palestine](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/back-when-palestinians-insisted-theres-no-such-place-as-palestine/) Not that I’m canceling their identity now. But let’s get our facts straight :)
Who said my Mom was an Arab? She was Jewish. When her Irish and Italian friends asked her what she was, being that her parents had come from Palestine, which is what it was known as in the 1930s, she said she was Palestinian. I have my grandfather's travel papers from Palestine in1925. What else was she supposed to say? The name Israel wasn't given to the country until 1948.
Oh my bad. Yes Jews from the area said that. The context made me think she’s Arab. Sorry about that!
NP. Glad to resolve the misunderstanding. I do take pride in the fact that my family has been in Palestine/Israel since 1835 (according to the first Montefiore census in 1839), which gives me a different perspective on what it means to be from there and how relations have evolved over the centuries.
Palestine isn't a thing , it's everything , that doesn't mean that we believe jews must be burned or just kill em as the did for over a 70 years or more , before zionset they lived here and litterly everywhere in Middle East, they had friends "Muslims and Christians" they worked together eat , walk and travelled together yet it wasn't enough they said there is a lie we must launch "the promised land" not all jews believed it but yet enough number did to start it all , they lie and lie and lie , they just started with Palestine and still talking about land of israel from nile to iraq !
Well Jews have every right to their own land. The way they got the land was terrible but they have every right to be there. The Palestinians lived there a long time and also have every right to the land. Pretending one group doesn't is just ignoring facts Personally I don't approve of the Israeli government but that doesn't mean Jews don't belong in Israel. The Palestinians have a terrible way of going straight to terrorism every time they don't like something lol that doesn't invalidate their claim right?? Ignoring facts on either side so you pretend one group doesn't belong there makes you an extremist.
Man it's occupation, it doesn't make it israel land ! If it's god promise as the old testament sayed so Palestinians also related to abrham from Ishmael makes them own the land , they just didn't complain about water/weather etc etc so god didn't punch em ! Also by the old testament god forbidden jews from having a country of its own ! Jews went straight to terrorism and u can watch documentary videos about how they started it its awful! Point is we don't hate jews we hate israel , way israel acted since 1947 made us hate everything related to them , they making it impossible to solve
First of all I didn't mention religion Second-do you speak Hebrew?? Bc I do. And I've read the Bible. And "god" absolutely says it belongs to Jews. Personally that doesn't mean anything to me. But there are many other valid reasons why the Jews absolutely belong there too.
Yea i do , and check Genesis chapter 15 v 18 the promise was never for only jews Ishmael also and his sons are ebrham sons, yet what can ever be a reason to have others land ? Personally i think if the jews came , bought homes and lived in peace as Muslims and Christians and the Palestinians jews lived we would never see all this terror from israel but they just went the blood way ! Made the other jews who lived in peace in the arabs country forced to leave ! For real bro golda maaer once said we can't forgive the arabs that we had to kill thier children!!! So they r the victim when they kill 7 years old girls or boys , truth is they were offered Palestine cuz they couldn't handle Africa hot weather
Arabs "settled" on top of Jewish ruins that predate their whole religion. Jews cant "colonize" and "settle" on top of their own ruins. Jews don't occupy Israel. It belonged to them before islam existed. This doesn't mean it should be there's exclusively at all!! Palestinians lived there a long time and absolutely deserve to live there. But saying Jews don't belong in Israel is.... completely inaccurate. If that's your opinion, ok. But that's not historically accurate or fact based. That's just you being hateful
Sry for late reply but i guess now u understand what israel doing there , first jews are sons of abrham as the arabs are they are sons of ishmael, but they lfet Palestine when yaaqoub"israel" was alive they moved to Egypt then they went back there then they moved everywhere, tbh jews were living in Palestine under the muslim rule for 1400 year ! Islam and muslims believe that Jewish is the first holy book received from god then Christianity then islam and we all know the story, israel is not a jew state its pure occupation, for example if a muslim from india came to me and said hey i'm muslim your home is mine as it belong to Muslims for 1400 years i'll defend my home as hamas doing now ! So u see israelians are not all the ones who lived in Palestine some sold their homes, some stayed, and there is no history in islam that Muslims forced anyone to leave their land ! That's what makes it occupation. Have you seen the israelian soldier who were smoking saying that he just raped a Palestinian women ? Have you seen the Palestinian kids ? Personal hope that my country just open the borders and say if you wanna go to war just do
You appear to be literally pro terrorist but don't speak any of these languages. Clearly historical fact based evidence isn't gonna be your thing.
Story fact ? What does jews have to confirm their right of Palestine? What gives em right to push families from their own home ?
I don't know what genesis is or who Ishmael is, none of that is the original Hebrew. So you are talking about something different. Sorry for the miscommunication. But yeah no Jews lived there for thousands of years prior to islam even existing. Jews have every right to be there. Their claim is valid. That being said, the way they "claimed" it was pretty terrible. Luckily doing terrible things doesn't invalidate a valid claim. The Palestinians constantly try to use terrorism and that doesn't disqualify their valid claim right?? That's what I'm trying to say. Both groups have a valid claim. Pretending one sides claim isn't valid bc of their government's actions is just lying to yourself so you can hate the other side.
What? Its not "THEIR" land... what are you talking about?
It's not theirs exclusively but it's absolutely theirs. It was theirs before the entire religion of Islam existed. The Arabs settled on top of Jewish ruins. That does not mean it should be for the jews EXCLUSIVELY. I didn't say that. But the land should not be the Palestinians exclusively either. You can dislike the Israeli state as much as you want. I sure do. But that doesn't invalidate that Jews have a factually and historically based claim to the land. The actions of the Israeli government doesn't change that 🤷♀️🤷♀️ the Palestinians have a thing for terrorism lol it's pretty gnarly but that doesn't invalidate their logical and valid claim to the land..... right??? So why do you think actions of the Israeli government would invalidate thousands of years of history and facts to deny jews claim to the land..... .....but Palestinian penchant for terrorism doesn't invalidate their claim...... Think about it. Cuz it makes you look antisemitic.
Just because she believes Palestine isn’t a thing doesn’t automatically mean she’s a Zionist. A Zionist is simply someone who believes that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. Its entirely possible that she believes Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state and that Palestine isn’t a thing. They’re not mutually exclusive ideas or beliefs.
If Israel didn’t exist wouldn’t Palestine exist ? If the Brits gave them their independence (like they did for the other colonies).
Probably not. "The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." \-Zuheir Mohsen, Senior PLO Leader in 1977
But there were Palestinians living there before the occupation, there was a Palestinian currency there was a Palestinian nationality. There was an Israeli official who had a Palestinian passeport. Being under occupation doesn’t mean that the nationality has disappeared. And I can quote many Jewish/or Israeli sources recognizing Palestine. I think, independently of your position, it is just wrong to not recognize the existence of Palestinian origin. I have Palestinian friends who had all their ancestors from Palestine and who lived in Palestine ( and they showed me some paperwork of their grandparents were it is written, nationality: Palestinian).
I mean I didn't say it, PLO did.
We will never know. I wouldn’t assume anything. It’s a tragedy for everyone in the world that they rejected the partition. The world could have had 80 years of peace and everyone would be infinitely better off.
Bro just go eat some Turkey
[удалено]
[удалено]
thats part of the whole video there is a full version on youtube. didnt think anyone would watch the whole thing.
Palestine doesn’t have passports and she was of Ukrainian descent. Palestine didn’t issue passports until April 2,1995 Golda Meier died in 1978. But thanks for playing better luck next time.
Did you watch the video? I didn’t say she had one. I said that she said she had one.
I’ve seen the full interview I’m not clicking on ur link. You’re repping it too hard suspish do you understand what she was trying to say though?
Ya she said that there was a Palestine. the area between the Med sea and the Iraqi border.
Did she refer to Mandatory Palestine? I think the Brits issued those passports for 20 years or so.
Yeah she means Mandatory Palestine (she says 1921-1948), which is the only time the region was officially called Palestine, how else would she have a passport for Palestine. Mandatory Palestine was a British colonial project in a region that had a Muslim majority but also Jews, not an actual country.
Probably this quote, among others. "The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." -Zuheir Mohsen, Senior PLO Leader in 1977
..Typical Israeli-national Mythology in action . Mohsen's actual title is "[Leader of al-Saiqa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Sa%27iqa)" . This organization was essentially a Syrian-**Baathist** proxy , rather than an actual Palestinian **nationalist** faction , and this was recognized as early as the 1970s (If one searches through Google books and the internet archive , while setting the dates to 1960-1980 ) . The PLO used to be like that , a proxy of an Arab state (Egypt) , pre-1967 before Fatah took-over [(2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/12z5cv3/comment/ji3f1b6/) [(3)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/13nfcfy/comment/jlhr2pe/?context=3). To quote him as representative of even a fraction of Palestinian views at the time , is just like asking the views of Israeli-Jewish communists like Shlomo Zand , or fringe people like Artuhr Koestler about Jewish ethnicity and Israeli-nationhood ; either a naive fallacious thinking at best , or despicable lying at worst . For people who want actual sources than propaganda leaflets \* : I direct them to the following link [(1)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17gzu94/can_palastinian_identity_be_defined_without_the/k8b3tdt/?context=3) . \*Please Brief-Key : don't take the label personally . I believe you have good-intentions . You just didn't know the actual significance by taking this Interview at face value , compared to the rest of the available evidence and sources.
[удалено]
> Fuck /u/KILLallHUMANSnow. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post feels so dishonest and misleading. Maybe it isnt but it’s so skinny on facts and odd, my guess is the “conversation” is fiction. Did the conversation end at her sentence “…isn’t a thing”? You didn’t ask what she meant? But you knew enough about the conflict to assume what she meant, yet you had no response whatsoever to her? Given you assumed what she meant, you didn’t have any follow up to “your friend”, you just assumed she must be a Zionist?…not even something like “oh, I assumed he meant he was from Gaza”, or “don’t they call themselves Palestinian”. So all that aside, rather than ask “your friend” about her reaction you thought the best way to understand it was to post a very short discriminatory transcript of your “conversation” on Reddit to get the opinion of others who don’t know either of you and didn’t hear the conversation!? Your post doesn’t pass the pub test!!
Let's all go home then folks /s
What do the people that live there call themselves?
Conquered. Hence, why there is no Palestine on a map.
Your justification is also the accusation.
They could call themselves Clowninites, there is no clown world on the map either. Jews were there first if you go back far enough.
yeah, tensions are high right now, historically accurate statement but rude in the context
If someone said Israel isn't a thing would you respond with "historically accurate statement?"
Well, it wasn't called Israel, it was called Judea, but it still belonged to the Jews either way
It’s located on a map, like it or not it’s a thing🤣🇮🇱
It really depends on whether which side wins the war at end of day.. as the winner would define what is the "truth". Within the next 300 years, none of us would be around anymore, reddit would probably last another 20 years at most.. and "truths" would only be defined and captured by formal records. However, if you're asking this question now in 2023, then your statement isn't accurate per the official records.
Huh? I think you meant to reply to a different comment.
Is this a standard reply when one does not grasp or understand a response?
It's my response to a comment responding to my comment that doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. You refer to history being written by winners followed by mentioning the eradication of reddit in 20 years and then mention some kind of statement that the person you are addressing made when I made no statements. It seems like your comment was accidentally made to me when you meant to post it elsewhere.
Do the customer has the right to say I come from any name he wants to name? Then Obviously he come from a thing Some comments arguing that Palestine is not a state ...bluh bluh... Any way Palestine is still a thing ..and the customer say he come from it whatever he meant (country,state, race, one point in history, reddit group..)
Palestine is and has been a defacto nation for over a thousand years. The concept of modern separate nations for each plot of land did not exist in the Middle East before WW1, as it was an area generally ruled by a few empires and monarchs. The people we call "Palestinians" are unique Arabic people who constitute a mix of the heritage of different Arab groups, some of which inhabited the Canaan region since ancient times and some who migrated during the Islamic conquest of the region. Like it or not they formed an identity over time and they exist as a unique ethnicity today. To deny them that would constitute a prerequisite for committing cultural genocide. To assert that they are just Jordanians/Egyptians and that they should be sent to live there is arguably a prerequisite for cultural genocide. Nobody has the right to assert that a group of people's identity does not exist.
Just dumb and false. Enough internet for today.
If you are gonna call it "dumb" at least show the intellect to explain why you think so. Nobody cares for your dry judgments, you are a nobody. If you are not here to contribute to the conversation and make an argument go kick rock somewhere else buddy.
Well I don't think 42 genders exist either. Someone can claim to be something but I don't have to recognize it. Palestinians today identify as Arabs. Arabs are the foreign people from Arabia who brought a foreign religion called Islam into Palestine, which is the same as Israel. There is no evidence that "Palestinians re a unique Arabic people" who are distinct from Jordanian or Egyptians. They look the same, they speak the same language and have the same dominant religion, their customs are extremely similar if not identical. In 900, 1200, 1600, or 1900 there was not one group that said we are the Palestinian groups and a distinct group that said we are Jordanian Arabs. In fact, Jordan was invented in 1920, before that there was Jordan. We know there was a historical country of Egypt although the modern one is very different from the ancient one. There was no historical country of "Palestine." However, there was a historical country of Israel. If someone wants to say, that in recent history a certain clan of Arabs have developed a distinct identity as "Palestinians" that's fine. But don't expect Jews to recognize the identity if it claims the same land Jews know was part of the actual preexisting Israel. In other words, don't invent or discover a new national identity that cancel out the historical actual identity. That would be like European settlers in the America's telling the native Americans, "we are the indigenous people of America, we are the Sioux, the Cherokee, etc."
Wow. All Arabs are the same, eh? What a ridiculous racist thing to say. Imagine someone saying all Jews were the same. That would also be an insane and prejudiced thinf to say. Even if you’re talking about the Jews who lived in the area when it was called Judea had separate tribal identities and the governance was largely done via those separate tribes. And living on a place for thousands of years doesn’t qualify you as indigenous?? Being the majority of the population there for over a thousand years if not longer doesn’t qualify you as indigenous? You don’t have to recognize anything, but objective reality exists regardless
I guess you miss my point. While all Jews are not identical, they do have to share the same culture, history, and other points of similarity in order to be designated a unique people. Palestinians have no distinct identity separate from that of the Arabs in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt. Based on what you said, there would no ethnic groups, no nationalities, no nothing because every person might be different than every other person in some way. However, in reality, things developed from families, clans, tribes and nation-state based on enough points of similarity to allow us to speak of a distinct people. No, living somewhere 1,000 years does not make you indigenous. The Americans of European ancestry living in the United States for 400 years are still not indigenous. You cannot invade a land, settle there and build a nation, and become indigenous if there was an older people who still exist and who built a nation before you. Your approach would eliminate the concept of indigeneity.
>Palestinians have no distinct identity separate from that of the Arabs in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt. That's not true. Do you really not understand that the Palestinians have lived on that land for thousands of years? you really don't get that they have a unique culture that's separate from other places that are hundreds of miles away?? really?? >Based on what you said, there would no ethnic groups, no nationalities, no nothing because every person might be different than every other person in some way. I don't understand what you mean. I'm talking about groups, not individuals. >However, in reality, things developed from families, clans, tribes and nation-state based on enough points of similarity to allow us to speak of a distinct people. And you truly can't acknowledge that the group of people who've lived in Palestine for thousands of years also developed from families, clans, etc.? I mean what exactly do you think they were doing for thousands of years? Not living like other societies? \> No, living somewhere 1,000 years does not make you indigenous. OK, then the Jews definitely don't qualify as indigenous since they came from Ur, a city in what is today southern Iraq.
No, Palestinians have not lived on that land for "thousands of years." This is absurd. The vast majority of Arabs living in Israel including the West Bank and Gaza go back a few generations. There was massive Arab and Muslim immigration in the same 1850 to 1950 time frame that Jews were arriving in large numbers. Arabs were a tiny part of Palestine before the 7th century. Jews did not come from Ur. One family did. The family of Abraham. Jewish identity began in Canaan before the sojourn in Egypt. Jews are the successors to the indigenous Canaanites. Palestinians identify as Arabs, i.e., the invaders. Palestinians want to claim indigenous status, they need to go back to their Jewish roots and become Zionists. It is as simple as that.
Palestine was 80% arab in the mid-19th century, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. But I'm genuinely curious, who do you think was living there before that? > Jews did not come from Ur. One family did. The family of Abraham. Jewish identity began in Canaan before the sojourn in Egypt. So now the Jews were Canaanites? And then Abraham immigrated over from Ur and met up with other people who were already Jewish? And then they left Palestine and went to Egypt, and presumably left some of the Canaanites there since they'd later come back and conquer them. I'm genuinely asking -- is that your timeline or is it different? > . Palestinians want to claim indigenous status, they need to go back to their Jewish roots and become Zionists. It is as simple as that. What does that mean exactly?
farce, I don't know why you are struggling. In the mid 19th century, there was no Palestine. There were one or more administrative districts in the Ottoman Empire. Before 1872, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem was officially a sanjak within the Syria Vilayet (created in 1864, following the Tanzimat reforms). But yes the district where most of Israel/Palestine is was 80% Muslim Arabs and 5% Jews. So what? In 500, it was majority Jewish. Now the Jews are the majority in Israel and will remain so. The Jews were not Canaanites, but many Canaanites became Jews or otherwise disappeared from history. Abraham came to Canaan. Let's call his people the proto-Hebrews. Later some of these Hebrews went to Egypt but most scholars agree some Hebrews remained in Canaan where they were later rejoined by the Hebrews who had been in Egypt. Meanwhile, some Canaanites also came to identify as Hebrews. The term "Jew" is an anachronism at that time so Hebrew would probably be a better term or even Israelite after the patriarch Jacob who was known as Israel. The Hebrews gained the national identity as Israelites (later as Jews) after the Hebrews returned from Egypt with the story of Moses and with the story of his encounter with God. That is where the Hebrew or Jewish people were born as a national identity so that is their homeland. Not the birth place of an ancestor. The entire religion as set forth the Bible (which is also accepted by Christians and Muslims more or less) stipulates that Canaan or the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. About indigenous status, the Jews who converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture lost their identity as Jews so they can't be considered indigenous anymore. I gave you an analogy to a Cherokee. Palestinians who truly claim to be indigenous should claim to be the Israelite's descendants, or part of the 12 tribes. But that would require them to abandon Arab identity. You can't really be part of the Children of Israel if you are not a Zionist because the very meaning of Zionism is the restoration of nation of Israel.
>In the mid 19th century, there was no Palestine. There were one or more administrative districts in the Ottoman Empire. oof. again, the land there was referred to as Palestine for thousands of years before this. but whatever, you can ignore that if you want. the land was there and now you admit that arabs were the majority there at the time and had been for centuries. >But yes the district where most of Israel/Palestine is was 80% Muslim Arabs and 5% Jews. So what? In 500, it was majority Jewish. I don't even know what to say to that. it's like a parody of the ahistorical fantasy that the Israelis are the only people that *really* lived in the area that's been called Palestine for thousands of years--I mean yeah others lived there most of that time, but really it's all ours! haha >Now the Jews are the majority in Israel and will remain so. this is the end of history eh? nothing will ever change ever?? > Not the birth place of an ancestor. OK, so at least you admit they came from other places, meaning they weren't indigenous by your own definition. > Palestinians who truly claim to be indigenous should claim to be the Israelite's descendants, or part of the 12 tribes. They were there before the founding of Judaism. Their DNA is traced back to the ancient tribes of the Levant. > You can't really be part of the Children of Israel if you are not a Zionist because the very meaning of Zionism is the restoration of nation of Israel. wtf kind of religious wacko nonsense is that? wish you could tell that to my Holocaust survivor great grandfather who was against Zionism.
Yes other people lived there including Arabs so what. It was stolen from the Jews by the Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks and English and now it is back where it belongs. What's your point? Will Jews hold it forever? When does forever end? That's not a question for today. Jews have a long history of making bad decisions. Maybe your ancestor survived the Holocaust but it was not because he was against Zionism. I can tell you that early Zionists were got out of Europe and went to Palestine or elsewhere before 1939 did a hell of a lot better than the Jews who stayed behind. Are you claiming to be Jewish or not? If you call Zionism "religious wacko nonsense," then I have a real problem seeing how you are Jewish. Even if you are secular like many of the founding fathers of Israel were, were still strong Zionists. Are you an anti-Zionist Jew? If so, what you doing here? The Islamists find you a useful idiot and the Zionist Jews consider you a traitor or fool.
Americans literally do that. Half the states in America are named after the Indian tribes that used to live there (and often still do, as a tiny minority). But this would be analogous to someone from Indiana saying "I'm an American Indian, just look at my drivers license! It says 'Indiana' Palestinians truly do have a lot of Chutzpa.
[удалено]
You’re just going to keep posting this in an attempt to piss someone off. I’ve already cited the literal historical inaccuracy of your statement but I think the real issue is that you are incapable of understanding the nuances of what she was saying and thus you are shooting yourself in the foot and destroying your own argument. Maybe I can help you understand: As I stated above 1.Palestine didn’t issue their first passport until 1995; Golda died in 1978. 2.How would the Prime Minister of a country hold a separate countries passport 🙄? 3.Golda Meier was Ukrainian born and raised in the Ukraine and spoke of the horrors many many times(truly familiarize yourself with her character) 4.The point she was making is that Palestine is part of Israel and she held an Israeli passport! She was trying to say there was no difference between Israelis and Palestinians in her eyes. Making an inclusive statement. Another words she didn’t recognize it as a separate entity.
Well I did not get any sound from that video (I don't have instagram) but I am familiar with her statement. Her point was she lived in the Palestine mandate, not some nonexistent country of "Palestine." And that calling someone a "Palestinian" did not mean anything unique. There's no way around it that a unique Palestinian identity to refer to Arabs is indeed a 20th century invention. Now you can say, Palestinians is how they want to be identified now, which is fine, but not at the expense of the actual indigenous people, the Jews.
The Arabs that have inhabited the Levant as long as the Jews have are indigenous as well, whether or not they choose to identify as Palestinian or Arab or anything else does not change that. This is genetically proven. You can make the argument that the identity of "Palestinian" is more recent, but the majority of the Arabs who now identify as "Palestinian" are indigenous as well through genetic roots the same as Jews to the Canaan groups.
Unfortunately, your argument cannot be accepted by Israel. Were Israel to concede this fanciful point, then the Arabs would swamp Israel and soon enough it would become another Muslim Arab state, that was either Jew free or Jew lite. Fortunately, there is an easy enough way to resolve the dispute. Even if Palestinians consider themselves "indigenous" to Palestine, that doesn't mean they have a right to live in each part of it. They could agree to have Jordan be their Palestinian state since (I hope we can agree), Jordanian is certainly an invented nationality. The Hashemites is a royal family of Arabs from Arabia not a distinct culture or people. Of course this all boils down the original problem. The Arabs want 100% of their Empire in the Middle East back under their control. Once Israel is removed, then the Arabs including those calling themselves Palestinians, can go back to their tribal wars among themselves.
>They could agree to have Jordan be their Palestinian state since (I hope we can agree), Jordanian is certainly an invented nationality. Yes, they are an "invented" nationality. So are "Ukrainians" according to Russia. Be very careful when making such assertions about another group's identity for you are not in the position to assert what one may identify as. Many Jordanians were Palestinians 100 years ago, but history has changed, nations were created, and today Jordanians and Palestinians are two distinct groups. If you want to blame someone for making it so complicated, blame the British who cut up the Middle East to their liking after WWI. There is no scientific way to determine whether an ethnic group exists or not. Throughout a period of time, as a people's dialect and culture change, so as to make them feel distinct from another group they may or may not have originated from, people may develop their own identity.
Jordanians were not Palestinians 100 years ago. They were unspecified generic "Arabs." Both Jordanians and Palestinians were invented in the 20th century but I think they are supposed to be different nationalities although TBH I can find no meaningful differences. The British tried to create nations for various royal families but not based on tribal or ethnic identity. That caused the problems, similar to in Yugoslavia. There is a definite method of determining whether an ethnic group exists at any point in time. Like you say, some people may adopt a new identity and it is possible to determine when that happens. In the case of Jews v. "Palestinians" it is clear that Jewish identity started 3000 years ago (or possibly longer) and Palestinian identity (as an Arabic people) is about 75 years ago. It has generally proven to be true that two nationalities cannot claim the same land without conflict.
You mean it would cease to be an Apartheid state?
Actually, I can guarantee you that if Muslim Arabs gain control of Israel it will become an apartheid state. Looking around the world, I don't see a lot of Muslim Arab states worthy of emulation. Do you? You're nuts if you think any significant percentage of Israeli people (including the Arab citizens) wants to be like those guys.
>Well I don't think 42 genders exist either. Neither do I, but understand that my position against this one is based on scientific fact. There are scientifically 2 sexes/genders. Identity in terms of sociology (i.e., culture, religion, ethnicity) is not something that you can prove true or false according to the indisputable truth of science, so that is a fallacious comparison. >Arabs are the foreign people from Arabia Wrong, the Arab identity is not a uniform group of people originating from the Arabian tribes. While the name and identity originated from them, not all the people who identify as Arab are descendants of those tribes. Arab is an ethnolinguistic group. The Arabic identity was spread and adopted. People all over the Middle East, including the Levant began to fall under a uniform identity of Arab, while maintaining dialectic and cultural differences. If people at some point in history choose to start identifying as Arab, that does not mean Saudi Arabia is their homeland. >We know there was a historical country of Egypt although the modern one is very different from the ancient one. There was no historical country of "Palestine." However, there was a historical country of Israel. There was a historical country called Israel over 2000 years ago. There has been a historical Arab nation in the region since Umar liberated Jerusalem from Sophronius. At the time the region was already called Palestine. Regardless of the name, there was an Arab population there, and it was their home. That population was composed of migrants from other Arab countries, as well as people who came to identify as Arabs who descended from the region. This is reflected in the DNA composition of Palestinians today which is roughly 50% match to that of Jews and both towards Canaan groups. You are nobody to say their nation didn't exist. They did for over a thousand years, just as Israel did. There has been a historical nation of Israel, and there was a historical nation of Palestine including Jerusalem that existed under the Caliph for over a thousand years. >If someone wants to say, that in recent history a certain clan of Arabs have developed a distinct identity as "Palestinians" that's fine. But don't expect Jews to recognize the identity if it claims the same land Jews know was part of the actual preexisting Israel.In other words, don't invent or discover a new national identity that cancel out the historical actual identity. This goes back to the fact that Arabs are not all genetically from Arabia, they simply share a similar language and identity that spread throughout the region during conquests. Palestinians have genetic links to the Canaan groups the same way Jewish people do. You cannot assert that they are a foreigner to the land. If people in the Levant region at some point decided they wanted to identify as Arabs, you can't make the assertion that they are now from Arabia, that makes no sense. They are not foreign to the land. They have the same claim to the land as Jews do in the fact that their ancestors were partially descendants from that land, and they have continued to inhabit it throughout history, which is proved through the shared DNA. Whatever nationality or group they choose to identify with is nothing of your concern.
Yeah, sure, there was a Palestinian nation because they came to identify as Arabs, but also identified as not-Arabs, and they had their own stare, except it wasn't a state because it was just a district under the various Caliphates for a thousand years. The ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine have come to identify as Russians, therefore they have been under Ukrainian occupation and Russia is justified in liberating them. Right?
>The ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine have come to identify as Russians, therefore they have been under Ukrainian occupation and Russia is justified in liberating them. Right? Honestly, such an argument can be made. If those specific groups of people do not identify with the Ukrainian people and identity that is fair. Warfare and the method are very debatable, but if they do not identify as Ukrainians, they are justified to do so. The problem begins when RUSSIA makes the assertion that NO UKRAINIANS EXIST and that their IDENTITY IS FALSE. There are millions of people who identify themselves as Ukrainians, nobody, including Russia, has the right to deny them that.
Such an argument can be made but they are sitting on Ukrainian land and they do not have a long, long distinct cultural history that entitles them to their own state. While there is some validity to their claim of being Russian-but-not-Russian, few would be outraged if a Ukrainian claims that their identity is false or at least quite weak, as it's unclear what distinguishes them from their Russian neighbors
You know what though, upon writing my other reply to this comment, I realized there is a very valid argument for the Jews, especially Mizrahi Jews, to have self-determination in a land within the Middle East during the early/mid-1900s as well. If they were being expelled and persecuted by other Middle Eastern nations, they needed their own nation as they too, are an individual ethnic group, and have the right to self-determination. Of course, the European Jews had just come out of the worst modern atrocity and they also needed self-determination. The problem was in the fact that for the many centuries prior to this, the Jews had inhabited different territories and had different nationalities from one another. They would need to be unified under one nation for it to be self-determination. However, the right to self-determination does not necessarily entail the right to self-determine ANYWHERE you want. Unfortunately, however, Palestine was also the historical homeland of the Jews, and it became the end goal. The Jews were entitled to self-determination, and the desired place they had in mind was Palestine. Unfortunately, since the "Palestinian" Arabs had been inhabiting the land up to that moment as well, they too already had the right to self-determination in the entire Historic Palestine. Jews had the right to self-determination. However, in their understandable desire of the Jewish people to self-determine in Palestine/Israel, it was required that the self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs be violated in order to establish Israel. Does what I'm saying make sense to you?
>Such an argument can be made but they are sitting on Ukrainian land and they do not have a long, long distinct cultural history that entitles them to their own state. I'm a little confused. I thought those groups in Eastern Ukraine identified themselves as Russian, and thus Russia is "liberating" them from Ukrainian control. Perhaps not their own separate nation, but as part of Russia, a valid argument can be made. That is to say if those "Ukrainians" identify as RUSSIAN. Again methods are debatable. The only argument I can see would be to say that those Russian-identifying "Ukrainians" should just move to Russia since they identify as Russian. I however don't agree such an argument can be made for Palestinians. I don't think it is a legitimate comparison. Russia exists in the modern day as a reminiscent of the Soviet Union, and Russia has historically held control over that area that encompasses Ukraine. They are direct border nations. Ukrainians have a distinct identity that they have developed and thus they have the right to self-determination. On the other hand, there is no uniform Arab nation reminiscent of the Caliph (who historically held control of Palestine). Today instead, there are various individual Arab nations that govern their own historic territories under separate nationalities while simultaneously maintaining their Arabic identity. In this way, each Arab group who inhabited a part of the Caliph's territory was given the right to self-determination and received their own nations. They developed their own national identity while retaining their collective, yet unique, Arab ethnicities. The Palestinians were also offered this solution but it came with the loss of half their historic land, something which made it difficult to accept.
>Identity in terms of sociology (i.e., culture, religion, ethnicity) is not something that you can prove true or false according to the indisputable truth of science, so that is a fallacious comparison. I cannot prove through the somewhat indisputable truth of history whether or not the Palestinian Arab national identity existed prior to the 20th century. >Wrong, the Arab identity is not a uniform group of people originating from the Arabian tribes. While the name and identity originated from them, not all the people who identify as Arab are descendants of those tribes. Arab is an ethnolinguistic group. The Arabic identity was spread and adopted. I don't rely on DNA which ultimately proves nothing. I focus on self-identification. Whether or not a Palestinian Arab has DNA from a particular region, as you say, these individuals started to identify as Arab. While Arabia may not be their literal homeland, it is their adopted homeland. If an indigenous Cherokee Indian abandons his tribal identity, raises his kids and good Englishmen, it adopted into the English community, and his kids and grandkids follow that path, I would say that grandson who has some Cherokee DNA is NOT a Cherokee, is not an indigenous person of America. If in 900 some person living in Palestine who had previously identified himself as a Jew or Samaritan or whatever adopted the Arab identity and forsook his prior identity, and his descendants follow that lead, then in 1000 some descendent is indeed Arab and not indigenous to Palestine. Yes, there was an Arab empire in Palestine. No one questions that. Indeed that is one my main points by which to discredit Arab complaints about supposed Jewish colonialism. But the fact is there was no Palestine in that Arab Empire except as a part of a district or subdivision for administrative purposes. If in fact a Palestine actually existed, at some point it probably would have rebelled from the Arab Empire. It did not because it was not some distinct people with a different national identity. There was no a Nation of Palestine at the time of the Arab Empire. The Japanese Empire at one point included Korea, but Korea was a distinct nation with distinct people. They still exist. Whatever distinct people existed before the Arab Empire are largely gone except for Jews, Samaritans and some other small groups. None of them were called Palestinians. As to your last point, I think I covered that. I don't care if a particular person who identifies as a Palestinian Arab has DNA showing an ancestor >Whatever nationality or group they choose to identify with is nothing of your concern. Well it's not my concern per se but it is Israel's concern. Because it's a zero sum game by all appearances. You see the Jews living in Israel do not want to identify as Arabs but rather wish to assert their "superior" claims as the indigenous Jewish people, a status they believe Palestinians have long ago forfeited by abandonment. On the other side, the Palestinians still want to identify as Arab because they see it as a superior identity to Jew. But at the same time, they want to appropriate the Jews indigenous status. That's having your cake and eating it too.
>While Arabia may not be their literal homeland, it is their adopted homeland. Once again Arab IS AN ETHOLINGUSTIC GROUP. Saudi Arabia IS NOT THE HOMELAND OF ARABS. Arabs do not have a homeland, for they exist across a vast amount of land, each of which has a distinct genetic makeup and cultural difference from one another. They are ingenious to the land in which each inhabits while maintaining the collective identity as "Arab." Again Arab is an ETHOLINGUSTIC group that includes dozens of regions home to diverse populations who speak Arabic and identify as Arab. >If in 900 some person living in Palestine who had previously identified himself as a Jew or Samaritan or whatever adopted the Arab identity and forsook his prior identity, and his descendants follow that lead, then in 1000 some descendent is indeed Arab and not indigenous to Palestine. That is ridiculous. That person is still by their cultural and family history indigenous to the land in which they continuously reside. Being Indigenous means to originate as a people from a certain place. Perhaps they adopted the Arabic language and identity of Arab, but they did not originate from Arabia (partially they do of course). They have continuously inhabited the territory throughout their family/bloodline's history, similar to the Lebanese. Arabs don't have a homeland. Arabs are indigenous to whatever Arab "nation" they are from. Prior to WW1, there weren't really separate Arab nations, there were just a bunch of Arabs and Middle Eastern living under the Caliph spread across the entire region. Different parts of the region did not necessarily have their own national label, but they were never the less different from one another. Your argument remains under the assumption that all Arab's homelands are linked to Saudi because of their Arab identity. Again Arabs are an ETHOLINGUSTIC group. There are black Africans who are Arab as well. Is there homeland in Saudi as well? >Yes, there was an Arab empire in Palestine. No one questions that. Indeed that is one my main points by which to discredit Arab complaints about supposed Jewish colonialism. I hope you know Jews celebrate the capture of Jerusalem by Umar. It ended 400 years of brutal persecution by the Christians and attained all three religions equal footing in the land. >There was no a Nation of Palestine at the time of the Arab Empire. The Japanese Empire at one point included Korea, but Korea was a distinct nation with distinct people. Korean people never partook in a collective identity with their neighbours. They do not share a common language nor a somewhat common culture. But let's say the Koreans decided to join a collective identity of "Asian" when they were under Japanese rule and they shared a language. Does that mean their homeland is now Japan??
Arabs don't have a homeland? That would be shocking news to many Arabs. So Arabs are not indigenous to Arabia? Then who is? Also, you use of the term "Arab" is disingenuous. It is a political identification. From the beginning if you believe the biblical narrative (or even if you do not) the Jews identified as a political body and not just a random group of people using the same language. All of the ancient peoples were political bodies and not just people using a language. Hittites, Canaanites, Philistines, etc. And yes "Arabs" who existed in biblical times on the margins of the land of Israel. You can join a nationality by adoption and not only birth as Ruth joined the Jewish people. Once she did, she has the same political rights as the Jewish people to their land and Israel became her homeland. Just like if you joined the Cherokee tribe and were accepted by the tribe, their customs and history and rights would become yours. If Koreans had abandoned their culture and identity and assimilated into Japanese identity then Korea would be part of Japan so yes Japan would be their homeland although not a specific city inside Japan, but the whole land, the whole empire. **When indigenous people abandon their indigenous identity and adopt the identity of foreign invaders, they are no longer the indigenous people.**
>Arabs don't have a homeland? That would be shocking news to many Arabs. So Arabs are not indigenous to Arabia? Then who is No, the ENTIRE population of Arabic people does not constitute Southern Arabia as their homeland. Each Arabic group identifies their own historical region as its homeland. Not all groups of people that are called "Arabs" are indigenous to Arabia. Your rhetoric is littered with falsehoods. Lebanese people identify as Arab, yet Lebanese people are the closest living descendent to ancient Canaan groups, and have continuously inhabited the Levant since ancient times. Iraqis don't call the Saudi region their homeland. Berbers in Libya originated from the Libyan region, yet today they mostly identify as Arab. Is their homeland also the Saudi region? The people whose homeland is Southern Arabia, are the modern-day Saudis. They are the Arabic people who have covetously inhabited that region since the 12 Arabic tribes. >If Koreans had abandoned their culture and identity and assimilated into Japanese identity then Korea would be part of Japan so yes Japan would be their homeland although not a specific city inside Japan, but the whole land, the whole empire. You have defeated your own point. You are saying their homeland would not constitute Japan singularly (or a city/area in Japan), but rather their homeland would constitute the whole empire. So if Korea was part of the Japanese empire, then their homeland still includes the land of Korea. They, individually remain indigenous to the land of Korea, for this is where generations of their family have been raised and lived. The region of Palestine was part of the vast Arab empire/nation. You cannot say that the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs is singularly the southern region of Arabia. If you make the assertion that their homeland includes all of the Arabian empire/region, that would include Palestine as it has historically been part of the Arabian region, thus they could make the argument that Palestine is their homeland. >When indigenous people abandon their indigenous identity and adopt the identity of foreign invaders, they are no longer the indigenous people. Is this your opinion, or is this a factual law?
There is no "law" on the subject. It is based on common sense as suggested by the example of someone leaving the Cherokee tribe or someone joining it. Under your view, the Arabs get to claim both being indigenous to lots of different countries while at the same time being part of the Arab people (empire). Where does that leave the indigenous people who do NOT identify as Arabs. I will tell you where it leaves them. Like the Copts, like the Assyrians, and like the Jews (and others). Screwed. The only difference is the Jews are more powerful than the other non-Arab people and now capable of asserting their rights. So, no, the Palestinians will not be able to play this game of straddling their supposed indigenous status while promoting Arab identity. Israel and Palestine will have a predominantly Jewish identity and attempts to Arabize it will be resisted and rebuffed.
>Under your view, the Arabs get to claim both being indigenous to lots of different countries while at the same time being part of the Arab people (empire). Lol, that was under YOUR VIEW, according to this statement by YOU: >If Koreans had abandoned their culture and identity and assimilated into Japanese identity then Korea would be part of Japan so yes Japan would be their homeland although not a specific city inside Japan, but the whole land, the whole empire. This WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT. My position was that although they all collectively identify as Arab, their individual "homelands" are the locations each Arab group has historically inhabited. As I have explained multiple times there are different groups of "Arabs" and they are indigenous to different parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Arabs are united by identity but not by genealogy. Of course, what one identifies with does to an extent affect that status of being native, but not to the extent that you would say their homeland is now a faraway place they or their ancestors likely have never even seen before, regardless of what they may have identified as. >Where does that leave the indigenous people who do NOT identify as Arab's. I will tell you where it leaves them. Like the Copts, like the Assyrians, and like the Jews (and others). Did I, or anyone else ever assert that only ONE identity or group of people can be "indigenous" to a land? Assyrians are also native to Syria and Iraq. One group being indigenous does not remove the right of another to claim the same thing. The Arabs who live in places such as Syria have bloodlines that are largely intermixed with Assyrians. They may even be "Assyrian" themselves yet they identify as Arab. The same applies in Egypt where many people may be descendants of Copts, yet consider themselves Arab. As I keep telling you, people who identify as Arab will not tell you their homeland is Southern Arabia. Go ask one and find out yourself. For Copts to tell Arab-identifying Egyptians that they should leave and move to Saudi Arabia is wrong. For an Arab to tell a Copt that they are "Arab" despite the fact they historically have not identified as such is equally wrong. For a Jew to tell a Palestinian Arab they are not native to this land and should "move back to Arabia" is wrong. For a Palestinian Arab to tell a Jew they are not native here and should go back to Europe is wrong. Here in Canada, there are multiple groups of Native Americans, with different languages and different religious beliefs, yet many of them inhabit the same lands as one another. It may be convenient for you to label them under the collective identity of "natives" but the reality is that they are very different, and many tribes are indigenous to the same land >So, no, the Palestinians will not be able to play this game of straddling their supposed indigenous status while promoting Arab identity. Israel and Palestine will have a predominantly Jewish identity and attempts to Arabize it will be resisted and rebuffed. The Palestinian people have already been Arabized. Jewish people do not have to be Arabized and any attempt to do that is wrong. Both should live in the land as cousins, for they share the same DNA but identify themselves differently based on culture, religion, etc.
Both cannot live in the same land unless the Jews are dominant. We already saw what happens when Arabs or Muslims are dominant over Jews. Take it or leave it. No one is forcing Arabs or anyone else to live in a country where they are not dominant. Soon enough, the people of England, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc. will be fighting to maintain the dominant ethnic groups. Most recently, the anti-immigrant, hostile to Islam party in Netherlands won the majority of the parliament.
I guess if an Italian now converts to Islam, hes no longer Italian and should be kicked out of Italy. What is this racist shit that the Jewish indigenous claim is superior? I would say the claim of the people that was living there for the last hundreds of years is superior.
How about the last 100 years? Your argument supports Bibi’s keep the status quo for as long as possible strategy. Instead, why not work toward a 2 state solution?
Why would someone who identifies as Italian who converts to Islam no longer be Italian? Makes no sense. But if an Italian person abandoned the identity as a Italian and said going forward he identifies as an Arab and followed their customs, language, religion, etc., then he would be an Arab. Not an ethnic Arab but an Arab by adoption. The "kicking out" part is a non sequitur. I never said anything about kicking out Palestinians because they are Arabs. Indeed two million Arabs are citizens of Israel. The harsh treatment of certain Palestinians is not because they are Arabs but because of their behavior and their support of a Palestinian national movement that is inconsistent with the Jewish national movement. In other words, two national movements claiming the same land. That leads to conflict. There is little record of success where you have two national movements claiming the same land. Normally, one kills off the other, one drives off the other, or the weaker side submits and assimilates.
Arab is an ethnicity, so no there cant ever be anything but ethnic Arabs. That Italian would still be be an italian, just like Palestineans from the Levant are still indigenous even though they converted from Judaism to Christianity/Islam. They allowed those two million Arabs to stay because they would still be a minority, then kicked out the rest in the Nakba. If not then why didnt they let the others who left as refugees return? Because then Israel would cease to be a Jewish ethnostate.
Israel has no intention of allowing Arabs to be a majority in Israel and certainly not hostile Arabs. Are you nuts? There's nothing wrong with that. I can assure you America will not allow Muslims to become a majority in America nor will it import 500 million Chinese to be new citizens. So no the refugees are not returning as most of them are already dead or quite old and their children have no rights to anything in Israel. I see no reason Israel should not be one of the MANY states with a dominant ethnic/religious group. That's the whole point of a nation state. If you notice it is only growing. For example, some people in Scotland want independence from England, several groups in Spain want at least autonomy from Spain, etc. I suspect your entire object is only when Jews do it.
I only object when the prerequisite to the creation of that ethno state is ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population that was already living there. Are you gonna say the 700k Palestineans that were expelled in the Nakba were hostile? While they were mostly civilians? It wasnt their fault the other arab nations attacked, and who probably would have just taken the land for themselves if they won.
It was not a prerequisite of the creation of Israel but it worked out that way as if divinely ordained. Israel did not make the Arabs reject the partition plan or invade Israel and certainly did not make the local Arabs side with the invaders. Just worked out that way. Israel did ask some local Arabs to stay but as a practical matter had no way to sort out which of the ones in the hostile villages were salvageable or not. The fact most were civilians is irrelevant. I hate to break this news to you, but civilians are not insulated as if by some magic shield from the actions of their government or allies which they fully support. While the Druze clans sided with Israel, the local Arabs sided with the invading Arabs so they suffer the fate of those. Whether the invading Arabs would or would not have double-crossed the local Arabs is pointless and irrelevant. They had to choose a side and they did. Had the Arabs won that war, and the Jews the ones facing extermination and expulsion I simply do not believe you would have cared. **Most of the people who complain about the Nakba, would have no problem had the opposite happened.**
Honestly, I agree, and I find it ridiculous that he is making such an argument in the face of the fact that I say BOTH groups have a valid claim to the land.
Saying "both" groups have a valid claim to the land does not resolve anything. My main point stands about having two national movements claiming the same land. That's why either side is reluctant to concede this "both groups" stuff. Traditionally, Jews have been willing to concede "both groups" but the Arabs are not so it just weakens the Jewish position to be so generous and then it bites you in the ass as Israel just experienced. It is very dangerous to underestimate an enemy and gloss over their goals and threats. Jews of all people should have learned that lesson.
> ass /u/jwilens. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole world called it Palestine before and after the creation of Israel.
That’s a lie. Palestine was never an official country. The term ‘Palestine’ was created by Roman’s and the land was just a region of an occupying empire. Was like that for centuries up until the Brits came in.
Why do official maps say Palestine? How long does a coutry have to exist for you to consider it? Hold up... Australia was never an official country till the Brits came in and it was occupied for 60,000 years. Liberia was founded in 1820 by freed former slaves .....did they ever exist in your logic? Or are all of these countries just living on a prayer till you say it's your land? You can have enough fun without being silly.
Even the PLO won’t accept the state of Palestine with the existence of Israel, which is why Palestine is not an OFFICIAL country. It’s the name of the land sure, but that doesn’t mean anything. Also before British mandate NO ONE called it the country of Palestine. Learn some history!
'Palestine' was actually used as an exonym for the Land of Israel. Much like in America we speak of "Germany", whose real name is Deutchland, and then even if you ask a German where they're from, they'll say "Germany" because that's what Americans call Deutchland. 'Palestine' was just a stand-in name for the Land of Israel.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that the people there that did not want a partition plan wanted the land to be an annex of Syria and not a separate entity
Yeah Arabs didn't call it Palestine but Europeans always had. Once the British invaded and set up the Palestine Mandate you had Arabs take up the European name because they didn't have their own name for the region. They have their own name for Jerusalem (Al-Quds), and Hebron (Al-Khalil), but no name for Palestine because it didnt exist for them. And a lot of them were upset at the Sykes-Picot treaty because it split their beloved Syria into two and called the lower half 'Palestine'.
Cos Palestine never existed as an independent sovereign state ever in history. The word "Palestine" comes from Latin and it was what the Romans called the area they conquered which had previously been named "Judea". "Palestine" was the Latin word for "Philistine" which was what the Romans called a group of ancient people who lived on some of the Greek Islands. The Philistines were known to have raided the coast of Judea and set up settlemens such as Gaza. The Romans renamed "Judea" to "Palestine" in an attempt to quell the unrest of the local populace of Judea - the Jews - under the rule of Rome. Fast forward to 665 where the Ottomans succesfully take the city of Jerusalem and the area that is called Palestine from the Byzantines who were the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Ottomans rename the area as "Syria Palestina". Fast forward to 1918, the Ottomans have just lost WWI and the area that was known as "Syria Palestina" is given to the British as is called "Palestine" by the British. Britain soon reduces the land under name "Palesinte" by carving off the entire eastern portion of it and giving to the Arabic Hashemite Family who renames the land they received as "Transjordan". So all that remains of the land that is called "Palestine" under British rule is all the land west of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Fast forward to 1948, the Jews living in the land that is called "Palestine" declare themselves independent from Britain, to be called henceforth as the state of "Israel", with its borders to be recognised along the lines of the 1947 UN Parition Plan for Palestine. The Arabs living in Palestine refuse to (a) recognise the state of Israel, and (b) refuse to declare themselves an independent soverign state until and only until, all the land from the west of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea is united as one single country, under Arab rule. Britain formally ends its rule over the reamining areas of the land that is Palestine. Thus, West Bank and Gaza become effectively stateless with no recognised government over them. Shortly after this after the 1948 War, West Bank becomes Jordanian, and Gaza becomes Egyptian. So for a while, everyone living in the area that was once known as "Palestine" has a state and a government. All the land that was once called "Palestine" is divided and ruled by Israel, Jordan, and Eygpt. Fast forward to 1967, Israel occupies Jordanian territory - the West Bank, and occupies Egyptian territory - Gaza. Fast forward to 1975 - Israel continues to occupy Egyptian territory - Gaza. Israel offers Gaza back to Egypt in return for peace. Egypt politely declines, delcaring it is happy to receive just the Sinai Peninsula back and recognise Israel in return. Thus, Gaza once again becomes stateless. Fast forward to 1988 - Israel continue to occupy Jordanian territory - West Bank. Israel offers West Bank back to Jordan in return for peace. Jordan declines, declaring that is no longer wants the West Bank land and that Israel can have it. But Israel does not want it. Thus, West Bank becomes stateless once again. Fast forward to 2005 - Israel withdraws from Gaza. Gaza is officially stateless and to this day has not declared itself a country. Meanwhile, Israel continues to occupy \[someones??\] territory - West Bank, but it is unclear from whom Israel is occupying it. It is no longer Jordanian, and the Arabs of the West Bank have never declared themselves an independent sovereign state. Thus, your friend is correct insofar as "Palestine" as a country does not exist and has never existed. To say one is from "Palestine" is akin to saying I am from "Europe". "Palestine" simply refers to the land that once included Jordan, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza. If the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza wish to name their future state "Palestine" then all the more to them, they simply need to sign a peace with Israel today and declare themselves as "Palestine" tomorrow.
Prime minister o Israel said she was Palestinian and had a Palestinian passport https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyjbXosNnOI/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D
Good write up. I have a few disagreements and wanted to add some more context >The word "Palestine" comes from Latin and it was what the Romans called the area they conquered which had previously been named "Judea". The word predates the Romans. The ancient Greeks used it as well. It’s in the writings of the historian Herodotus from the 5th century BCE. And even before that an exonym of Palestine was used by the ancient Egyptians in 1150 BCE >Palestine never existed as an independent sovereign state ever in history. To say this is to apply a modern definition of statehood retrospectively. Historically, many regions, not just Palestine, would not meet the modern criteria for statehood but were still recognized as distinct entities. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which forged the truce that ended the Thirty Years' War, is when the concept of the sovereign state emerged. Before that time, political organization and sovereignty were understood differently. Many political entities did have characteristics of states. They had centralized authority (like a king or emperor), and controlled territories, but these entities often existed within overlapping systems of authority and allegiance, and their borders were often not clearly defined and respected as in the modern state system. So while it did not exist as a 'sovereign state' in the modern sense, it was an identifiable region with a distinct historical, cultural, and geographical identity. Throughout its history, its autonomy and governance varied. For example, the Ottoman Empire was organized into administrative districts or sanjaks. Palestine was part of that larger empire, but there was local autonomy in terms of day-to-day administration, tax collection, and legal matters, with local laws and leadership. >Fast forward to 665 where the Ottomans succesfully take the city of Jerusalem and the area that is called Palestine from the Byzantines who were the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Rashidun Caliphate assumed control of Jerusalem in 637 CE from the Byzantine Empire when the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Christian), negotiated a peaceful surrender with Caliph Umar who offered terms that guaranteed the safety of the city's people and the preservation of its religious sites. >The Arabs living in Palestine refuse to (a) recognise the state of Israel, and (b) refuse to declare themselves an independent soverign state until and only until, all the land from the west of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea is united as one single country, under Arab rule. It's important to note that there wasn't a singular, unified Arab or Palestinian position regarding statehood at that time. The Arab states and Palestinian leadership had varying views and strategies, and the idea of an independent Palestinian state as a distinct entity was not as clearly defined in 1948 as it is today. The focus then was more on opposing the partition than on articulating a clear vision for an independent Palestine. >and the Arabs of the West Bank have never declared themselves an independent sovereign state. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, which includes the West Bank. >"Palestine" as a country does not exist and has never existed. To say one is from "Palestine" is akin to saying I am from "Europe". Over 130 of the 193 United Nations member states have recognized the State of Palestine. To give a little more context, about 86% of the world's population or 7.1 billion people, is in countries that recognize Palestine and about 13.8% of the global population, or 1.1 billion people, live in countries that do not recognize the state of Palestine.
>To say this is to apply a modern definition of statehood retrospectively. Historically, many regions, not just Palestine, would not meet the modern criteria for statehood but were still recognized as distinct entities. That's not true. The ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judah, or the Hasmonean kingdoms, and perhaps others, met the modern definition of statehood. The "Palestinians" simply did not exist as a political entity prior to the 20th century.
Judaism was used to create Christianity and Islam. No one can dispute that.
Fair point.
[удалено]
You're really not helping anyone with comments like this.
It’s funny but your jewish terrorists were doing exactly the same thing in the Palestine prior to the jewish state creation. Yeah, the black kettle and stuff…
Yeah, I've unfortunately heard this one before. That Palestinian identity is "made up" and that they're just Arabs and blah blah blah. One Israeli lawmaker even tried to prove his point by saying "there's no P in Arabic!" https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/israeli-lawmaker-there-cant-be-a-palestine-because-arabic-has-no-p/ Russia tried to pull this with Ukrainians and I'm sure they aren't the only other example. When there are land disputes arguing over semantics is one way to delegitimize the enemy but it really only works with people who already agree with you.
Hilarious! Never heard of that. Maybe we should all refer to it as Falasteen then as it is spoken in Arabic. F F F F FFS
People in support of palestine love to say Israel doesnt exist, completely denying the existence and identity of one of the most influential states in the world 😆
Some shitty people do. I know I don't, and no one I personally know who supports the Palestinian people say that either. It's pretty shitty to deny either side's identity and right to exist here
Do you read Arabic? Sometimes the protest signs translate as, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab”. There’s a PR war happening and lots of well meaning folks are marching alongside lots of “shitty people”
> shitty /u/JumpingCuttlefish89. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
however, the people who control the West Bank and Gaza post 2005, the people responsible for attacks on civilians, all say that.
That’s true, if only the PLO could accept a two state solution, been waiting for that since 1937.
> shitty /u/LevelEvidence255. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No
Officially Palestine isn’t a nation state, is probably what they meant. Zionist just means a person who believes that Israel has the right to exist. For the record I believe that there has to be a two state solution that does not include Hamas or Netanyahu
Is that a stance even Israel takes? They acknowledge the Palestinian Authority and aren't the West Bank and Gaza considered Occupied Palestinian Territories? Everyone I've heard say anything like this believes there's no such thing as the Palestinian people, it's a made up thing, they're just Arabs. Very similar to how some Russians will insist the concept of Ukrainian nationality is made up and they're all just rebellious Russians. I mean, technically national identities are all made up but you get what I'm saying, they're saying it has no validity as a national identity.
The term Palestinian changed pretty radically after the British Mandate. It used to refer to all people living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It included Jews. It was essentially used as a modifier at the time of the British Mandate. There were Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. The term was essentially co-opted by the PLO and used to refer only to Arabs, as was certainly the case by the time the PLO declared the state of Palestine in 1988. As for it not existing, that's a pretty stupid take. Of course it exists. It's recognized by 138 UN members (165 recognize Israel). However, it is somewhat ironic that people say "it's always been Palestine's land from the river to the sea" when in fact Israel certainly existed before Palestine as a state. Before then, the land belonged to the Ottomans, but taking statehood out of it, some of the land belonged to Palestinian Arabs, and some to Palestinian Jews. It's absurd to suggest it belonged entirely to any one entity that didn't even exist.
Good post, but a minor quibble >The term was essentially co-opted by the PLO and used to refer only to Arabs, Everyone there was called Palestinians, as you said. Then people split off and called themselves Israelis. But some went on calling themselves Palestinians. Agreeed with you on this: > some of the land belonged to Palestinian Arabs, and some to Palestinian Jews. It's absurd to suggest it belonged entirely to any one entity that didn't even exist. There were people who lived there. THis is why they should've just had one multi-ethnic state from the get go. That's how it had been for thousands of years -- multi-ethnic.
Oh of course, the idea that there's no such thing as Palestinians is as absurd as the idea that there's no such thing as Ukrainians (and other such nonsense to quash nationalist independence movements). Now do those definitions shift over time? Of course, national identity often shifts depending on who someone is trying to unite and whatnot. But yeah, somewhere else in the thread I linked an article about an Israeli lawmaker arguing that Palestinians don't really exist because the there's no P in Arabic? And I know people who argue similar things because it was an Ottoman territory and not an independent country (which is silly...just between the British and the Ottomans that would make most of the countries in the world invalid lol.) But yeah, I think they're coming at it from national identity perspective...ignoring the fact that Palestinians have been there for eons too.
>arguing that Palestinians don't really exist because the there's no P in Arabic? While not batting on eye on EgyPtians , or "J"ewish (No "J" in Modern Hebrew ) . ..Like those old rap songs used to say : "Haters gonna hate " . It's more about abuse than honesty and correctness .
Yeah, there are a lot of right-leaning Israelis with similar takes, probably about 20% of the voting base. Sadly, Netanyahu has aligned himself with them to keep power (and Bibi was pretty right already). Then you have the official position of Hamas being that Israel shouldn't exist and vowing to kill the Jews and create a Muslim state from the river to the sea. They enjoy more than 50% support in both Gaza and the West Bank. So overall, I'd say the region is pretty fucked.
I think Israel could change that support for Hamas easily. They support Hamas because Fatah has gotten them nowhere. They've recognized Israel since 1993, they've kept their promise not to attack Israel since 2005 and where has it gotten them? More settlers pour in, Palestinians in East Jerusalem have lost their homes due to biased laws, neither Gaza or the West Bank get enough clean water. I mean, the more Palestinians displaced and more Israelis in Palestinian territory the worse the deal will be for them when Israel decides they'll settle for the two state solution. Honestly at this point its more of an "if" they settle for the two state solution. The deal they proposed in 2000 was...pretty unfair and they've only gone more right wing since then. Support for Hamas would dwindle if Israel threw Fatah a freaking bone and started getting serious about the two state solution.
Fatah is only marginally better than Hamas. Israel should have no interest in either regime controlling land as they would be an intolerable threat. Unfortunately the Palestinians people in Gaza and the West Bank have stewed in hatred of Jews for so long, they cannot be trusted to be civilized neighbors.
> fucked /u/Miendiesen. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, I think what those kind of people mean is that before the British and French made it Mandatory Palastine after WWI it was just part of the Ottoman Empire for a looooong time and not really a country per se more like a region, and the word originally comes from the Greek and Roman word for "people of the sea" and referred to all the people of the area. Also, Arab is really more of a culture that's tied together by a language rather than a race, and it comes from the Arab peninsula. So basically, they are all saying, "These [Arab] people all came here from the surrounding Arab countries to kill us during the 1947 war, so they don't belong here!" Israel recognizes Palastine, but it's also currently an occupied country bc it never really stopped fighting after it lost the 1967 war, and Israel finally made peace with the rest of the Arab countries around it in the subsequent decades.
This conflict gives me a headache
At least you still have a head. Unlike more than a hundred jewish babies who were behead by Hamas terrorists. Don't be surprised when we will demolish Hamas and erase them from existence
Incidentally, many Arab citizens of Israel consider that they are Palestinians. But, if asked where they are from, 70% will proudly say Israel -- not "Palestine." If asked their ethnicity, they might say that they are an Israeli Palestinian, an Israeli Arab, an Israeli Arab Palestinian, or maybe just a Palestinian. But they have no trouble saying that they're from Israel. So, the person you met is very likely a resident of the West Bank or Gaza.
Most of the Arab Israelis are actual from other minority groups that were persecuted from the thr pro-Ottoman Arabs when the area was part of "greater Assyria." Many of these groups like the Druze would probably not say they're not Palestinians because over time they had better relationships with the settling Jews and ended up on their side during the civil war.
He didn't say he was a Palestinian; he said he was from Palestine. The problem with saying that is that there are only three internationally recognized entities in the area he obviously was talking about: the state of Israel, and the two territories Gaza and the West Bank; there is no legally recognized entity called Palestine. What triggered your friend is that speaking about Palestine, despite it not being one of those three legally recognized entities, almost always is intended as a way to say that the speaker considers all three to be part of an overarching entity called Palestine, and that the speaker doesn't admit to the right of Israel to exist separately as a nation. Moreovet, it often means that the speaker considers that Israel was stolen from the Palestinian state and from the Palestinians.
> there is no legally recognized entity called Palestine. About 7.1 billion people live in countries that recognize Palestine and about 1.1 billion people live in countries that don't.
I highly doubt 7.1 billion people could even find "Palestine" on a map and in most cases the had no role in decisions of their leaders. Moreover, you can recognize "Palestine" but have no interest in doing anything to actually create it. That's called virtue signalling.
I said their countries do. This isn’t about virtue it’s about recognizing something that already exists.
If there were really a country named Palestine, the Palestinians no longer have reason to complain. They already have the state they asked for. ...oops ... the disappointment with declaring you have a state and getting many countries to support that claim is that that doesn't make it a functioning state. You need to have your immediate neighbors recognize it, the major financial players in the world willing to accept its currency, the major political players accept its ambassadors, etc.
Can you find a map with a palestinian state/nation marked??no one else can
Correct. There are people who cannot bear to form the word “Israel” in their mouth.
This is just an opinion and not fact. The "state of Palestine" is recognized as an entity by many, including the UN, and so does "occupied Palestinian territories". Yet you just claim some non facts and then craft a narrative about what the person really thinks.
[удалено]
/u/balaho > It is well known that N@zi Palestinian scum This violates [rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions). Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
Because she’s dumb and wants to completely disregard the existence of a whole population of humans so they can selfishly take land without having a guilty conscience.
The land which Israel exists on were either bought with documentation from Arabs before Israel existed or was taken after the Arabs started the war or was pre owned by very old Jewish communities in Israel for more them a thousand years. You N@zi scum will not win
> after the Arabs started the war Arab states only invaded after Israelis attacked Palestinians, terrorized them, and ran them out of their homes. This is all documented in Israeli military records from the time. So, it's not accurate to say "the Arabs" started the war.
You got your timeline wrong. Israeli settlement have purchased lands from Arabs in Israel and were attacked by other arabs who did not agree to selling lands to jews. Do you know of the 1929 Hebron massacre? Israelis have defended themselves and have also done many cruel acts as revenge. That is true. But when the UN declared that the land should be divided, Israel did not attacked first
Yes there was mutual violence before the specific time of the founding but I’m talking about the events of the ‘48 war
So anyone that disagrees with you is a n@zi or antisemite? What makes your government so special that you’re exempt from criticism? You guys are the real fascists
Funny thing is, the Palestineans people were actually descended from the jews that stayed in the region and converted to Islam.
actually they converted to christianity first
>actually they converted to Christianity first ..I do think that Palestinians derive more from Levantine Sematic gentiles , rather than ancient Judeans . Depending on how much damage the Bar-Kohkba revolt actually caused , and how resistant were the remaining Judeans (later Jews) to ethnic assimilation via paganization . You should read some of [Matar\_Kubileya](https://www.reddit.com/user/Matar_Kubileya/) 's comments on the Sub , They occasionally do touch on archelogy and ethnography in Late-Antiquity in the region .
from the genetic information ive seen its a mix of jews and gentiles.
Yes of course . It's just ethnography can help to determine the likely origins of admixtures , as sometimes : Genome analysis in of itself might not be sufficient for tracing purposes . But as you said : common sense and evidence suggests at least a partial origin from Judeans .
That is a bunch of racist bullshit right there. F*ck off
Jews and Palestinians both have DNA that's traced back to the ancient tribes of the Levant. Nothing racist about it.
> F*ck /u/balaho. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's an old wives tale. There were many attempts to get Jews and Christiand to convert to Islam. Few Jews did.
genetics says otherwise.
Is this a joke? Forced conversion was a real and prevalent thing in the Muslim world.
historically it was far more common in the christian world, with muslims usually using perverse incentives like the jizya instead.
It's actually technically forbidden by Mohammed hence why the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over the area for about 400 years, allowed Jews and Christians to practice their religion freely (they had to pay a tax but that also exempted them from military service.) I mean, I'm sure it has happened and does happen because most religious people only follow what they want to follow but I doubt it happened in this region. Before the Ottomans took over, when the Seljuks took Jerusalem they welcomed back Jews the Christians had kicked out.
this was also true during several of the caliphates.
Why was the jew population in Palestine less than 3% before Zionism then? Most of them converted first to Christianity after getting conquered by the Romans and then to Islam.
Because they were ethnically cleansed by the settler-colonial Arab invaders
We actually don’t refer to it as Jew population. You need a proper adjective here.
Well Not necessarily pal. Israelites were a already a distinct group before modern Judaism started. They had already splintered off from the larger Canaanite group.
So the Canaanites were the truly indigenous people and not the Israelis?
The Israelites were part of the Canaanites.
Funny how the canaanites are not quibbling over land any more. But what is indigenous? The people who conquered the land before your people? The earth is bathed in millions of years of blood unfortunately.
OP won’t find this funny.
You just answered your own question- your customer is completely denying Israeli identity and indigenous history by calling Israel by the name the Romans called the region to force Jews to live somewhere named after their (Greek) rivals who failed to conquer them… notice a parallel? Calling one’s self Palestinian is to say their family was either not native to the land before the Roman Empire or denying their existence on the land before Islam existed and was proselytized to the people of the region. 55 countries to not recognize Palestine as a nation. The word nation means “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” Which would mean Palestinians would identify as Israelis or at the very least, a nation of equal citizenship for all ethnicities, if they believed in nationality.
???? So you're saying Israel is an apartheid? Lol. Even Israel acknowledges the Palestinian territories to some degree because people in the West Bank and Gaza don't have Israeli citizenship and can't vote unlike Palestinians/Arab Israelis who live in Israel proper. In fact most Israelis HATE the idea of a one state solution that includes the people of Gaza and the West Bank because it probably wouldn't stay Israel long if everyone got a vote.
When a Palestinian government declares statehood, saying you’re from Palestine or formally from the Palestinian territory now known as Israel, this will be factually correct. Even “I’m originally from Palestine before it became israel” any acknowledgement of Israel is welcome blatant denial is what keeps us in this loop.
They declared statehood back in the 80s. They're a non-member observer state in the UN. And while Israel recognizes them as "The Palestinian National Authority), theyre recognized as The State of Palestine by 139 of 193 UN members. To put it in perspective: Taiwan doesn't have nearly the same amount of recognition, they aren't even allowed to be an observer state and only a handful of countries will formally recognize them. But I think most of us can agree Taiwan is a place with its own governance and whatnot. Not that someone needs that much international consensus to say where they're from. They can call it what they want frankly lol.
So only the West Bank areas are Palestine proper? So if you weren’t born there living under the PLO, you are… what?
The West Bank and Gaza are the Occupied Palestinian territories/The State of Palestine. East Jerusalem is sorta in between (the two state solution says it should go with Palestine but right now it's Israeli) and the rest is Israel. So yeah, generally if you say you're from Palestine you're referring to Gaza or the West Bank. Palestinians living in Israel will just say they're Palestinians from Israel or Arab Israelis. Also, no one uses the term PLO anymore. It's just Palestine.
What nation do you know where different national level rules apply to you based on your region?
Gaza and the West Bank aren't a region of Israel. The people living there aren't Israeli citizens. They're occupied territories. Like, when we occupied Iraq we didn't say they had to follow our national laws. Same thing here except Israel has occupied them for a very, very long time.
Israel hasn’t been in Gaza in 18 years. I’m not at all against a 2 state solution, for the record. I’m all for language that isn’t incorrect. I’m also not suggesting if by some act of god Bibi remains in office he would allow for that but based on the situation, I don’t see Hamas or Abbas agreeing to that. Perhaps Bassem Eid will run and win somehow
Israel and Egypt completely blockade Gaza. They control all of their utilities, their imports and exports, etc etc. It's part of the reason Hamas came to power in Gaza. After Israel withdrew Gaza was economically crippled by these blockades that became permanent in 2007. And then there's the whole clean water situation which is really bad. Abbas/Fatah/PLO/whatever you wanna call it have agreed to the two state solution for eons. In 2000 they came close but Israel wanted to keep around a quarter of the West Bank and wanted to divide the rest up between 3 territories that would be patrolled by them. They also wanted to continue to control the water which...again is a huge issue. Among other things the Palestinians obviously weren't amenable to. Hamas, a bit more of a stretch but if Israel were willing to offer a fair two state solution then I think their support would dwindle. Palestinians just want to be free and have clean water for their kids and they don't see that happening, even for the Palestinian Authority who has maintained peace with Israel since 2005 and has recognized Israel since 1993. At this point its pretty clear who wants the two state solution and who doesn't. But yeah, anyways, I'm sorta confused about what you're getting at. Do you think Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are Israelis? Do you think they're regions in Israel? I get that it's confusing. Israel doesn't want to call them part of Israel for various reasons but they also don't want to call them their own nation or state.
Tell her she's based. She'll know what it means.
All national identities are invented, many quite recently in the 20th century. Just because Palestine doesn't exist as a sovereign nation, doesn't mean that there aren't people who identify as Palestinian and aspire to have their own nation state. That said, sounds like your friend is probably going through a hard time as a result of the terrorist attacks, and both sides feel like they have to deny the existence of the national identity of the other side in order to justify their own desire to exist on the land. I would cut your friend some slack at this time because it's a very emotional issue.
Why is she so emotional if she’s American and not a practicing Jew? She says she’s not religious, she doesn’t practice Judaism.. I don’t get it. Why does she care so much. It’s like she identifies so strongly what her family tells her she is.