The case for Palestinian independence

[Saigon]

Amidst all the usual abuse on the Middle East threads there are a number of myths about the Palestinian past and present that I think are worth addressing.

Myths:
1 - Palestinian never existed as a country
2 - There was never a Palestine in history
3 - The Palestinian people are not real or pure or are created
4 - Palestinian nationalism only began in the 1960's

None of these have much basis in reality, but are interesting to look at in the context of the history of all nations.

Prior to about 1800 there were almost no countries at all because the concept of a nation state is quite recent. In 1850, neither Italy not Germany existed, and never had done. There were no German people, no Italian people and there never had been. People living in those areas considered themselves Piedmontese, Hannoverian, Prussian, Genoan or Venetian.

Likewise in the Middle East people moved slowly from more of a nomadic existance to being more settled, and thus moved from a more 'tribal' identity (Phoenician, Scythian, Cimmerian) to an identity more often based around a town, community or local leader. The concept of identification anf loyalty to a nation state began in Palestine much the same time it began to sweep across Europe. By WWI Palestine had nationalist newspapers, had experienced uprisings against Egyptian and Turkish rule, and had a clear sense of identity entirely seperate from Syria or Jordan.

Going further back, the word 'Palestine' appeared on maps for 600 years, and dates back to the 5th Century BCE, thus making it one of the oldest names for a nation on the face of the earth. While the name 'Palestine' probably is a bastardization of the word 'Philistine', Palestinians have more in common genetically with the Canaanites of the inland hills than they do with the coastal Philistines.

Genetic testing has established that the modern Palestinians can trace genetic code back in towns like Jericho at east 3,000 years. Again, this is a far longer period of permanant habitation than claimed by dozens of countries around the world. Palestinians have not sat, isolated, on one piece of land for the past 5,000 years, but neither have the English (whose blood is largely Nordic, Norman, Roman and Saxon) or any other people.

What this means to me is that the Palestinian claim to land in the region is as strong as Israeli claims, and needs to be accepted as such. Luckily, from a historical perspective, many towns and regions are clearly one or the other, and I don't believe division of land need be as difficult as some opponents suggest.

 

[MHunterB]

I agree.

 

[Connery]

Amidst all the usual abuse on the Middle East threads there are a number of myths about the Palestinian past and present that I think are worth addressing.

Myths:
1 - Palestinian never existed as a country
2 - There was never a Palestine in history
3 - The Palestinian people are not real or pure or are created
4 - Palestinian nationalism only began in the 1960's

Kindly cite those posts together with their sources where you assert the above otherwise your claims are incendiary and without basis in fact.

 

[Chassit]

Like Israel, Palestine was conquered.

Vae Victis

 

[Saigon]

Connery -

All of the myths posted have been repeated dozens of times, but if you check out a thread by Roudy on 'Truths & Myths of Temple Mount' you should find all of them, I believe.

 

[sealadaigh]

Amidst all the usual abuse on the Middle East threads there are a number of myths about the Palestinian past and present that I think are worth addressing.

Myths:
1 - Palestinian never existed as a country
2 - There was never a Palestine in history
3 - The Palestinian people are not real or pure or are created
4 - Palestinian nationalism only began in the 1960's

Kindly cite those posts together with their sources where you assert the above otherwise your claims are incendiary and without basis in fact.

you may want to aquant yourself with this forum...

Israel and Palestine - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

it has many such posts that more than support saigon's allegations.

 

[sealadaigh]

Amidst all the usual abuse on the Middle East threads there are a number of myths about the Palestinian past and present that I think are worth addressing.

Myths:
1 - Palestinian never existed as a country
2 - There was never a Palestine in history
3 - The Palestinian people are not real or pure or are created
4 - Palestinian nationalism only began in the 1960's

None of these have much basis in reality, but are interesting to look at in the context of the history of all nations.

Prior to about 1800 there were almost no countries at all because the concept of a nation state is quite recent. In 1850, neither Italy not Germany existed, and never had done. There were no German people, no Italian people and there never had been. People living in those areas considered themselves Piedmontese, Hannoverian, Prussian, Genoan or Venetian.

Likewise in the Middle East people moved slowly from more of a nomadic existance to being more settled, and thus moved from a more 'tribal' identity (Phoenician, Scythian, Cimmerian) to an identity more often based around a town, community or local leader. The concept of identification anf loyalty to a nation state began in Palestine much the same time it began to sweep across Europe. By WWI Palestine had nationalist newspapers, had experienced uprisings against Egyptian and Turkish rule, and had a clear sense of identity entirely seperate from Syria or Jordan.

Going further back, the word 'Palestine' appeared on maps for 600 years, and dates back to the 5th Century BCE, thus making it one of the oldest names for a nation on the face of the earth. While the name 'Palestine' probably is a bastardization of the word 'Philistine', Palestinians have more in common genetically with the Canaanites of the inland hills than they do with the coastal Philistines.

Genetic testing has established that the modern Palestinians can trace genetic code back in towns like Jericho at east 3,000 years. Again, this is a far longer period of permanant habitation than claimed by dozens of countries around the world. Palestinians have not sat, isolated, on one piece of land for the past 5,000 years, but neither have the English (whose blood is largely Nordic, Norman, Roman and Saxon) or any other people.

What this means to me is that the Palestinian claim to land in the region is as strong as Israeli claims, and needs to be accepted as such. Luckily, from a historical perspective, many towns and regions are clearly one or the other, and I don't believe division of land need be as difficult as some opponents suggest.

i think if the palestinians told israel "take what you want, just have a plan in place by the end of the month." the israelis would not have a clue.

i see a lot of zionists/jews saying they agree with such a statement but i hear no details.

israel had made a committment to the world (not palestine) via the UN to abide by UNGA resolution 181 as a condition for their admission as a member state to the UN in UNGA resolution 273. i see no agreement after that.

i think negotiations should begin there, with the understanding that concessions need to be made.

now watch.

 

[Billo_Really]

i think if the palestinians told israel "take what you want, just have a plan in place by the end of the month." the israelis would not have a clue.

The Israeli's are taking what they want.

All the Pals want, is their inherent right to self-determination.

i see a lot of zionists/jews saying they agree with such a statement but i hear no details.

There have been several peace proposals coming from arab league representatives since 1967 and everyone of them wound up getting rejected by the Israeli's.

They all had a basic common theme:

• end the occupation
• go back to the '67 borders
• allow the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees

israel had made a committment to the world (not palestine) via the UN to abide by UNGA resolution 181 as a condition for their admission as a member state to the UN in UNGA resolution 273. i see no agreement after that.

181 never got UNSC approval and as such, was not "binding". All it was, was a "request", nothing more. It is an un-enforcable document.

BTW, UN Resolution 242, tells the Israeli's to get the hell off the land they siezed in the 6-day war.

i think negotiations should begin there, with the understanding that concessions need to be made.

now watch.

No need for negotiations or concessions. Israel needs to comply with international law and respect the human rights of the Palestinian people. The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not Israeli land and will never be Israeli land. You cannot hold onto land siezed in a war! Period.

After 45 years you would think the Israeli's would catch the clue that the world community is not going to give them any portion of that land. That is not an option on the table. Because if the world did that, it would be the same as saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.

 

[sealadaigh]

i think if the palestinians told israel "take what you want, just have a plan in place by the end of the month." the israelis would not have a clue.

The Israeli's are taking what they want.

All the Pals want, is their inherent right to self-determination.

i see a lot of zionists/jews saying they agree with such a statement but i hear no details.

There have been several peace proposals coming from arab league representatives since 1967 and everyone of them wound up getting rejected by the Israeli's.

They all had a basic common theme:

• end the occupation
• go back to the '67 borders
• allow the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees

israel had made a committment to the world (not palestine) via the UN to abide by UNGA resolution 181 as a condition for their admission as a member state to the UN in UNGA resolution 273. i see no agreement after that.

181 never got UNSC approval and as such, was not "binding". All it was, was a "request", nothing more. It is an un-enforcable document.

BTW, UN Resolution 242, tells the Israeli's to get the hell off the land they siezed in the 6-day war.

i think negotiations should begin there, with the understanding that concessions need to be made.

now watch.

No need for negotiations or concessions. Israel needs to comply with international law and respect the human rights of the Palestinian people. The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not Israeli land and will never be Israeli land. You cannot hold onto land siezed in a war! Period.

After 45 years you would think the Israeli's would catch the clue that the world community is not going to give them any portion of that land. That is not an option on the table. Because if the world did that, it would be the same as saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.

i did say that negotiations should begin at unga resolution 181. i would expect some concessions be made based upon that as a starting point.

i also said "now watch."

 

[Saigon]

The strange thing is, I think both sides have a fairly good idea what a final peace proposal might look like. They know what the other side can and can not accept.

From the point of view of Israel, I think time is on their side. Stalling for a decade has only meant more land on the West Bank is not too occupied to return. What Israel loses in all this is a sense of sustainable peace, and international goodwill.

For Palestinians, I think internal politics are largely the problem. Perhaps they could have done a deal with Olmert that would have been as good as it will ever get. I don't see time is on their side at all. The more time passes, the less likely a strong deal seems to be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Amidst all the usual abuse on the Middle East threads there are a number of myths about the Palestinian past and present that I think are worth addressing.

Myths:
1 - Palestinian never existed as a country
2 - There was never a Palestine in history
3 - The Palestinian people are not real or pure or are created
4 - Palestinian nationalism only began in the 1960's

Kindly cite those posts together with their sources where you assert the above otherwise your claims are incendiary and without basis in fact.

Except, of course, that they -are- all true.

 

[eflatminor]

What this means to me is that the Palestinian claim to land in the region is as strong as Israeli claims, and needs to be accepted as such.

Indians had a claim to North America at one time, but as always happens, antiquity lost out to modernity. No different with the Palestinians and Israelis. The side that embraces modernity ends up controlling the land. The Palestinians lost. They continue to lose every time they attack their neighbors. That's not going to change as long as they keep fighting.

Personally, I don't give a crap what happens there. Just stop sending our money to either side and let them work it out...or not. Israel doesn't need our help anymore and the Palestinians don't deserve it.

 

[Billo_Really]

i did say that negotiations should begin at unga resolution 181. i would expect some concessions be made based upon that as a starting point.

i also said "now watch."

I understand what you said and you do have a valid point.

My position is Israel is in violation of so many international laws, I take a harder line stance with them.

"You don't negotiate with criminals!"

 

[sealadaigh]

The strange thing is, I think both sides have a fairly good idea what a final peace proposal might look like. They know what the other side can and can not accept.

From the point of view of Israel, I think time is on their side. Stalling for a decade has only meant more land on the West Bank is not too occupied to return. What Israel loses in all this is a sense of sustainable peace, and international goodwill.

For Palestinians, I think internal politics are largely the problem. Perhaps they could have done a deal with Olmert that would have been as good as it will ever get. I don't see time is on their side at all. The more time passes, the less likely a strong deal seems to be.

i don't think the palestinians will negotiate their quiet death...
and i don't think the israelis will accept anything less.

i wonder if you have noticed the lip service given to peaace by the zionists in response to your threads? they say "yes. we want peace"...but at what price? they never mention anything concrete.

also, personally, i think it extraordinarily unwise to essentially reward the flaunting of international law and convention, which is what happens when you begin negotiations based upon "facts on the fround" and not from the last agreement.

as for me, my world works better when violence and chaos reign. it doesn't though, for the people i care about.

 

[sealadaigh]

i did say that negotiations should begin at unga resolution 181. i would expect some concessions be made based upon that as a starting point.

i also said "now watch."

I understand what you said and you do have a valid point.

My position is Israel is in violation of so many international laws, I take a harder line stance with them.

"You don't negotiate with criminals!"

i don't see anything much harder than UNGA resolution 181.

criminals are those found guilty of committing a crime.

 

[50_RiaL]

Saigon: Amidst all the usual abuse on the Middle East threads there are a number of myths about the Palestinian past and present that I think are worth addressing.

Myths:
1 - Palestinian never existed as a country

50_RiaL: There was a Philistia, which was non-Semitic and non-Arabic in orgin; disappeared 2,700 years ago.

2 - There was never a Palestine in history

50_Rial: Geographical term -- not a country.

3 - The Palestinian people are not real or pure or are created

50_Rial: Less than half can be traced to the Arab invaders of the Holy Land in the 7th Century C.E. On the whole, they're an amalgamation of surrounding Arab people in the region -- case in point, the cairene Yasser Arafat, "Palestinian" par excellence.( Harvard-trained historian, Howard M. Sachar, writes that between 1922 - 1946, "100,000 Arabs entered the country from neighboring lands.")

4 - Palestinian nationalism only began in the 1960's

50_RiaL: Let's be methodical: In 1937 the Arabs did not consider themselves Palestinian, otherwise Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi would never had said the following before the Peel Commission (whose report never refers to the Arabs as "Palestinians"): "There is no such country! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine' is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it."

The 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution 181 never calls the Arabs "Palestinians"

As late as 1968, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2443 refers to the Arabs as 'inhabitants,' 'the population,' or 'the Arab civilian population.' Not once does it use the term "Palestinians."


Saigon: None of these have much basis in reality, but are interesting to look at in the context of the history of all nations.

Prior to about 1800 there were almost no countries at all because the concept of a nation state is quite recent. In 1850, neither Italy not Germany existed, and never had done. There were no German people, no Italian people and there never had been. People living in those areas considered themselves Piedmontese, Hannoverian, Prussian, Genoan or Venetian.

Likewise in the Middle East people moved slowly from more of a nomadic existance to being more settled, and thus moved from a more 'tribal' identity (Phoenician, Scythian, Cimmerian) to an identity more often based around a town, community or local leader. The concept of identification anf loyalty to a nation state began in Palestine much the same time it began to sweep across Europe. By WWI Palestine had nationalist newspapers, had experienced uprisings against Egyptian and Turkish rule, and had a clear sense of identity entirely seperate from Syria or Jordan.

50_RiaL: Not true. Arab nationalists in Palestine always believed in the oneness of Syria and Palestine, hence their leading spokesman, George Antonius in 1937: ". . . Palestine has always been an integral part of Syria and that what was common to Syria is common to Palestine. There are dialectical differences, certain small differences of customs, local differences, but on the whole the differences are trivial. . . ."

Saigon: Going further back, the word 'Palestine' appeared on maps for 600 years, and dates back to the 5th Century BCE, thus making it one of the oldest names for a nation on the face of the earth. While the name 'Palestine' probably is a bastardization of the word 'Philistine', Palestinians have more in common genetically with the Canaanites of the inland hills than they do with the coastal Philistines.

50_RiaL: The earliest mention of the Holy Land as Palestine (probably in reference to the Philistines, a non-Arabic, non-Semitic people from the Greek Isles who invaded the southern coast of the Holy Land in the 2nd half of the 12th Century B.C.E) is by the Greek historian, Herodotus in the 5th Century B.C.E.

In contrast, one of the earliest mention of the Holy Land as Israel is the archaeological find the Mesha Stele by King Mesha of Moab (present-day Jordan) four centuries earlier in the 9th Century B.C.E., where he writes: "As for Omri*, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years . . ."

The Mesha Stel aka Moabite Stone is housed in The Louvre in Paris, France.

*Omri, king of Israel is mentioned in the Bible (1 KINGS 16:16).

Israel precedes Palestine.

Saigon: Genetic testing has established that the modern Palestinians can trace genetic code back in towns like Jericho at east 3,000 years. Again, this is a far longer period of permanant habitation than claimed by dozens of countries around the world. Palestinians have not sat, isolated, on one piece of land for the past 5,000 years, but neither have the English (whose blood is largely Nordic, Norman, Roman and Saxon) or any other people.

50_RiaL: According to Almut Nebel's 2001 study, "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East" '[T]he Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews. According to our working model, the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, as is seen in the Arab-specific Eu 10 chromosomes that include the modal haplotypes observed in Palestinians and Bedouin.' The Palestinian Arabs' early linage that are part of "common chromosome pool shared with Jews" no doubt stems from the Arab invasion of the Holy Land in the 7th Century C.E. where they mixed with Jews and Christians who converted to Islam.

A more recent study by Doron Behar et al, titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" (2010) came to a similar conclusion: "Bedouins, Jordanians, Palestinians and Saudi Arabians are located [cluster genetically] in close proximity to each other, which is consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula."

Saigon: What this means to me is that the Palestinian claim to land in the region is as strong as Israeli claims, and needs to be accepted as such. Luckily, from a historical perspective, many towns and regions are clearly one or the other, and I don't believe division of land need be as difficult as some opponents suggest.

50_RiaL: Carving a 22nd Arab state out of the sole Jewish nation in the world is an injustice!

 

[Saigon]

Rial -

I don't think anyone questions that the word 'Israel' is older than the word 'Palestine' - but then it isn't a race. Almost every country in Africa has older names which are no longer used...which is why 'Ghana' is not called 'Ashanti' or 'Gold Coast'.

The fact that both Palestine and Israel date back 3,000 years is surely all that matters.

 

[The Rabbi]

There was never a country Palestine ruled by Palestinian people. There were P'lishitim mentioned in the Bible but they were a disparate group of tribes. The present people calling themselves Palestinian are in fact Jordanian Arabs who migrated there in the 19th century.

But all of that is irrelevant to the question of statehood. There was already a partition with an Arab state (Jordan) and a Jewish state (Israel). No need for a do-over.

The Palestinians have created among the most corrupt kleptocracies in the world. Despite trillions of dollars of aid Palestinians are poorer, in worse health and more miserable today than they were 40 years ago. They have never had a free clean and fair election. After the last election there was a civil war. Who gives power to people like that?

Creating a Palestinian state wil not solve the problem of ME violence. In fact it will make it worse as the Palis use the apparatus of statehood to wage more intense war on Israel. Their goal is the destruction of Israel. You do not negotiate with people seeking to kill you about whether they will let you live or not.

 

[Saigon]

There was never a country Palestine ruled by Palestinian people

So then you would also oppose independence and self-determination for Lebanon, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia?

 

[Lipush]

The strange thing is, I think both sides have a fairly good idea what a final peace proposal might look like. They know what the other side can and can not accept.

From the point of view of Israel, I think time is on their side. Stalling for a decade has only meant more land on the West Bank is not too occupied to return. What Israel loses in all this is a sense of sustainable peace, and international goodwill.

For Palestinians, I think internal politics are largely the problem. Perhaps they could have done a deal with Olmert that would have been as good as it will ever get. I don't see time is on their side at all. The more time passes, the less likely a strong deal seems to be.

The people of would not have accepted the deal Olmert initiated.