Where is palestine

[Dhara]

Palestine. My late father, Abdul Musa Obeidallah, was born there in the 1930s. When I say Palestine, that’s not a political statement. It’s just a statement of fact. When he was born, there was no state of Israel. There was no Hamas. No PLO. There were just people of different faiths living together on the same small piece of land called Palestine.

When he was born, as now, there was no State of Palestine. He was born in a place that has been labelled many things, and at the time of his birth was labelled the "Mandate for Palestine".

Your post is a political statement. It is the assertion that, at a certain point of history, the "place" of your people existed and was named such (though a few years earlier this was not so and a few years later this was not so), while the place of my people did not exist and was not named Israel (though years earlier it was and years later is was). It is a political statement in that it validates the narrative of one people while simultaneously invalidating the narrative of the other people.

Place names do not give validation to the rights of people to self-determination. Using place names at a specific point in history does not validate the rights of a people for all time.

Your people have rights. As my people have rights. The sooner your side acknowledges this, the sooner we can get on with going back to having two different peoples (and faiths) living together on the same small piece of land (though likely seperately).

Hey, I copied part of an article. I'm not Palestianian, nor do I take a side in this conflict.

 

[Boston1]

I'm glad to see a new group of respondents to this topic. Seems like a much healthier conversation

 

[Penelope]

Palestine. My late father, Abdul Musa Obeidallah, was born there in the 1930s. When I say Palestine, that’s not a political statement. It’s just a statement of fact. When he was born, there was no state of Israel. There was no Hamas. No PLO. There were just people of different faiths living together on the same small piece of land called Palestine.

My father, like the seven generations of Obeidallahs born before him in his sleepy farming town of Battir, didn’t harbor grand dreams or bold plans. They lived a simple life of growing fruits, vegetables, and lots of olive trees. (Palestinians love olives!) Their biggest battles weren’t with other people, but with the elements.

Most of my Palestinian ancestors lived and died within a few miles of where they were born. That would likely have been my father’s path as well. But as we are all keenly aware, fate had far different plans.


I share this story because I think that lost in the current Gaza conflict is the story of the Palestinians as a people. Instead, they’ve been continually defined as being the “bad” part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They’ve been broadly labeled as terrorists or seen as acceptable losses. Some Israeli leaders have alleged Palestinians don’t exist, or called them “cockroaches,” “crocodiles,” or a “cancer.”

As you might imagine, being Palestinian is unique. When you tell someone you’re of Palestinian heritage, it’s not just an ethnicity, it’s a conversation starter. In fact, just saying the word Palestine inflames some. People will tell me to my face that there has never been a Palestine and there are no such thing as Palestinians. To them, I guess Palestinians are simply holograms.
Do Palestinians Really Exist?

The vast majority of palestinian refugees from 1948 and soon thereafter were what? They were egyptians, lebanese, syrians, et al. who moved in the same time Jews came to that land. And why did they come? Because the Jews developed a wasteland and turned it into a thriving region that offered employment to all these Arabs who came in and then decided they too were now palestinians.

So then why do all these Arab nations attack Israel in 1948? What did the Jews do wrong?

They were Jews. And their enemies quickly learned not to fuck with them unless they wanted a can of whoop ass opened up

It is one subject that sickens me. That is, how the govt, people and media in Europe and the USA treat Israel. They are devils, but more likely just plain stupid and could not care less about the truth.

Maybe if Israel treated the Palestinians like humans, but until then, Israel sucks. After all the Palestinians are the Hebrew kin, Semites.

Penelope, I have read all I care to read about your feelings towards Jews or Israel and some of your exchanges with Rosie. It is more than enough for me to avoid you on this subject. You have an axe to grind to put it mildly and do not strike me as at all reasonable or fair. (It is not very Catholic either IMO)

So I doubt I will be engaging you on the subject of Israel and the Jews. Do not think you will conquer or convince us of much.

I've seen the light. I am not taken in by the propaganda. Put me on ignore. I do not worship Hebrews or Israel, your killing and thief of land. This thread just proves it, obviously the OP map is wrong. I can't imagine how any Christian can.

 

[Penelope]

The portion of Syria which was formerly the possession of the Israelites. It includes the whole of the country between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean as well as the country immediately to the east of the Jordan. The word represents the Greek form, Παλαιστίνη, of the Hebrew (Ex. xv. 14; Isa. xiv. 29, 31; Ps. lx. 10 [A. V. 8]), although in the Old Testament is applied only to the land of the Pelishtim (), or Philistines, and hence denotes merely the coast district south of Phenicia. It was the Greeks who began to denote the inland country as well by this term; such an application, by a foreign people, of the name of the coast to the interior is no rare phenomenon. As early as Herodotus, who is followed by other classical writers, as Ptolemy and Pliny, the phrase Συρίε ἡ Παλαιστίνη denotes both the littoral and the neighboring inland region (Judea and Palestine), as well as the entire interior as far as the Arabian desert. Josephus, however, usually limits the name to the land of the Philistines. In the course of time the term "Palestine" superseded the longer "Palestinian Syria," and it is used with this connotation by Josephus and Philo, while Vespasian officially designated the country as "Palestine" on the coins which he struck after the suppression of the Jewishinsurrection in 70 C.E., implying thereby the territory of the Jews. The name is used in this sense by Christian authors beginning with Jerome, as well as by the Jewish writers (), while the Arabic "Filasṭin" is more restricted in meaning, denoting only Judea and Samaria

PALESTINE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

It was never called Israel.

 

[Boston1]

Here's were you went off the beam Penelope. Wrong claim. I wasn't attempting to establish any right by virtue of a name. That was the other guys.

This thread spun off one called Jordan is palestine and palestine is Jordan. The claim was that Jordan was NOT Arab Muslim palestine. My contention was that it is.

My detractors went on and on about palestines brave history and heritage. So I started this thread on the history of palestine as a cultural identity ethnicity or nationality.

My contention is that palestine never really existed as a specific place and even in Roman times not really as a specific nation other than within the British mandate period and certainly never as an identity. In Roman times it had been the province of Judea but we all know how that went and so the name of the province was changed in the Roman narative to palaestina. I've also argued ( possibly less successfully ) that palestine is a term applied to Judea in Roman times as an insult to the Judaic people and that the more accurate description of its development might be found within the JVL which reads as follows,

Quote
A derivitave of the name "Palestine" first appears in Greek literature in the 5th Century BCE when the historian Herodotus called the area "Palaistinē" (Greek - Παλαιστίνη). In the 2nd century CE, the Romans crushed the revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), during which Jerusalem and Judea were regained and the area of Judea was renamed Palaestina in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel.
Under the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917), the term Palestine was used as a general term to describe the land south of Syria; it was not an official designation. In fact, many Ottomans and Arabs who lived in Palestine during this time period referred to the area as "Southern Syria" and not as "Palestine."
After World War I, the name "Palestine" was applied to the territory that was placed under British Mandate; this area included not only present-day Israel but also present-day Jordan.
Leading up to Israel's independence in 1948, it was common for the international press to label Jews, not Arabs, living in the mandate as Palestinians. It was not until years after Israeli independence that the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were called Palestinians. In fact, Arabs cannot even correctly pronounce the word Palestine in their native tongue, referring to area rather as“Filastin.”
End Quote

IMHO and given that the Ottomans didn't really use the term. The Syrians in Ottoman times divided the area up into provinces none of which were called palestine. Previous to that there is extremely little usage of the term other than immediately following the Roman conquest. Oh and there are of course the coins.

The argument was never that it was always or even ever called Israel prior to modern times. The argument was that it was never a nation and the term palestine had never implied a specific culture or heritage indicative of a national identity of any kind.

My contention is that the areas sole cohesive culture and native peoples over all this time, dating back to some time shortly after the late bronze age collapse are in fact the Judaic tribes. I would further suggest that the present culture, language and identity of Arab Muslims within todays area as defined in the mandate period is predominantly of the Arab Muslim colonists who arrived in several waves. One with the first military conquest and another in the mid to late zionist period when census counts show population growth much higher than what can be accounted for by fecundity.

The topic isn't if the modern day Israeli's can lay claim to the land based on it ever having been called Israel prior to 48.

The topic is if the people today who refer to themselves as palestinians can. Which was the distraction made on the original thread.

Nice bait and switch though ;--)

 

[Weatherman2020]

There has never been a country/nation called Palestine

There is now.

Nope. I've been in the West Bank, no Palestine in the region.

 

[The Great Goose]

There has never been a country/nation called Palestine

There is now.

Nope. I've been in the West Bank, no Palestine in the region.

For every action there is a reaction.

You dont have to be exactly steeped in wisdom to see this one.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There has never been a country/nation called Palestine

There is now.

Nope. I've been in the West Bank, no Palestine in the region.

For every action there is a reaction.

You dont have to be exactly steeped in wisdom to see this one.

There is no Palestine. You are lied and/or are ignorant.

 

[The Great Goose]

The portion of Syria which was formerly the possession of the Israelites. It includes the whole of the country between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean as well as the country immediately to the east of the Jordan. The word represents the Greek form, Παλαιστίνη, of the Hebrew (Ex. xv. 14; Isa. xiv. 29, 31; Ps. lx. 10 [A. V. 8]), although in the Old Testament is applied only to the land of the Pelishtim (), or Philistines, and hence denotes merely the coast district south of Phenicia. It was the Greeks who began to denote the inland country as well by this term; such an application, by a foreign people, of the name of the coast to the interior is no rare phenomenon. As early as Herodotus, who is followed by other classical writers, as Ptolemy and Pliny, the phrase Συρίε ἡ Παλαιστίνη denotes both the littoral and the neighboring inland region (Judea and Palestine), as well as the entire interior as far as the Arabian desert. Josephus, however, usually limits the name to the land of the Philistines. In the course of time the term "Palestine" superseded the longer "Palestinian Syria," and it is used with this connotation by Josephus and Philo, while Vespasian officially designated the country as "Palestine" on the coins which he struck after the suppression of the Jewishinsurrection in 70 C.E., implying thereby the territory of the Jews. The name is used in this sense by Christian authors beginning with Jerome, as well as by the Jewish writers (), while the Arabic "Filasṭin" is more restricted in meaning, denoting only Judea and Samaria

PALESTINE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

It was never called Israel.

It was a white area back then. The israelites had up to 18 percent subsaharan dna. Now the whole middle east is semitic.

lol, the ashkenazi are probably geneticaly closer to the philostines.

Mind boggling.

 

[iolo]

Only Nazis support the Nazi occupation of Palestine. Wonder the buggers managed to find it, apparently.

 

[Boston1]

Lets try and keep it on track people

 

[Dhara]

http://pov-tc.pbs.org/pov/pdf/promiese/promises-timeline.pdf

 

[aris2chat]

Only Nazis support the Nazi occupation of Palestine. Wonder the buggers managed to find it, apparently.

Mufti was a nazi in thought and deed. Many palestinians still speak and think as nazis and wide spread nazi propaganda. Hilters books is second to the quran.
Nationalism, racial/religious purity of the land, hate, genocide of jews/gays/christians,

You support the nazi palestinians?

As in Germany the whole population is not nazi, but too many in leadership and among the fighters are.

 

[Dhara]

http://pov-tc.pbs.org/pov/pdf/promiese/promises-timeline.pdf

The above timeline is interesting because both Jews and Arabs agree on the facts but have a different perspective on the facts.

 

[Agit8r]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Augusto_30aC_-_6dC_55%CS_jpg.JPG

Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

The vast majority of palestinian refugees from 1948 and soon thereafter were what? They were egyptians, lebanese, syrians, et al. who moved in the same time Jews came to that land. And why did they come? Because the Jews developed a wasteland and turned it into a thriving region that offered employment to all these Arabs who came in and then decided they too were now palestinians.

So then why do all these Arab nations attack Israel in 1948? What did the Jews do wrong?

Actually the UN had a very hard time with just what to consider on this one, in the end they worded things very carefully, eventually placing a definition of palestinian refugees such that they could identify them and administer aid.

It reads as follows
Quote
WHO ARE PALESTINE REFUGEES?
Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”
UNRWA services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.
End Quote

This definition delt with the nationality end of the issue as well as the heritage and religious issue. By omitting any reference to either and making the definition pertain to place of residence only and only within a 2 year period of time.

Where it gets sticky is when under its own charter rules it failed to segregate legitimate refugees from combatants. And since combatants or descendants of combatants are not eligible for refugee status. we have a huge mess today with not only illegal combatants but the UN lending aid to one of the waring parties, which is wildly illegal under the UNs own charter as well as a few other elements of law.

Fine. The U.N. essentially gave refugee status to any Arab in the region at the time. That hardly surprises me. I was only making the point that more than half of those Arabs would not even have been living there if it were not for the efforts of the Jewish people to turn it into arable land and thriving economy for which these Arabs or palestinians all benefited.

There are far large points of contention than who is a palestinian, such as, what right do any of those Arabs who moved into the land or even those generations who have lived there --- what right do they have to say that Jews could not live there? It was Ottoman territory and the Jews purchased wasteland from the Ottoman Turks or more often from absentee wealthy Arab landlords living in Egypt and elsewhere. None of this adds up to any right for neighboring ARab armies to attack them and try to destroy them.

When the mandated ended there was only a requirement to have lived in the mandate for two years to be considered "palestinian" when applying for refugee status.

Yes, and by then the U.N. was no pal of the Jews. And has never been since. But it does translate the word "palestinian" rather loosely in many ways.

Anyway, I have no problem with who they decided was to receive refugee status, the problems are with how the world treated Israel then and now. It is a total crime. Every one of those "refugees" could have gone back to their homes and the land of Israel if any of those dastardly Arab nations would have signed some kind of peace treaty with Israel. Of course they would not.

So what's a fledgling nation surrounded by enemies to do? Let them all in so they can be destroyed all the easier?
Which also raises the question why are 2 1/2 million Arabs living peacefully in Israel today? Those who never left back then never considered leaving since.

1948 Palestinian: “We Fled...They Didn’t Expel Us”; Lies about Israel, lies about Jews
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/01/0114-links-pt2-1948-palestinian-we.html …

It doesn't matter why they were out of country. That issue is irrelevant.

 

[Boston1]

http://pov-tc.pbs.org/pov/pdf/promiese/promises-timeline.pdf

The above timeline is interesting because both Jews and Arabs agree on the facts but have a different perspective on the facts.

reasonable, I was just thinking that myself. I was disappointed the link didn't specify that five Arab Muslim nations declared war on the fledgling Israel though. It would have been important to keep the notion of an aggressor and a defender in the forefront, when considering subsequent events and in order to understand the siege mentality of the Israeli's. It also has huge implications in applying the geneva conventions.

It also failed to mention that the UN refused to segregate combatants from legitimate refugees and lent aid to both parties as well as protected combatants within UN camps. Descendants of combatants either legal of illegal are not eligible for refugee status and enjoy no protections as refugees or civilians within the disputed territories.

Oh and Tinmore
Of course it matters. This whole thing is one big fat twist of intermingling laws treaties and conventions. If we lose sight of the particulars, then we lose perspective on what happened next and why the revisionist view with all its associated PR came into play. Its truth that is being offended by the revisionist narative, without truth we can never find middle ground and eventually peace.

Had you argued that those who qualified as legitimate refugees, had no part in the fighting or any other activity considered detrimental to the state, and wished to remain in their homes and places of birth, I would have wholeheartedly agreed. If you had argued to finally go back and sort out the mess the UN created when they refused to separate legitimate refugees from legal and illegal combatants, such that only those who actually qualified for refugee status were to recieve consideration for a subsequent settlement. I would also agree.

However
What I'm hearing is a totalitarian response designed to destabilize Israel with not just a flood of hostile active combatants as well as remove defensible borders. IE an agreement to set up the chess board such that Israel can't possibly defend itself. And thats not happening.

I can easily show within the legalities of the situation that the responsible parties are to pay reparations to refugees, Which IMHO would hands down be the party that declared war in the first place. I can also show within the legalities that there is no actual right of return, its a suggestion. The list goes on.

I'd also admit that the situation sucks for all concerned. I'd be one pissed off kid if I had to put up with daily terrorist attacks or living behind a wall. Deal is the first step in solving this mess is to all put down are weapons and just stop.

Give peace have a chance.

 

[Dhara]

This editorial is interesting:

Palestinians and Israelis need to wake up to the new reality that they both face a greater enemy than each other. ISIS, and whatever other form radical extremist Islam will produce, has Israel and Palestinians on their shopping list. The longer the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis remains unsettled the more it creates the right conditions to strengthen ISIS and cause chaos for Israelis and Palestinians.
Untying the Palestinian Israeli Knot - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

 

[aris2chat]

http://pov-tc.pbs.org/pov/pdf/promiese/promises-timeline.pdf

Arab unity fail as Damascus proved. Arab states were created for faisal and brother, and they each failed except Jordan.

Faisal welcomed the jews to their historic homeland as both a stabilizing force and an economic on to lead the middle east into the modern era, as the Ottoman had welcomed them.

Jordan was created out of the mandate as a arab state. Many "palestinians" considered themselves Syrian, Jordanian or Egyptian.

 

[Boston1]

I think that article is worthy of its own thread Dhara.