Are the Palestinians a real people?

[flacaltenn]

How they came to be a real people does NOT invalidate their existence as a real people.

Doesn't it?

How can we define "a people" without having an understanding of what that means and how one people are differentiated from another people? For example, are the people of Nazareth a "real" people? How would we know if they are or if they are not? How are they differentiated from Arab Palestinians? Should they have rights and access to national sovereignty and self-determination? What about the people of Galilee? Are they a "real" people? How would we know? How are they differentiated from all other people? Should they have rights and access to national self-determination?

What if the people of Judea and Samaria were to declare themselves a "real" people with history going back thousands of years? Would they not gain the rights of sovereignty and self-determination in their homeland? Surely, you would champion a State of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, would you not?

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

 

[Shusha]

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

We agree.

But ask yourself why. Why are those two things different?

And why, then, is it so important to recognize Arab Palestinians are a "real people"? What is the definition and what is the point?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Jewish control of THEIR land?!

.

Coyote promotes the Islamist objective in all things and this is a classic Islamic supremacist notion. Once an area is considered Dar al Islam rather than Dar al Harb, it remains that way.

 

[Shusha]

Jewish control of THEIR land?!

.

Coyote promotes the Islamist objective in all things and this is a classic Islamic supremacist notion. Once an area is considered Dar al Islam rather than Dar al Harb, it remains that way.

Yep. One easy way to disappear the Jews is to pretend that they haven't been an indigenous presence for thousands of years and

its all Arab land.

 

[Coyote]

No. He is not. He is claiming they were invented on a certain date and they cant possibly be a real people because the Arabic language does not pronounce P. That is his argument.

rylah is perfectly capable of clarifying his thoughts on his own, so I will not presume to continue to answer for him.

BUT you MUST ask yourself why a "real" people would not have a name for their own land in their own native language.

And then you might go back and respond to my point:

Arab Palestinians did not develop naturally as a distinct culture or a cohesive collection of separate but connected tribes. Arab Palestinians were, in fact, intentionally invented to be a political tool in order to fight against and defeat the Jewish people. And that this fact invalidates their existence as a "real" people.

That seems to me to be a valid criticism.

I disagree. Their national identity may have developed in response to Jewish control of their land, but they existed as a semi cohesive collection of tribes defined geographically and also linguistically with a dialect that contains elements of older non Arabic languages.

Jewish control of THEIR land?!

See, that is exactly how their identity developed: by creating the false idea that the land, in its entirety, was exclusively Arab land rather than a land which had been shared with the Jewish people for 1400 years since the land was Arabized.

Those linguistic elements of older non-Arabic languages are Hebrew and Aramaic words borrowed from the previous, existing, indigenous peoples of that territory because they lived amongst people who continued to use Hebrew and Aramaic. (They also have borrowed words from Greek, French and English).

Yes. A war was fought. The Jewish side decisively won, and control the territory. Were it the other other way around I would saying Arab control of their (Jews) land. It is a fact the lan . Belongs to both peoples.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No. He is not. He is claiming they were invented on a certain date and they cant possibly be a real people because the Arabic language does not pronounce P. That is his argument.

rylah is perfectly capable of clarifying his thoughts on his own, so I will not presume to continue to answer for him.

BUT you MUST ask yourself why a "real" people would not have a name for their own land in their own native language.

And then you might go back and respond to my point:

Arab Palestinians did not develop naturally as a distinct culture or a cohesive collection of separate but connected tribes. Arab Palestinians were, in fact, intentionally invented to be a political tool in order to fight against and defeat the Jewish people. And that this fact invalidates their existence as a "real" people.

That seems to me to be a valid criticism.

I disagree. Their national identity may have developed in response to Jewish control of their land, but they existed as a semi cohesive collection of tribes defined geographically and also linguistically with a dialect that contains elements of older non Arabic languages.

Jewish control of THEIR land?!

See, that is exactly how their identity developed: by creating the false idea that the land, in its entirety, was exclusively Arab land rather than a land which had been shared with the Jewish people for 1400 years since the land was Arabized.

Those linguistic elements of older non-Arabic languages are Hebrew and Aramaic words borrowed from the previous, existing, indigenous peoples of that territory because they lived amongst people who continued to use Hebrew and Aramaic. (They also have borrowed words from Greek, French and English).

Yes. A war was fought. The Jewish side decisively won, and control the territory. Were it the other other way around I would saying Arab control of their (Jews) land. It is a fact the lan . Belongs to both peoples.

The land belongs to Israel.

The lion's share of the original Mandate of Palestine already belongs to Jordan.

It has been divided between the two groups with Arabs getting 78%.

 

[Coyote]

No. He is not. He is claiming they were invented on a certain date and they cant possibly be a real people because the Arabic language does not pronounce P. That is his argument.

rylah is perfectly capable of clarifying his thoughts on his own, so I will not presume to continue to answer for him.

BUT you MUST ask yourself why a "real" people would not have a name for their own land in their own native language.

And then you might go back and respond to my point:

Arab Palestinians did not develop naturally as a distinct culture or a cohesive collection of separate but connected tribes. Arab Palestinians were, in fact, intentionally invented to be a political tool in order to fight against and defeat the Jewish people. And that this fact invalidates their existence as a "real" people.

That seems to me to be a valid criticism.

I disagree. Their national identity may have developed in response to Jewish control of their land, but they existed as a semi cohesive collection of tribes defined geographically and also linguistically with a dialect that contains elements of older non Arabic languages.

Jewish control of THEIR land?!

See, that is exactly how their identity developed: by creating the false idea that the land, in its entirety, was exclusively Arab land rather than a land which had been shared with the Jewish people for 1400 years since the land was Arabized.

Those linguistic elements of older non-Arabic languages are Hebrew and Aramaic words borrowed from the previous, existing, indigenous peoples of that territory because they lived amongst people who continued to use Hebrew and Aramaic. (They also have borrowed words from Greek, French and English).

Yes. A war was fought. The Jewish side decisively won, and control the territory. Were it the other other way around I would saying Arab control of their (Jews) land. It is a fact the lan . Belongs to both peoples.

The land belongs to Israel.

The lion's share of the original Mandate of Palestine already belongs to Jordan.

It has been divided between the two groups with Arabs getting 78%.

And the people come with it.

 

[Coyote]

It's interesting the intensity and dedication there is towards insisting, even demanding that the Palestinians are not a people. That they were "invented" and even terming it that way is itself a dismissal and negation of them and any identity they are attempting to forge.

I think this often skirts the real questions:

What is "a people"?
Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?
At what point do they become a "people"?

Do they need a unique culture (and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Do they need a unique language?

Do they have to have had a nation?

I often ask "what is the magical timeline in which they can become a people" because one of the many arguments thrown against the Palestinians is that they were "invented" in 1967. But they weren't really. They were there and they were already coalescing into their own identity, separate from the other Arab cultures before that.

I think this excerpt says it well, although it's referring to nationalist aspirations.

Who Are The Palestinians? | My Jewish Learning

The earliest imaginings of a separate Palestinian national identity are traceable to the mid-19th century, perhaps partly in response to renewed Western interest in the “Holy Land.” As early as 1919, the first “Arab Palestinian Congress” called for Palestinian unity and independence, albeit still understanding Palestine as part of “Greater Syria.”

But it is the year 1948 — the time of naqba, or catastrophe, as Palestinian Arabs commonly call it– that marks the crucial watershed in the process of Palestinian nation-building. During Israel’s War of Independence against invading Arab armies, some 600,000 Arabs were dispossessed from their homes and became refugees. Not only individuals but embedded social patterns and relationships were uprooted, causing traumatic societal and cultural discontinuities. A society that had been centered on family, locality and traditional social patterns felt itself shattered.

Worse, the same predicament befell it again less than 20 years later in the aftermath of the Six‑Day War, which created many new refugees and saw the West Bank and Gaza Strip transferred from culturally cognate Jordanian‑Arab control to unfamiliar Israeli‑Jewish rule.

Throughout the Palestinian world, and especially in the refugee camps of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank, as the established social classes and patterns were unexpectedly shaken up together, a new social essence began to ferment, with the old local and communal affiliations becoming transmuted into a national one by a sense of shared history, suffering and hope.

Since 1967, the Arabs of Palestine have increasingly insisted on a separate identity for themselves. Even many Israeli Arabs, torn by ethnic loyalties and perhaps radicalized by decades of ethnic conflict, now routinely refer to themselves as “Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.”​

What you have is people, with long ties to a region, descended from the original and conquering cultures of the region coalescing into a distinct identity defined through catastrophe. That is "a people". And it is not an unnatural evolution.

 

[Shusha]

Yes. A war was fought. The Jewish side decisively won, and control the territory. Were it the other other way around I would saying Arab control of their (Jews) land. It is a fact the lan . Belongs to both peoples.

If the land belongs to both peoples it is not Arab land and should not be described as such.

Also, interesting that you use such passive language. "A war was fought". Um. No. The united Arabs launched a war to prevent Jewish sovereignty.

 

[Coyote]

Yes. A war was fought. The Jewish side decisively won, and control the territory. Were it the other other way around I would saying Arab control of their (Jews) land. It is a fact the lan . Belongs to both peoples.

If the land belongs to both peoples it is not Arab land and should not be described as such.

Also, interesting that you use such passive language. "A war was fought". Um. No. The united Arabs launched a war to prevent Jewish sovereignty.

It's passive because it was not entirely one sided conflict. Also - I said "their" land. "Their" as in the people who were living there on it at the time.

So...who's land should we refer to it as?

 

[Shusha]

It's passive because it was not entirely one sided conflict.

Its passive because you don't want to assign responsibility where it is merited.

So...who's land should we refer to it as?

The entire Mandate of Palestine is land which belongs to both the Jewish people and certain Arab people. You've already said so yourself. The only thing that is disputed is the boundary between the two.

 

[Coyote]

It's passive because it was not entirely one sided conflict.

Its passive because you don't want to assign responsibility where it is merited.

No. It's because it was a complex conflict, and I'm not going to simply it down into the Arabs attacked Israel (for example there was historical evidence that Israel also was provoking conflict) - that doesn't absolve the Arabs (and, they lost, so they got what they deserved) but it's not as black and white as the winner's narrative likes to paint it. So I stand by what I said.

So...who's land should we refer to it as?

The entire Mandate of Palestine is land which belongs to both the Jewish people and certain Arab people. You've already said so yourself. The only thing that is disputed is the boundary between the two.

Then why are we arguing? That is essentially what I meant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why don’t we simply except them as a people?

The word you are looking for is "accept", not except.

I accept them as a people who were invented in the 1960s strictly for propaganda purposes.

In other words, spelling Nazi crap aside, you don’t accept them as a people.

P.S. spelling and grammar Nazis need to be extra accurate in their corrections in order to pull it off. It is 1960’s not 1960s.

They are a people. They are Arabs, no different than any other Arabs, but Arabs are absolutely a people.

 

[DGS49]

To understand whether the Palestinians are a "real people," imagine the following:

The Mormons in Utah decide that they want to secede from the U.S., and form their own country. THey declare their independence and petition the U.N, to get some level of recognition. They fortify the "state" borders with militia. The U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the secession, but does not try to enforce U.S. sovereignty with military force, not wanting to kill a bunch of Mormons for political reasons. The standoff remains in place for years.

But there are tens of thousands of non-Mormon Americans still living in Utah, who want nothing to do with the new State/Government, and they live there in protest.

Are they a People, or are they just a bunch of Americans who just happened to be living in Utah when independence was declared?

Are Palestinians a "People," or are they just a gang of generic Arabs who happened to be living in that area when the State of Israel was declared? I say the latter.

 

[Coyote]

;'l

To understand whether the Palestinians are a "real people," imagine the following:

The Mormons in Utah decide that they want to secede from the U.S., and form their own country. THey declare their independence and petition the U.N, to get some level of recognition. They fortify the "state" borders with militia. The U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the secession, but does not try to enforce U.S. sovereignty with military force, not wanting to kill a bunch of Mormons for political reasons. The standoff remains in place for years.

But there are tens of thousands of non-Mormon Americans still living in Utah, who want nothing to do with the new State/Government, and they live there in protest.

Are they a People, or are they just a bunch of Americans who just happened to be living in Utah when independence was declared?

Are Palestinians a "People," or are they just a gang of generic Arabs who happened to be living in that area when the State of Israel was declared? I say the latter.

Who's to say Mormans aren't a people?

What defines a people?

 

[Shusha]

No. It's because it was a complex conflict, and I'm not going to simply it down into the Arabs attacked Israel (for example there was historical evidence that Israel also was provoking conflict)

Really? We begin with the premise that both peoples have rights to part of that territory. The Arab position was "no Jewish sovereignty/only Arab sovereignty". The Jewish position was shared sovereignty. Please describe for me the provocation committed by Israel. Be precise.

 

[Coyote]

No. It's because it was a complex conflict, and I'm not going to simply it down into the Arabs attacked Israel (for example there was historical evidence that Israel also was provoking conflict)

Really? We begin with the premise that both peoples have rights to part of that territory. The Arab position was "no Jewish sovereignty/only Arab sovereignty". The Jewish position was shared sovereignty. Please describe for me the provocation committed by Israel. Be precise.

I don't want to derail the thread - so I'll say this, and leave it (because this doesn't accurately describe the tensions going on at the time either): "The war began on June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a preemptive assault against the Egyptian and Syrian air forces." Six-Day War | Causes & Summary

 

[Coyote]

How they came to be a real people does NOT invalidate their existence as a real people.

Doesn't it?

How can we define "a people" without having an understanding of what that means and how one people are differentiated from another people? For example, are the people of Nazareth a "real" people? How would we know if they are or if they are not? How are they differentiated from Arab Palestinians? Should they have rights and access to national sovereignty and self-determination? What about the people of Galilee? Are they a "real" people? How would we know? How are they differentiated from all other people? Should they have rights and access to national self-determination?

What if the people of Judea and Samaria were to declare themselves a "real" people with history going back thousands of years? Would they not gain the rights of sovereignty and self-determination in their homeland? Surely, you would champion a State of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, would you not?

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

Yes...it does. Because it's identity. An identity that recognizes a shared culture, heritage, and if they can get their act together - a future. Denying it is denying THEIR right to an identity, history, a being. And that is what this is all about isn't? When you deny a people their identity, you erase them.

 

[Shusha]

I don't want to derail the thread - so I'll say this, and leave it (because this doesn't accurately describe the tensions going on at the time either): "The war began on June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a preemptive assault against the Egyptian and Syrian air forces." Six-Day War | Causes & Summary

OMG. Really? So with the premise of BOTH peoples having a valid claim to part of the territory, and in the context of the interference of Arabs NOT PART OF THAT CLAIM, with Jordan effectively annexing territory to which it did NOT have claim, and with Syria and Egypt (also Iraq and Lebanon) making threats and backing up those threats with military preparations ...

you label Israel as the one who is provocative?!??!?!!


You might want to look up the difference between provocative and preemptive.

 

[Shusha]

Then why are we arguing? That is essentially what I meant.

We are arguing because you didn't say "shared land" or "disputed land". You said "their land", in the context of Arab Palestinians. In future, if you mean shared land or disputed land you need to specify that.