'Palestinian'

[abu afak]

You seem to have entirely missed the point. =/ But I'll go through it again anyway.

I not only didn't miss the point I refuted you Thoroughly.
Thus below salvage attempt.. which doesn't answer my posts directly and deflects/mischaracterizes their cogent portions

Again, the main point of this is LAND. Palestinians are linguistically and culturally "Arab" peoples,

Good.
now you have been TAUGHT what a 'people' is. But you unwittingly impeached yourself.

the key point of their identity is the fact that they or their ancestors lived in the region of historic Palestine. All that you can claim is that they're "just Arabs," which is false and, frankly, stupid - a Yemeni is an Arab too, so is a Moroccan, yet they're not the same, and they live thousands of miles from each other...

Of course I compared their arbitrariness with Jordanians and other closer groups, Not Moroccans. You, of course CANNOT handle/quote that distinction/non-distinction

Further

Palestine inhabited by a Mixed population

The "Chauvinist Arab version of history," then--so important to the current claim of "Palestinian" rights to "Arab Palestine," which Arab Palestinians PURPORTEDLY inhabited for "Thousands of years" --omits several relevant, situation-altering facts.

History did not begin with the Arab conquest in the seventh century.
The people whose nation was destroyed by the Romans were the Jews.

There were no Arab Palestinians then -- not until 700 years later would an Arab rule prevail, and then Briefly. And not by people known as "Palestinians." The short Arab rule would be reigning over Christians and Jews, who had been there to languish under various other foreign conquerors, -- Roman, Byzantine, Persian, to name just three in the centuries between the Roman and Arab conquests. The peoples who conquered under the banner of the invading Arabians from the desert were often hired mercenaries who remained on the land as soldiers -- not Arabians, but others who were enticed by the promise of the booty of conquest.

From the time the Arabians, along with their non-Arabian recruits, entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was "ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations to which, when Palestine became a land of pilgrimage, a new admixture was added."1 Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.

John of Wurzburg lists for the middle era of the kingdom, Latins, Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians,Egyptians, Copts, Maronites and natives from the Nile Delta. The list might be much extended, for it was the period of the great self-willed city-states in Europe, and Amalfi, Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Marseillais, who had quarters in all the bigger cities, owned villages, and had trading rights, would, in all probability, have submitted to any of the above designations, only under pressure. Besides all these, Norsemen, Danes, Frisians, Tartars, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Nubians, and Samaritans, can be safely added to the greatest human agglomeration drawn together in one small area of the globe."2​

Greeks fled the Muslim rule in Greece, and landed in Palestine.
By the mid-17 century, the Greeks lived everywhere in the Holy Land--constituting about 20% of the population-and their authority dominated the villages.3

Between 1750 and 1766 Jaffa had been rebuilt, and had some 500 houses. Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Armenians and a solitary Latin monk lived there, to attend to the wants of the thousands of pilgrims who had to be temporarily housed in the port before proceeding to Jerusalem.4​

"In some cases villages [in Palestine] are populated wholly by settlers from other portions of the Turkish Empire within the 19th century. There are villages of Bosnians, Druzes, Circassians and Egyptians," one historian has reported. 5

Another source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition (before the "more chauvinist Arab history" began to prevail with the encouragement of the British), finds the "population" of Palestine composed of so "widely differing" a group of "inhabitants" -- whose "ethnological affinities" create "early in the 20th century a list of no less than 50 languages" (see below) -- that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine."
In addition to the "Assyrian, Persian and Roman" elements of ancient times, "the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages."

. . . There are very Large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy . . . Turkoman settlements ... a number of Persians and a fairly large Afghan colony . . . Motawila ... long settled immigrants from Persia ... tribes of Kurds ... German "Templar" colonies ... a Bosnian colony ... and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres ... by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin ... a large Algerian element in the population ... still maintain(s) [while] the Sudanese have been reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century.​

In the late 18th century, 3,000 Albanians recruited by Russians were settled in Acre.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica finds "most interesting all the non-Arab communities in the country . . . the Samaritan sect in Nablus (Shechem); a gradually disappearing body" once "settled by the Assyrians to occupy the land left waste by the captivity of the Kingdom of Israel."6

The Disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be "settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years" were in fact a "Heterogeneous" community 7 With NO "Palestinian" identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, NO Arab identity either:
"The people west of the Jordan are Not Arabs, but Only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race." 8

Palestine inhabited by a mixed population

One could in fact argue Gazans are closer to Egyptians than fellow WB 'palestinians'.

Again, someone from Canada might have the exact same language, exact same skin color, exact same white anglo-protestant ethno-religious background as someone from the US, it doesn't give anybody the right to come to Canada and cleanse it because "they're the same as Americas [according to me]."

What? :^)
Get a grip. We're not talking about "cleansing", we're talking about what makes a people.
You want to try the 'Cleansing' slander-- try another string.
Hint: it won't work either.

What separates a Canadian from an American is the fact that one LIVES in the LAND of Canada and another LIVES in the LAND of America, hence they subscribe to different national identities and are not the same - a Canadian does not consider himself an American, just like Palestinians don't consider themselves Iraqis. Even WITHIN countries the culture varies - New York has a different "culture" from Texas, even if they both share American culture.

The main thing that separates American from Canadian, AS I SAID, is 300+ years of different history AS peoples.
NO such difference between 'Jordanians' and 'palestinians'. No Cultural or lingual difference either.
And one notes you don't know/haven't absorbed Both Jordan (77% of the Mandate, and Iraq) were both given To Saudi/Hashemite Princes as spoils. (STOLEN) The former.. er.. 'Palestinian' land.
Where's your indignence?
Having to bring in Moroccans just shows the weakness of your position.

And just because America became a country 200 years ago but most Arab countries became countries 70 years ago doesn't make a difference, unless you're willing to sit down now and explain to everyone here at what arbitrary point in time (in years) does an identity become "legitimate" enough for you - is it 20 years? 40 years? 200 years? 2000 years? And WHY?

This would be true (ooops) if there was ONE Arabia instead of many bogus countries, but is NOT true of the fake mini-constructs resulting from Ottoman break up.
Iraqis, Jordanians, Palestinians have no shared sense of Individualness/History/Raison. Americans did at the time of the Constitution.
The defeat of the Ottomans just left a lot of Sheikdoms/Emirates/Tribes and a few kingdoms. Only the latter close to a 'people' or Nation. UNLIKE Zionists.

That half of Jordan identifies itself as Palestinian is, again, irrelevant. Most Jews live in the US, so I guess Israel is not needed right? Or what, is it because it's not ruled by Jews that it's not appropriate? Neither is Jordan, so I guess it's not appropriate either. That is, if we're being honest and holding everyone to the same standard.

I said 70% NOT half. Dishonest quote.
And a laughable point/NOT analogous since Jews are claiming the USA as a Second state.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The British Mandate of Palestine itself was entirely arbitrarily constructed in the 1920s by a caretaker colonial administration.

Quite right. That's because there was NO existing Nationalist Peoples ready form a country. Thus a Mandate period was needed for the area's Arabs to be divided. UNLIKE the Zionists.

During Ottoman times what is now Jordan was entirely a different province and what is now Israel/OPTs were separated into three or four Ottoman Seljuks, all of which had a huge majority of Arabs and only a tiny percentage of Jews..

That's "Sanjaks" NOT "Seljuks"
Seljuks were a 1000 year old Islamic (Turkish) Dynasty.
LOL.

and as explained in my last. Jews only got a Tiny percent of the land. (13% of Mandate of which half was desert/ and 1% of Ottomania)
And unlike their neighbors Jordan and [rejected] palestine, Jews were expected (and do) share their land even though a majority in it as of of 1947. (thus it's borders)
-
-

 

[mudwhistle]

Tinhead.
This is how it's done.
You don't have to 'quote' my whole comprehensive post to add your Dumb 8 words.
One assumes you are responding to the post immediately above.
(altho I could quote you here, but only because of page change/continuity)

If unlikely, someone should intervene in between then you can edit in the quote.
Quoting a Long Muliquote reply you are Not going to do the same with is a giant waste of space and makes the string needlessly long and UNREADABLE.
Got it Tinhead?

Many boards wisely only quote the post of one/last poster--preventing the 6 or 8 quote-within-quote-within-quote disasters here.
-
-

If the thread is hot most of the time that doesn't work because in the time it takes to post your own comment somebody else has already commented before you. Doing what you want would be confusing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine inhabited by a Mixed population

The "Chauvinist Arab version of history," then--so important to the current claim of "Palestinian" rights to "Arab Palestine," which Arab Palestinians PURPORTEDLY inhabited for "Thousands of years" --omits several relevant, situation-altering facts.

History did not begin with the Arab conquest in the seventh century.
The people whose nation was destroyed by the Romans were the Jews.

There were no Arab Palestinians then -- not until 700 years later would an Arab rule prevail, and then Briefly. And not by people known as "Palestinians." The short Arab rule would be reigning over Christians and Jews, who had been there to languish under various other foreign conquerors, -- Roman, Byzantine, Persian, to name just three in the centuries between the Roman and Arab conquests. The peoples who conquered under the banner of the invading Arabians from the desert were often hired mercenaries who remained on the land as soldiers -- not Arabians, but others who were enticed by the promise of the booty of conquest.

From the time the Arabians, along with their non-Arabian recruits, entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was "ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations to which, when Palestine became a land of pilgrimage, a new admixture was added."1 Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.
John of Wurzburg lists for the middle era of the kingdom, Latins, Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians,Egyptians, Copts, Maronites and natives from the Nile Delta. The list might be much extended, for it was the period of the great self-willed city-states in Europe, and Amalfi, Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Marseillais, who had quarters in all the bigger cities, owned villages, and had trading rights, would, in all probability, have submitted to any of the above designations, only under pressure. Besides all these, Norsemen, Danes, Frisians, Tartars, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Nubians, and Samaritans, can be safely added to the greatest human agglomeration drawn together in one small area of the globe."2
Greeks fled the Muslim rule in Greece, and landed in Palestine.
By the mid-17 century, the Greeks lived everywhere in the Holy Land--constituting about 20% of the population-and their authority dominated the villages.3
Between 1750 and 1766 Jaffa had been rebuilt, and had some 500 houses. Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Armenians and a solitary Latin monk lived there, to attend to the wants of the thousands of pilgrims who had to be temporarily housed in the port before proceeding to Jerusalem.4
"In some cases villages [in Palestine] are populated wholly by settlers from other portions of the Turkish Empire within the 19th century. There are villages of Bosnians, Druzes, Circassians and Egyptians," one historian has reported. 5

Another source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition (before the "more chauvinist Arab history" began to prevail with the encouragement of the British), finds the "population" of Palestine composed of so "widely differing" a group of "inhabitants" -- whose "ethnological affinities" create "early in the 20th century a list of no less than 50 languages" (see below) -- that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine."
In addition to the "Assyrian, Persian and Roman" elements of ancient times, "the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages."
. . . There are very Large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy . . . Turkoman settlements ... a number of Persians and a fairly large Afghan colony . . . Motawila ... long settled immigrants from Persia ... tribes of Kurds ... German "Templar" colonies ... a Bosnian colony ... and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres ... by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin ... a large Algerian element in the population ... still maintain(s) [while] the Sudanese have been reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century.
In the late 18th century, 3,000 Albanians recruited by Russians were settled in Acre.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica finds "most interesting all the non-Arab communities in the country . . . the Samaritan sect in Nablus (Shechem); a gradually disappearing body" once "settled by the Assyrians to occupy the land left waste by the captivity of the Kingdom of Israel."6

The Disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be "settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years" were in fact a "Heterogeneous" community 7 With NO "Palestinian" identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, NO Arab identity either:
"The people west of the Jordan are Not Arabs, but Only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race." 8

Palestine inhabited by a mixed population

Thank you for this link. I have always tried to avoid calling the Palestinians "the Arabs." Palestine is Arab like the US is English. What has been called Palestine since its borders were defined in 1922 has been in constant flux since the beginning of time. What does this mean? Different people have come and gone but there have always been some who stayed and put down roots. They mixed in with the existing peoples and became the core population for the place now called Palestine.

These are the Palestinians, the normal inhabitants, the permanent population of Palestine. They are the ones who have the right to their country. They are the ones who have the right to self determination.

Foreigners do not have those rights.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Palestine inhabited by a Mixed population

The "Chauvinist Arab version of history," then--so important to the current claim of "Palestinian" rights to "Arab Palestine," which Arab Palestinians PURPORTEDLY inhabited for "Thousands of years" --omits several relevant, situation-altering facts.

History did not begin with the Arab conquest in the seventh century.
The people whose nation was destroyed by the Romans were the Jews.

There were no Arab Palestinians then -- not until 700 years later would an Arab rule prevail, and then Briefly. And not by people known as "Palestinians." The short Arab rule would be reigning over Christians and Jews, who had been there to languish under various other foreign conquerors, -- Roman, Byzantine, Persian, to name just three in the centuries between the Roman and Arab conquests. The peoples who conquered under the banner of the invading Arabians from the desert were often hired mercenaries who remained on the land as soldiers -- not Arabians, but others who were enticed by the promise of the booty of conquest.

From the time the Arabians, along with their non-Arabian recruits, entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was "ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations to which, when Palestine became a land of pilgrimage, a new admixture was added."1 Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.
John of Wurzburg lists for the middle era of the kingdom, Latins, Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians,Egyptians, Copts, Maronites and natives from the Nile Delta. The list might be much extended, for it was the period of the great self-willed city-states in Europe, and Amalfi, Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Marseillais, who had quarters in all the bigger cities, owned villages, and had trading rights, would, in all probability, have submitted to any of the above designations, only under pressure. Besides all these, Norsemen, Danes, Frisians, Tartars, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Nubians, and Samaritans, can be safely added to the greatest human agglomeration drawn together in one small area of the globe."2
Greeks fled the Muslim rule in Greece, and landed in Palestine.
By the mid-17 century, the Greeks lived everywhere in the Holy Land--constituting about 20% of the population-and their authority dominated the villages.3
Between 1750 and 1766 Jaffa had been rebuilt, and had some 500 houses. Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Armenians and a solitary Latin monk lived there, to attend to the wants of the thousands of pilgrims who had to be temporarily housed in the port before proceeding to Jerusalem.4
"In some cases villages [in Palestine] are populated wholly by settlers from other portions of the Turkish Empire within the 19th century. There are villages of Bosnians, Druzes, Circassians and Egyptians," one historian has reported. 5

Another source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition (before the "more chauvinist Arab history" began to prevail with the encouragement of the British), finds the "population" of Palestine composed of so "widely differing" a group of "inhabitants" -- whose "ethnological affinities" create "early in the 20th century a list of no less than 50 languages" (see below) -- that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine."
In addition to the "Assyrian, Persian and Roman" elements of ancient times, "the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages."
. . . There are very Large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy . . . Turkoman settlements ... a number of Persians and a fairly large Afghan colony . . . Motawila ... long settled immigrants from Persia ... tribes of Kurds ... German "Templar" colonies ... a Bosnian colony ... and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres ... by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin ... a large Algerian element in the population ... still maintain(s) [while] the Sudanese have been reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century.
In the late 18th century, 3,000 Albanians recruited by Russians were settled in Acre.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica finds "most interesting all the non-Arab communities in the country . . . the Samaritan sect in Nablus (Shechem); a gradually disappearing body" once "settled by the Assyrians to occupy the land left waste by the captivity of the Kingdom of Israel."6

The Disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be "settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years" were in fact a "Heterogeneous" community 7 With NO "Palestinian" identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, NO Arab identity either:
"The people west of the Jordan are Not Arabs, but Only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race." 8

Palestine inhabited by a mixed population

Thank you for this link. I have always tried to avoid calling the Palestinians "the Arabs." Palestine is Arab like the US is English. What has been called Palestine since its borders were defined in 1922 has been in constant flux since the beginning of time. What does this mean? Different people have come and gone but there have always been some who stayed and put down roots. They mixed in with the existing peoples and became the core population for the place now called Palestine.

These are the Palestinians, the normal inhabitants, the permanent population of Palestine. They are the ones who have the right to their country. They are the ones who have the right to self determination.

Foreigners do not have those rights.

Mr. Tinmore, you are squatting on Native American land. Please move out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think there are equitable arrangements that should be made.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I think there are equitable arrangements that should be made.

Finally, the first response to me in a long time, Mr. Terrorist and Hypocrite. You once said you would concentrate your "personal attention" to any direct question to you, but that hasn't happened recently.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think there are equitable arrangements that should be made.

Finally, the first response to me in a long time, Mr. Terrorist and Hypocrite. You once said you would concentrate your "personal attention" to any direct question to you, but that hasn't happened recently.

Sorry, I have a family, a job, and a part time business. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not live on this board.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Considering that you couldn't even answer half my post, I shouldn't bother... but I will nonetheless.

Of course I compared their arbitrariness with Jordanians and other closer groups, Not Moroccans. You, of course CANNOT handle/quote that distinction/non-distinction
And one notes you don't know/haven't absorbed Both Jordan (77% of the Mandate, and Iraq) were both given To Saudi/Hashemite Princes as spoils. (STOLEN) The former.. er.. 'Palestinian' land.
Where's your indignence?
Having to bring in Moroccans just shows the weakness of your position.

Oh man, you just keep missing it, bud. I bring up Moroccans and Yemenis for the simple reason that in your own post that's what you keep saying - that Palestinians are "just Arabs," I bring up Morocco because here we have an example of people who are Arabs, yet, they are different! And you seem to agree, what a surprise. So Palestinians are "just Arabs"... but Moroccans are not "just Arabs"? So Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, and Palestinians are all "fake," they are only Arabs... but Moroccans are not "fake"? Or are they not Arabs? Hope you're reading to go down the list, how about Egyptians? Are they "just Arabs"? Which countries are "just Arab" and which countries are "not just Arab," Abu? Which countries of the middle east are made up of a "real" people?

Nearly all of the current countries of the Middle East were spoils given to different monarchic allies of Britain - - the Sauds, the Hashemites, etc. I am not disputing that. Almost the same is true of most arbitrary lines of African states, or the countries that today are Latin America - which were really just different provinces awarded to different ruling classes in each respective territory. What YOU seem to be saying is that none of these could ever be "a people," which doesn't take into account things like 70 years of nation-building and self rule by most of these Middle Eastern states.

The argument that you're making is no different from the argument Saddam would use to justify his invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait - they're not a "real people", they're just like us, according to you, he's probably right. If Britain had carved up Iraq for it to include Kuwait, Kuwaitis might consider themselves Iraqis today - but they didn't, they've been leading "separate histories" since their inceptions as countries, and therefore, there's millions of people today who consider themselves KUWAITIS, not IRAQIS and not just "Arab." The same is true of the US, where everyone was simply a British subject until barely decades before independence, and a lot of them considered themselves so afterwards too - it took a short period of nation-building for an American identity to be forged. By your standards, Britain would be perfectly justified to impress US sailors in the lead-up to the War of 1812, because they hadn't even been a country for 36 years, not enough time to forge their own identity according to you - they were just British soldiers.

The act of forming a polity that views itself differently necessarily leads to the creation of "a people" as a separate identity, maybe not everyone accepts the identity immediately, but eventually every people today who consider themselves something, or part of a particular polity, necessarily form a "people" themselves, regardless of YOUR arbitrary parameters. The problem here is that any other example is irrelevant: To YOU it doesn't matter whether Central American states each have their own people, or whether Americans were a "real people" when they were a young nation, or whether Austrians are a "real people" vis-a-vis the Germans. None of this is relevant to you, because you either take it as a given or simply never thought about it and don't care. Your entire purpose rests on this one particular people, the Palestinian people, to delegitimize them and justify violence and oppression against them by a polity that you yourself support.

What? :^)
Get a grip. We're not talking about "cleansing", we're talking about what makes a people.
You want to try the 'Cleansing' slander-- try another string.
Hint: it won't work either.

I assume this is what you take issue with:

"That's why it's irrelevant how you frame it, what it comes down to is advocating ethnic cleansing: you want to claim that there is no such thing as palestinians so that you can legitimize your belief that Israel is justified in kicking every Palestinian out of where they've always lived and their ancestors lived because they're "just Arabs" and so they can go live in any other Arab place. Until you go ahead and explain that this would be legitimate for any other country - that anybody can walk into Austria because theyre "just Germans" or that anybody can take over Singapore because they're "just Chinese" we know that you're just fulfilling the role of a propagandist for one side's violence."

I'm sorry, if this is incorrect. Let me rephrase. Let's assume, as you do, then, that Palestinians are not a "people," as you claim. The question is: So what is the implication of that, as you see it, as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Happy?

The main thing that separates American from Canadian, AS I SAID, is 300+ years of different history AS peoples.
NO such difference between 'Jordanians' and 'palestinians'. No Cultural or lingual difference either.

What separates an American and Canadian is 300 hundred years of different history AS peoples? Well, actually it's closer to 235, but ok. Let's then say you're right and that there was no difference between Jordanians and Palestinians until 44 years ago, when their different histories began, according to you.

I posit the question again, Professor: at which point, between 44 years of "different histories" and 235 years of "different histories," can a 'potential people' become a real people? How many years should elapse according to you, before it's legitimate for people to call themselves a people?

This would be true (ooops) if there was ONE Arabia instead of many bogus countries, but is NOT true of the fake mini-constructs resulting from Ottoman break up.
Iraqis, Jordanians, Palestinians have no shared sense of Individualness/History/Raison. Americans did at the time of the Constitution.
The defeat of the Ottomans just left a lot of Sheikdoms/Emirates/Tribes and a few kingdoms. Only the latter close to a 'people' or Nation. UNLIKE Zionists.

Again, you keep making the mistake that a people have to have some sort of millenary history for it to be "real." As I've said before [which you totally ignored] the entire thing with the borders is no more or less legitimate than any other border. I'll repost, since you ignored it:

"Nearly every country in the world today, including most of the Americas, Africa, and Oceania are based on conqueror constructs thanks to a history of imperialism and colonialism. There is absolutely no "ethnic" differences between New Zealanders and Australians and Britons and Canadians, yet they're not all the same [again] or any less legitimate. In reality, all borders are illegitimate arbitrary creations that don't follow any real logic, but that is the way the world is ordered and hence the reality we have to deal with. I don't know if you have ever seen a map of the US, but there's a suspiciously long straight line running from the great lakes to the pacific that surely respects no ethnic, linguistic, or cultural divisions and resulted from the US bargaining with Britain, and is the only reason people in norther Minnesota and N Dakota today aren't Canadian. That's the way it is and it doesn't make it any more or less legitimate. The fact is that TODAY Iraqis, Jordanians, and Palestinians are people, specifically Arab people who live in the land spaces that today are called those names, no different from any other country."

Like I said before which you ignored, Central America was part of Mexico at independence - same language, similar customs, same "ethnicity" in a way, yet they separated and became a different people. Then the 5 constituent provinces themselves separated. What you claim is that none of these countries are a "people" because you consider them 'too similar' to their neighbors to be a different people - if you feel that way about the Middle East because of the reasons you describe, there's little reason for you to think any differently of the Spanish colonies in the Americas, unless of course, they satisfy your hitherto undisclosed "time requirement for peopledom" (10? 100? 1000 years was it, Abu?)

I said 70% NOT half. Dishonest quote.
And a laughable point/NOT analogous since Jews are claiming the USA as a Second state.

It's not a dishonest quote, dickwad. I was correcting you. 50% of Jordanians are Palestinians (or "West Bankers"), not 70%. "LOL"

That's "Sanjaks" NOT "Seljuks"
Seljuks were a 1000 year old Islamic (Turkish) Dynasty.
LOL.

Yeah well, was in a rush, honest mistake.

And unlike their neighbors Jordan and [rejected] palestine, Jews were expected (and do) share their land even though a majority in it as of of 1947. (thus it's borders)
-

I'm not denying that Israelis are a majority in the 1948 lines, or that they should give any of the pre 67-land land back. Thought I made that pretty clear in my post.

Anyway, here's the rest, you seem to have missed it:

It does but only now. But let's not kid ourselves about "some great country called Palestine being overrun by the Jews".
What makes a 'people' is Culture, Language, Ethnicity/Race, shared History, etc and they know it.
Jews know they are a people.

No, actually they're not, by YOUR own arbitrary standards they would not qualify as a people for most of the past 2000 years. This is just sad. By your own arbitrary definition of what makes a "people", not mine (I don't have one, I'm so naive that I assume that when millions of people define themselves as something, I should be inclined to believe them).

Jews did not have the same language until the 1900s. Hebrew was a dead language only used for liturgical purposes, just like Latin, for over 1500 years. The vast majority of Jews did not speak Hebrew. Jews are not all of the same race or ethnicity - there's Slavic Jews, Western European Jews, Black Ethiopian Jews, Arab Jews. They did not have a shared history - there was a hugely spread out diaspora living all over the world with their own individual histories - and there still are to a degree. That's why all your "parameters" are useless. The only relevant thing is that Jews KNOW they are a people. Hence, they are a people - like Palestinians feel that they are a people. Whether they speak different languages, have different histories, or are of different races is entirely irrelevant.

The only real loser the Larger True People (Culture, Language, Ethicity) KURDS.
But you don't here much about that, and certainly You aren't/haven't going to make an issue of that.

Sure that Kurds are a people. I'm not going to deny that. If Kurds want a state, they should have one, Britain should've carved a Kurdish state. If they wanted to separate from Iraq/Turkey/Syria/Iran, I'd be all for it, and if they were oppressed (as they have been for ages by all of those regimes) I'll be the first to condemn it. This thread isn't about Kurds though. Feel free to make one and I'll go right to it.

 

[abu afak]

Actually you keep being humiliated by facts.
I post Facts and History you post increasingly long/defensive replies.
Full of nonsense argumentation.
It's clear [only] ONE of us knows the subject matter (Seljuks/Sanjaks/I-P-history) while you try and BLUFF your way through.
So this is shorter, sweeter, (the longhand above) and to the point I (as the truth can be) for everyone else.
(since you know you're Fullof it/have lost)
But thanks for this Showcase/Being my foil, if a poor one.

Oh man, you just keep missing it, bud. I bring up Moroccans and Yemenis for the simple reason that in your own post that's what you keep saying - that Palestinians are "just Arabs," I bring up Morocco because here we have an example of people who are Arabs, yet, they are different! And you seem to agree, what a surprise. So Palestinians are "just Arabs"... but Moroccans are not "just Arabs"? ...

Now you got it! Unwittingly as always but that's a true statement even if in the form of an anti-true ironic one.

I suggest You google/Wiki 'Morocco' (which is why you used it Instead of the More appropriate/analogous Iraq or Jordan) and you'll see, that UNLIKE Palestinians, Morocco (Like, Jews/Zionists, Turks, Egyptians, etc) has a long history of being an independent country/people.
And unlike Kurds, Palestinians are NOT a unique Ethnology/Language/Culture either...
and Unlike Americans not a group with even a Raison/Declaration of Independence.
IOW... No way at all.

They were Leftover Arabs that could have become part of Jordan, Syria, or Egypt (especially more closely related Gazans for the latter). And would have staid such were it not for the fact Arabs lost the 1967 War.
They were not a people.

Your posts get Longer (baffle em with BS) in desperate hope they will intimidate.. but you can't refute this Single fact. Palestinians were NOT a people.
Thus (again) even from 1948-1967 when Arabs controlled the land there was NO 'palestine.
They are NOT Like Moroccans, Kurds, or Americans.

In fact, even your only single tiny arguable claim, that they are unique within Arabs.. is UNTRUE/I Refuted.
They had not only not any "National"/Palestinian Identity but "Not Arab either". (link in last)

Yet Further...

"...Arab activist Musa Alami despaired: as he saw the problem, "how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? ... The people are in great need of a 'Myth' to fill their consciousness and imagination. . . ." According to Alami, an indoctrination of the "Myth" of Nationality would create "identity" and "self-respect."8

However, Alami's proposal was confounded by the realities: between 1948 and 1967, the Arab state of Jordan claimed Annexation of the territory west of the Jordan River, the "West Bank" area of Palestine -- the SAME area that would LATER be forwarded by Arab "moderates" as a "mini-state" for the "Palestinians."

Thus, that area was, between 1948 and 1967, called "Arab land," the peoples were Arabs, and yet the "myth" that Musa Alami prescribed-the cause of "Palestine" for the "Palestinians" -- remained Unheralded, Unadopted by the Arabs during two decades.
According to Lord Caradon, "Every Arab assumed the Palestinians [Refugees] would go Back to Jordan.9.."

Same link/website as in last That You Couldn't Even Touch!

So Again thanks.
I Love amateurs.
Now your next post will have to try and Bury the truth with a yet longer one.
But I'm done with you now BOY.
Unless it's to hold you up for further embarrassment to make a point.
-

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I do love the way you spin the fact that you can't respond to simple examples and have to make an excuse that the post is "too long" to respond instead of facing up to your obvious intellectual incapacity. You can't even answer the most elementary questions on your 'parameters' for "Peopledom". It's pathetic, but admittedly amusing.

I posit the question again [FOR THE THIRD TIME], Professor: at which point, between 44 years of "different histories" and 235 years of "different histories," can a 'potential people' become a real people? How many years should elapse according to you, before it's legitimate for people to call themselves a people?

To be honest I'm just hoping for you to enlighten me, Professor Abak. You see, I come from a small country that also speaks the same language as its neighbors, that also had the same imperial history for many centuries, that also had a similar "ethnic make up" and that is also shaped by supposedly illegitimate imperial constructed borders... You've put some great doubt in my mind, Abu. All this time I thought the Costa Rican people were a people... but now I'm not sure, bud. Cuz I'm not sure if we meet the "time lapsed" requirement or the [this one's great] "RAISON" requirement that you obviously cannot answer, because you're a pathetic idiot who's entire point with this thread is to legitimize genocide and ethnic cleansing, but then denies it.

"Raison"/declaration of independence... you realize that's the part where you give away the fact that you are a complete moron, right? Funny, cuz Kurds never had a declaration of independence, or self rule - most of the indigenous peoples of the Americas haven't had declarations of independence or self-rule in, at least, 500 years... Guess they're not a people either. Oh, but the Kurds ARE a people, because they're all the same ethnicity and speak the same language... But then... Americans don't all have the same ethnicity, and there is such a thing as "the American people," I presume. Canadians don't really have a unique ethnicity or language either, but they are "independent" from Great Britain, so... Hmmm, I dunno, as I said before too, which you conveniently ignored, Jewish people did not have a single history, or a single language, or a declaration of independence, or a single ethnicity for thousands of years and even today... but THEY qualify as people.... how can that be?? I'm getting very confused. It seems like the requirements needed by some are not met by others, yet they remain people... Everyone... Hmmm... Except for Palestinians!! How fucking convenient for you!!

Oh, that's right! Because the whole point is that there is no single definition for what constitutes a people, all that we can tell from your examples and your "parameters" is that everyone that you don't have a problem with can be a people for any of the above listed reasons, except Palestinians, because you say so. You, Abu Afak, USBM poster, reserve yourself the right to decide who is a people and who isn't. Do you keep a record? Abu Afak's "People Compendium: A guide to peoples who are a people and people who aren't a people"? Do people around the world come to you, so that they can learn when they're allowed to be a people or not? Do you have an office in town? Or is this really all just the fact that everyone is a people, except Palestinians. Can I have other examples of "fake people" other than the Palestinians, Jordanians, Iraqis? Give us more fake people. I wanna know who they are.

As a side note: I'm not interested in your silly propaganda links. EretzYsrael.org? Really? I can see that it's written for the intellectually challenged, like yourself, but please. Don't insult me with "EretzYsrael.org," I think that's beneath even you. A "myth" of nationality to create "identity" and "self respect" is basically a description of every state that has ever existed, Israel AND the United States included. But again, the point is that you have an irrational hatred of Palestinian people and thus have to delegitimize them as a people, they're not a people, they're cockroaches and dogs who should be cast out if not exterminated. We know the story. Thanks for sharing, but no thanks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians were NOT a people.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians of that pantload.

There is no Palestine.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKFhgYo5ahs]YouTube - ‪86 a Sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx‬‏[/ame]

 

[docmauser1]

Palestinians were NOT a people.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians of that pantload.

In the words of Bruce Thornton: "What constitutes a people are a shared language, culture, customs, traditions, and history distinct enough to set them apart from others. By these criteria, there is no such thing as "Palestinians"."
So, it's evident that outside of the affirmative action perennial arab loser support and pestering of jews there're no other reasons for existence of the "palistani people".

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians were NOT a people.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians of that pantload.

In the words of Bruce Thornton: "What constitutes a people are a shared language, culture, customs, traditions, and history distinct enough to set them apart from others. By these criteria, there is no such thing as "Palestinians"."
So, it's evident that outside of the affirmative action perennial arab loser support and pestering of jews there're no other reasons for existence of the "palistani people".

The Palestinians have all that. What is your point?

 

[docmauser1]

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians of that pantload.

In the words of Bruce Thornton: "What constitutes a people are a shared language, culture, customs, traditions, and history distinct enough to set them apart from others. By these criteria, there is no such thing as "Palestinians"."
So, it's evident that outside of the affirmative action perennial arab loser support and pestering of jews there're no other reasons for existence of the "palistani people".

The Palestinians have all that.

They believe they have all that. Not enough, of course. Nothing sets them apart from other general arabs from the hood.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the words of Bruce Thornton: "What constitutes a people are a shared language, culture, customs, traditions, and history distinct enough to set them apart from others. By these criteria, there is no such thing as "Palestinians"."
So, it's evident that outside of the affirmative action perennial arab loser support and pestering of jews there're no other reasons for existence of the "palistani people".

The Palestinians have all that.

They believe they have all that. Not enough, of course. Nothing sets them apart from other general arabs from the hood.

Sure they do. Who else has two prime ministers?

 

[docmauser1]

The Palestinians have all that.

They believe they have all that. Not enough, of course. Nothing sets them apart from other general arabs from the hood.

Sure they do. Who else has two prime ministers?

Indeed, one thief-in-chief is never enough in palistan.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They believe they have all that. Not enough, of course. Nothing sets them apart from other general arabs from the hood.

Sure they do. Who else has two prime ministers?

Indeed, one thief-in-chief is never enough in palistan.

Only one of them is a thief. The one the US likes.

 

[JStone]

:usa_whistle::eusa_histle:

Coin ca. 1927 AD. LOL

Israel Stele, ca. 1200 BCE.: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/03/the-merenptah-stela.aspx#Article

I win by 3,000+ years.

 

[JStone]

Palestinians were NOT a people.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians of that pantload.

There is no Palestine.

Arabs were convinced there has never been a "Palestine" 50+ years ago...

Philip Hitti, Arab historian, Princeton Univ. professor, advisor to the Arab delegation which established the United Nations representing the Institute of Arab American Affairs testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946...

The Sunday schools have done a great deal of harm to us, becauseby smearing the walls of the rooms with maps of Palestine, they areassociating it in the mind of the average American--and I may say perhaps the Englishman too---with the Jews. Sir, there is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.

Source: Hearing before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Washington D.C., State Department, Jan. 11, 1946, Central Zionist Archive (Jerusalem), p. 6.

 

[hortysir]

They did not even call themselves Palestinians until the middle 1960s.

Al Hambra Theatre, Jaffa 1937, flying Palestinian flag.

You need to get off that propaganda.

Filealestine-Mandate-Ensign-1927-1948.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File: Palestine-Mandate-Ensign-1927-1948.svg

Compared to HOW MANY centuries of Israelites?