'Palestinian'

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
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.
Compared to HOW MANY centuries of Israelites?
:eusa_shhh:
At least 3200 years of Israelite history, verified by the archaeological record.:clap2:

Arabs first began calling themselves Palestinians in 1967 :lol:
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
You seem to have entirely missed the point. =/ But I'll go through it again anyway.

Zionism was 100 Year old Nationalist revival Movement of the Jews. Reviving one of 3200 years and existed for 1400 years,
'Palestinianism' was NOT.
Not only did they Not accept the partition creating 'Palestine' in 1948, but for 20 years subsequent the land was Annexed by Jordan and there was NO 'Palestine' nor even really 'palestinians',
as Arabs never really bought that crap until about the time they lost the WB to Israel in the 1967 War. Otherwise there would still be passport-carrying Jordanians.
Jordan is 70% 'Palestinian' (whatever that is) as it's Queen.
In fact, in 'Black September' (1970), Arafat & co. tried to Make Jordan the Palestinian state it is/was by overthrowing King Hussein.
But they lost-- and it was back to 'Israel' and wanting the West Bank which was renounced in the 1964 PLO Charter.
Very Little between American and Canadian.. perhaps except Shared 300+ years histories of each.
Again, the main point of this is LAND. Palestinians are linguistically and culturally "Arab" peoples, 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. 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 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.

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?

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.

Much bigger between Americans and Mexicans who are a different ethnicity/language/culture (which is why you Didn't make THAT comparison) and part of whose Land we Americans now sit.
Don't see the relevance. Explain.



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.



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. 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. And that's what the point is - whether they were there, they LIVED there, not in Algeria or in Kuwait, but THERE. That's why they're not "just Arabs." That's why Israelis are not "just Jews" anymore, because they live THERE.

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.



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.

And Arabs under various new, made-up, misgrouped (ie 'Iraq'), and old names got 99% of the Ottoman Break up.The problem, as you unwitting quoted above, was they wanted 100%.
But Arabs overall did very well in the Break-up. Perhaps ruling 110% of their 'original Range'.
"Arabs" got countries where they lived under Ottoman rule. Turks got Turkey, where they lived. The Kurds did get screwed over, but at least they're still where they lived, not getting bulldozed out of their land anymore. Again, what happened elsewhere is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

What is relevant is that the Arabs of historic Palestine, today known as Palestinians, wanted 100% because they basically were 100% until mass immigration of Jews began in the 1920s; their population began doubling every 10 years, it began to be overrun by Jews basically. Even in 48, Jews were only a third of the population, and they also wanted 100%.

I think most people, Israelis and Jews, know they will not have 100%. But those that do on either side, regardless of all the false justifications they can give, whether you with your "palestinians aren't real" or "palestinians don't deserve to live there" or people on the other side with their "Jews aren't real" or "Jews stole all the land so they must be driven out" - it's pathetic. They can see very clearly the other sides terrible propositions, but cannot come to terms with the fact that they're advocating the same exact thing. It's called ethnic cleansing. Both sides propose it, both are wrong. Everything else is just a veil to justify it - there is no justification for it, so stop trying.

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.
Jews have inhabited Israel for 3000+ years and ruled in Israel for 500+ years, according Jews prior possession of their ancestral land.

Palestinians, not so much.
 
Last edited:

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,687
Reaction score
2,463
Points
1,815
You seem to have entirely missed the point. =/ But I'll go through it again anyway.

Zionism was 100 Year old Nationalist revival Movement of the Jews. Reviving one of 3200 years and existed for 1400 years,
'Palestinianism' was NOT.
Not only did they Not accept the partition creating 'Palestine' in 1948, but for 20 years subsequent the land was Annexed by Jordan and there was NO 'Palestine' nor even really 'palestinians',
as Arabs never really bought that crap until about the time they lost the WB to Israel in the 1967 War. Otherwise there would still be passport-carrying Jordanians.
Jordan is 70% 'Palestinian' (whatever that is) as it's Queen.
In fact, in 'Black September' (1970), Arafat & co. tried to Make Jordan the Palestinian state it is/was by overthrowing King Hussein.
But they lost-- and it was back to 'Israel' and wanting the West Bank which was renounced in the 1964 PLO Charter.
Very Little between American and Canadian.. perhaps except Shared 300+ years histories of each.
Again, the main point of this is LAND. Palestinians are linguistically and culturally "Arab" peoples, 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. 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 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.

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?

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.



Don't see the relevance. Explain.



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.



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. 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. And that's what the point is - whether they were there, they LIVED there, not in Algeria or in Kuwait, but THERE. That's why they're not "just Arabs." That's why Israelis are not "just Jews" anymore, because they live THERE.

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.



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.



"Arabs" got countries where they lived under Ottoman rule. Turks got Turkey, where they lived. The Kurds did get screwed over, but at least they're still where they lived, not getting bulldozed out of their land anymore. Again, what happened elsewhere is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

What is relevant is that the Arabs of historic Palestine, today known as Palestinians, wanted 100% because they basically were 100% until mass immigration of Jews began in the 1920s; their population began doubling every 10 years, it began to be overrun by Jews basically. Even in 48, Jews were only a third of the population, and they also wanted 100%.

I think most people, Israelis and Jews, know they will not have 100%. But those that do on either side, regardless of all the false justifications they can give, whether you with your "palestinians aren't real" or "palestinians don't deserve to live there" or people on the other side with their "Jews aren't real" or "Jews stole all the land so they must be driven out" - it's pathetic. They can see very clearly the other sides terrible propositions, but cannot come to terms with the fact that they're advocating the same exact thing. It's called ethnic cleansing. Both sides propose it, both are wrong. Everything else is just a veil to justify it - there is no justification for it, so stop trying.

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.
Jews have inhabited Israel for 3000+ years and ruled in Israel for 500+ years, according Jews prior possession of their ancestral land.

Palestinians, not so much.
Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. The native Jews were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
You seem to have entirely missed the point. =/ But I'll go through it again anyway.



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

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?

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.



Don't see the relevance. Explain.



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.



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. 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. And that's what the point is - whether they were there, they LIVED there, not in Algeria or in Kuwait, but THERE. That's why they're not "just Arabs." That's why Israelis are not "just Jews" anymore, because they live THERE.

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.



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.



"Arabs" got countries where they lived under Ottoman rule. Turks got Turkey, where they lived. The Kurds did get screwed over, but at least they're still where they lived, not getting bulldozed out of their land anymore. Again, what happened elsewhere is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

What is relevant is that the Arabs of historic Palestine, today known as Palestinians, wanted 100% because they basically were 100% until mass immigration of Jews began in the 1920s; their population began doubling every 10 years, it began to be overrun by Jews basically. Even in 48, Jews were only a third of the population, and they also wanted 100%.

I think most people, Israelis and Jews, know they will not have 100%. But those that do on either side, regardless of all the false justifications they can give, whether you with your "palestinians aren't real" or "palestinians don't deserve to live there" or people on the other side with their "Jews aren't real" or "Jews stole all the land so they must be driven out" - it's pathetic. They can see very clearly the other sides terrible propositions, but cannot come to terms with the fact that they're advocating the same exact thing. It's called ethnic cleansing. Both sides propose it, both are wrong. Everything else is just a veil to justify it - there is no justification for it, so stop trying.



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.
Jews have inhabited Israel for 3000+ years and ruled in Israel for 500+ years, according Jews prior possession of their ancestral land.

Palestinians, not so much.
Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. The native Jews were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
Jews were the predominant People in ancient Canaan/Israel for 1,000 years until the Roman conquest.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to survive 3000 continual years in Israel.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to have had a nation in Canaan/Israel.:clap2:

So-called Palestinians didn't even exist before 1967. :lol:
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,687
Reaction score
2,463
Points
1,815
Jews have inhabited Israel for 3000+ years and ruled in Israel for 500+ years, according Jews prior possession of their ancestral land.

Palestinians, not so much.
Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. The native Jews were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
Jews were the predominant People in ancient Canaan/Israel for 1,000 years until the Roman conquest.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to survive 3000 continual years in Israel.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to have had a nation in Canaan/Israel.:clap2:

So-called Palestinians didn't even exist before 1967. :lol:
What page of Israel's bullshit manual is that on?
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. The native Jews were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
Jews were the predominant People in ancient Canaan/Israel for 1,000 years until the Roman conquest.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to survive 3000 continual years in Israel.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to have had a nation in Canaan/Israel.:clap2:

So-called Palestinians didn't even exist before 1967. :lol:
What page of Israel's bullshit manual is that on?
I didn't think you could dispute me. I'm not disappointed.:lol:
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,687
Reaction score
2,463
Points
1,815
Jews were the predominant People in ancient Canaan/Israel for 1,000 years until the Roman conquest.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to survive 3000 continual years in Israel.:clap2:

Jews are the only People to have had a nation in Canaan/Israel.:clap2:

So-called Palestinians didn't even exist before 1967. :lol:
What page of Israel's bullshit manual is that on?
I didn't think you could dispute me. I'm not disappointed.:lol:
So-called Palestinians didn't even exist before 1967.
No problem. I already posted a photo of a Palestinian flag flying in Jaffa in 1937. You must have missed it.

The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was formed in 1964. I believe that was before 1967. The PLO was formed by groups of Palestinians that were active in the 1950s.
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
What page of Israel's bullshit manual is that on?
I didn't think you could dispute me. I'm not disappointed.:lol:
So-called Palestinians didn't even exist before 1967.
No problem. I already posted a photo of a Palestinian flag flying in Jaffa in 1937. You must have missed it.

The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was formed in 1964. I believe that was before 1967. The PLO was formed by groups of Palestinians that were active in the 1950s.
Jews were known as Palestinians during the British Mandate, 1918--1948. Arabs didn't want to be associated with the Jews and did not call themselves Palestinians until 1967.

Palestine didn't even exist prior to World War I during 400 years of Ottoman rule, when the British named the land Palestine.

Palestine is an English word, not an Arabic, Hebrew or Semitic language.

The Arabs stole the flag of Jordan, so, there's really no Palestinian flag.

Cambridge University Press...
In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
:lol:
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947 - Cambridge Archive Editions
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,687
Reaction score
2,463
Points
1,815
I didn't think you could dispute me. I'm not disappointed.:lol:


No problem. I already posted a photo of a Palestinian flag flying in Jaffa in 1937. You must have missed it.

The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was formed in 1964. I believe that was before 1967. The PLO was formed by groups of Palestinians that were active in the 1950s.
Jews were known as Palestinians during the British Mandate, 1918--1948. Arabs didn't want to be associated with the Jews and did not call themselves Palestinians until 1967.

Palestine didn't even exist prior to World War I during 400 years of Ottoman rule, when the British named the land Palestine.

Palestine is an English word, not an Arabic, Hebrew or Semitic language.

The Arabs stole the flag of Jordan, so, there's really no Palestinian flag.

Cambridge University Press...
In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
:lol:
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947 - Cambridge Archive Editions
Relevance?
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
No problem. I already posted a photo of a Palestinian flag flying in Jaffa in 1937. You must have missed it.

The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was formed in 1964. I believe that was before 1967. The PLO was formed by groups of Palestinians that were active in the 1950s.
Jews were known as Palestinians during the British Mandate, 1918--1948. Arabs didn't want to be associated with the Jews and did not call themselves Palestinians until 1967.

Palestine didn't even exist prior to World War I during 400 years of Ottoman rule, when the British named the land Palestine.

Palestine is an English word, not an Arabic, Hebrew or Semitic language.

The Arabs stole the flag of Jordan, so, there's really no Palestinian flag.

Cambridge University Press...
In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
:lol:
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947 - Cambridge Archive Editions
Relevance?
I just shredded your nonsense about your mythical land of "Palestine" :clap2:
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was formed in 1964. I believe that was before 1967. The PLO was formed by groups of Palestinians that were active in the 1950s.
In 1964, Arabs in the West Bank were Jordanian and those in Gaza were Egyptian.

In the aftermath of the '67 war, Arabs began calling themselves Palestinians.

In earlier years, Arabs bitterly denied the existence of Palestine for fear it represented a Western device to sever Syria, of which "Palestine" was part.

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

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,687
Reaction score
2,463
Points
1,815
Jews were known as Palestinians during the British Mandate, 1918--1948. Arabs didn't want to be associated with the Jews and did not call themselves Palestinians until 1967.

Palestine didn't even exist prior to World War I during 400 years of Ottoman rule, when the British named the land Palestine.

Palestine is an English word, not an Arabic, Hebrew or Semitic language.

The Arabs stole the flag of Jordan, so, there's really no Palestinian flag.

Cambridge University Press...
:lol:
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947 - Cambridge Archive Editions
Relevance?
I just shredded your nonsense about your mythical land of "Palestine" :clap2:
1911
Feb.: Palestinian newspaper "Filastin" begins addressing its readers as "Palestinians" and it warns them about consequences of Zionist colonisation.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/chronology/14001962.htm
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
Relevance?
I just shredded your nonsense about your mythical land of "Palestine" :clap2:
1911
Feb.: Palestinian newspaper "Filastin" begins addressing its readers as "Palestinians" and it warns them about consequences of Zionist colonisation.

1400 - 1962
LOL Filastin is just the Arabic pronunciation of Palestine---There is no letter p in Arabic.

Palestine is an English word created by the British after WW I. Before that time, no Palestine.

The correct historical name of the land is Israel for the past 3000 years.

Harvard University Semitic Museum: The Houses of Ancient Israel
The Houses of Ancient Israel § Semitic Museum
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,015
Reaction score
652
Points
315

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,687
Reaction score
2,463
Points
1,815
I just shredded your nonsense about your mythical land of "Palestine" :theclap2:
1911
Feb.: Palestinian newspaper "Filastin" begins addressing its readers as "Palestinians" and it warns them about consequences of Zionist colonisation.

1400 - 1962
Did that include 'Jordanians'/Jordanian Palestinians who got 77% of the Mandate?
A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
1911
Feb.: Palestinian newspaper "Filastin" begins addressing its readers as "Palestinians" and it warns them about consequences of Zionist colonisation.

1400 - 1962
Did that include 'Jordanians'/Jordanian Palestinians who got 77% of the Mandate?
A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The League of Nations established borders for the "Jewish National Home" in "Palestine" roughly equivalent to those specified in the Hebrew Bible, from the Galilee to the Negev, from the Jordan River to the Med. Sea.

The League of Nations created Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as homelands for the Arabs in the Levant
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,687
Reaction score
2,463
Points
1,815
Did that include 'Jordanians'/Jordanian Palestinians who got 77% of the Mandate?
A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The League of Nations established borders for the "Jewish National Home" in "Palestine" roughly equivalent to those specified in the Hebrew Bible, from the Galilee to the Negev, from the Jordan River to the Med. Sea.

The League of Nations created Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as homelands for the Arabs in the Levant
The Jewish National home was not to be a Jewish state. It was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship in Palestine.
 

JStone

Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
13,374
Reaction score
251
Points
0
A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The League of Nations established borders for the "Jewish National Home" in "Palestine" roughly equivalent to those specified in the Hebrew Bible, from the Galilee to the Negev, from the Jordan River to the Med. Sea.

The League of Nations created Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as homelands for the Arabs in the Levant
The Jewish National home was not to be a Jewish state. It was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship in Palestine.
False. Woodrow Wilson, who founded the League of Nations, has stated the intent for a Jewish state...
I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth [1919]
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top