Shekels

[Shusha]

Please detail the process and date of the creation of the "nation of Palestine" and the designation of "Palestinians" as a recognized nationality in connection with such a sovereign state.

There doesn't have to be a State in order for the right to self-determination for a peoples to be recognized and upheld.

So I can get my personal group of Bohemians together - we share a culture and history together - and insist they be declared a people, and recognized by the nations?

That would be MOST interesting.

Did you get the point of "Cherokee"?

That being, your definition of "nation" or "a people" is not the only one there is.

Wait, I'm not sure I get it. Are you trying to argue that Cherokee is NOT a nation or a people?

Not at all, quite the contrary. I'm suggesting that (for example) the Cherokee would not fit some of the 'standards' laid down in this thread to qualify a "nation". What, for example, is the "capital" of Cherokee? I'm saying the poster, and posters in general, cannot append their own definition of "nation" to other nations which may not share that definition. The world as we see it is not the only world there is.

Ah. In that case, I believe we agree. People forget that "peoples" and "self-determination" are not either/or terms. Many First Nations tribes in the Americas have some sort of self-determination, as do other groups. Its not a zero sum.

 

[Pogo]

Just throwing this in, from the Hebrew video I posted, commentary from the videographer Langfocus:

>> One of the most common comments on this video is that I say "Israel" in Hebrew but it says "Palestine" in the subtitles. The reason is that in Hebrew I'm saying "Eretz Israel" which means "Land of Israel", which is the Hebrew way to refer to the country before the State of Israel was founded. In English we normally refer to "Eretz Israel" as "Palestine", or "Mandate Palestine" if we're referring to the time under British control. We normally say "Israel" when talking about the Jewish state created in 1948. This is not controversial at all. Before 1948 the Jews in Palestine referred to themselves as Palestinians or Palestinian Jews. The name of the country was not decided until a couple of days before it declared its independence, so nobody had called themselves Israelis before then. <<
​

NB the site would not let me paste the full text, as Hebrew characters are "banned" here

Had the same thing happen with Cyrillic. Idiot software.

 

[Shusha]

Cherokees were not invented out of whole cloth as a propaganda device in the latter half of the 20th century.

They arose as a people organically as have all other real peoples.

Hmmmm. Interesting thought. Is there a "one right way" for a peoples to become a "real" peoples?

For example, are the Metis a "real people"? They are an example of a people developing through the interaction with another culture, rather than developing independently or "organically".

Should they be denied their right to "peoplehood", self-determination or sovereignty because of the way they developed their unique culture?

Now, arguing with myself, I'd say that there is a clearly defined unique culture for the Metis, and not one for the Arab Palestinians. And, I'd agree with you that the distinct Arab Palestinian national was developed somewhat intentionally as a foil for the Jewish people and Israel. But I'd argue as well, that they are sufficiently distinct that the Arabs of Jordan and the Arabs of Palestine are not especially keen to be seen as the same. So, shrug?

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol How can you self identify as a member or a group that doesn't otherwise exist? The whole purpose of trying to claim they are a people is to then assert that as a people they deserve a state of their own, which is absurd since groups that are clearly distinct as a people, such as the Kurds, have no state of their own. If Israel were not Jewish, there would be no false claims the so called Palestinians are a people. Certainly the Arab states did not believe it in 1948.

Well, if enough of you self-identify, then congratulations! you exist! Personally, I am of the opinion that all peoples who self-identify as a people, who seek self-determination, who are able to bring about self-determination through co-operation with modern legal principles, and who can grow a state should have one. (Kurds, Catalans, Tibetans, First Nations, everyone).

Of course, none of this really matters in terms of what will happen in the region. Whether you recognize the so called Palestinians as a people or not, they are nearly all hostile to the existence of the state of Israel, and therefore cannot ever become part of Israel, and since there is no political entity among them that can credibly offer peace to Israel, there can never be a negotiated peace settlement, and that means Israel's security requires that Israel maintain security control over all of Judea and Samaria for the foreseeable future, and the so called Palestinians will have to remain stateless. A disquieting situation for which there is no solution.

On these points, we agree wholeheartedly.

And frankly, the biggest argument AGAINST Arab Palestinian national self-identity is their utter failure to form a nation at some time in the past 100 years. Their national identity simply isn't strong enough to bring that about.

Self identification and self determination are political slogans, not political principles. Parse them down and they mean nothing. In reality, international law is more aspiration than fact, and it is entirely different in principle and practice from statutory law. It makes more sense to recognize proponents of a Palestinian state as a people than to recognize the so called Palestinians as a people. While the so called Palestinians have no culture or history or language or religion, etc. distinct from the Arabs around them, the proponents of such a state do share a distinct set of beliefs, a distinct common culture which they demonstrate by dressing up and carrying symbols and signs to show their membership in the group and they share a sort of distinct common language in the set of slogans they repeat to one another. It therefore makes more sense to recognize the supporters of the so called Palestinians as a distinct people than to recognize the so called Palestinians as a people since they are in no way distinct from the Arabs around them. To follow your reasoning,clearly the people who support the Palestinians deserve a state of their own.

If you notice, the peoples you cited, Kurds, Catalans, Tibetans, First Nations, all have distinct languages, histories literatures etc. in common, but the so called Palestinians do not, so what can they possibly self identify with? The answer is, nothing.

 

[Shusha]

Just throwing this in, from the Hebrew video I posted, commentary from the videographer Langfocus:

>> One of the most common comments on this video is that I say "Israel" in Hebrew but it says "Palestine" in the subtitles. The reason is that in Hebrew I'm saying "Eretz Israel" which means "Land of Israel", which is the Hebrew way to refer to the country before the State of Israel was founded. In English we normally refer to "Eretz Israel" as "Palestine", or "Mandate Palestine" if we're referring to the time under British control. We normally say "Israel" when talking about the Jewish state created in 1948. This is not controversial at all. Before 1948 the Jews in Palestine referred to themselves as Palestinians or Palestinian Jews. The name of the country was not decided until a couple of days before it declared its independence, so nobody had called themselves Israelis before then. <<
​

NB the site would not let me paste the full text, as Hebrew characters are "banned" here

Had the same thing happen with Cyrillic. Idiot software.

I've posted Hebrew here before.

עם ישראל חי

 

[Pogo]

Just throwing this in, from the Hebrew video I posted, commentary from the videographer Langfocus:

>> One of the most common comments on this video is that I say "Israel" in Hebrew but it says "Palestine" in the subtitles. The reason is that in Hebrew I'm saying "Eretz Israel" which means "Land of Israel", which is the Hebrew way to refer to the country before the State of Israel was founded. In English we normally refer to "Eretz Israel" as "Palestine", or "Mandate Palestine" if we're referring to the time under British control. We normally say "Israel" when talking about the Jewish state created in 1948. This is not controversial at all. Before 1948 the Jews in Palestine referred to themselves as Palestinians or Palestinian Jews. The name of the country was not decided until a couple of days before it declared its independence, so nobody had called themselves Israelis before then. <<
​

NB the site would not let me paste the full text, as Hebrew characters are "banned" here

Had the same thing happen with Cyrillic. Idiot software.

I've posted Hebrew here before.

עם ישראל חי

How do you get it through the software?

Now see, as a test I copied your Hebrew text and tried to re-post it here, and I got the "banned" error message. And yet, yours is still there in the quote.

 

[Pogo]

lol How can you self identify as a member or a group that doesn't otherwise exist? The whole purpose of trying to claim they are a people is to then assert that as a people they deserve a state of their own, which is absurd since groups that are clearly distinct as a people, such as the Kurds, have no state of their own. If Israel were not Jewish, there would be no false claims the so called Palestinians are a people. Certainly the Arab states did not believe it in 1948.

Well, if enough of you self-identify, then congratulations! you exist! Personally, I am of the opinion that all peoples who self-identify as a people, who seek self-determination, who are able to bring about self-determination through co-operation with modern legal principles, and who can grow a state should have one. (Kurds, Catalans, Tibetans, First Nations, everyone).

Of course, none of this really matters in terms of what will happen in the region. Whether you recognize the so called Palestinians as a people or not, they are nearly all hostile to the existence of the state of Israel, and therefore cannot ever become part of Israel, and since there is no political entity among them that can credibly offer peace to Israel, there can never be a negotiated peace settlement, and that means Israel's security requires that Israel maintain security control over all of Judea and Samaria for the foreseeable future, and the so called Palestinians will have to remain stateless. A disquieting situation for which there is no solution.

On these points, we agree wholeheartedly.

And frankly, the biggest argument AGAINST Arab Palestinian national self-identity is their utter failure to form a nation at some time in the past 100 years. Their national identity simply isn't strong enough to bring that about.

Self identification and self determination are political slogans, not political principles. Parse them down and they mean nothing. In reality, international law is more aspiration than fact, and it is entirely different in principle and practice from statutory law. It makes more sense to recognize proponents of a Palestinian state as a people than to recognize the so called Palestinians as a people. While the so called Palestinians have no culture or history or language or religion, etc. distinct from the Arabs around them, the proponents of such a state do share a distinct set of beliefs, a distinct common culture which they demonstrate by dressing up and carrying symbols and signs to show their membership in the group and they share a sort of distinct common language in the set of slogans they repeat to one another. It therefore makes more sense to recognize the supporters of the so called Palestinians as a distinct people than to recognize the so called Palestinians as a people since they are in no way distinct from the Arabs around them. To follow your reasoning,clearly the people who support the Palestinians deserve a state of their own.

If you notice, the peoples you cited, Kurds, Catalans, Tibetans, First Nations, all have distinct languages, histories literatures etc. in common, but the so called Palestinians do not, so what can they possibly self identify with? The answer is, nothing.

I don't think the Métis have their own separate language.

 

[Shusha]

I'm using the Hebrew keyboard on my iphone.

 

[Pogo]

I'm using the Hebrew keyboard on my iphone.

No idea then. For me anything that's not Roman letters is "banned".

I just noticed your avatar. You're Canadian then? What part?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Hmmmm. Interesting thought. Is there a "one right way" for a peoples to become a "real" peoples?

I wouldn't say there is ONE right way, but there is certainly a wrong way, and that would be as a very intentional fabrication for the purpose of serving a specific political objective.

If the might of the U.S. were to focus on Mexico and instigate violence, would the intentional creation of a brand new "San Diegan" people be any more valid simply because strategists decided to create such an illusion? If two generations later, these San Diegan people were to believe in their own peoplehood as they pursued an agenda of killing Mexican people, would they be a valid people at that point?

 

[Shusha]

lol How can you self identify as a member or a group that doesn't otherwise exist? The whole purpose of trying to claim they are a people is to then assert that as a people they deserve a state of their own, which is absurd since groups that are clearly distinct as a people, such as the Kurds, have no state of their own. If Israel were not Jewish, there would be no false claims the so called Palestinians are a people. Certainly the Arab states did not believe it in 1948.

Well, if enough of you self-identify, then congratulations! you exist! Personally, I am of the opinion that all peoples who self-identify as a people, who seek self-determination, who are able to bring about self-determination through co-operation with modern legal principles, and who can grow a state should have one. (Kurds, Catalans, Tibetans, First Nations, everyone).

Of course, none of this really matters in terms of what will happen in the region. Whether you recognize the so called Palestinians as a people or not, they are nearly all hostile to the existence of the state of Israel, and therefore cannot ever become part of Israel, and since there is no political entity among them that can credibly offer peace to Israel, there can never be a negotiated peace settlement, and that means Israel's security requires that Israel maintain security control over all of Judea and Samaria for the foreseeable future, and the so called Palestinians will have to remain stateless. A disquieting situation for which there is no solution.

On these points, we agree wholeheartedly.

And frankly, the biggest argument AGAINST Arab Palestinian national self-identity is their utter failure to form a nation at some time in the past 100 years. Their national identity simply isn't strong enough to bring that about.

Self identification and self determination are political slogans, not political principles. Parse them down and they mean nothing. In reality, international law is more aspiration than fact, and it is entirely different in principle and practice from statutory law. It makes more sense to recognize proponents of a Palestinian state as a people than to recognize the so called Palestinians as a people. While the so called Palestinians have no culture or history or language or religion, etc. distinct from the Arabs around them, the proponents of such a state do share a distinct set of beliefs, a distinct common culture which they demonstrate by dressing up and carrying symbols and signs to show their membership in the group and they share a sort of distinct common language in the set of slogans they repeat to one another. It therefore makes more sense to recognize the supporters of the so called Palestinians as a distinct people than to recognize the so called Palestinians as a people since they are in no way distinct from the Arabs around them. To follow your reasoning,clearly the people who support the Palestinians deserve a state of their own.

If you notice, the peoples you cited, Kurds, Catalans, Tibetans, First Nations, all have distinct languages, histories literatures etc. in common, but the so called Palestinians do not, so what can they possibly self identify with? The answer is, nothing.

I don't think the Métis have their own separate language.

They do. Michif.

Yes, orgins in peoples who were fluent in both Cree and French with a sprinkling of Ojibwe. But considered a separate language since Michif speakers can no longer understand either Cree or French.

 

[Shusha]

Hmmmm. Interesting thought. Is there a "one right way" for a peoples to become a "real" peoples?

I wouldn't say there is ONE right way, but there is certainly a wrong way, and that would be as a very intentional fabrication for the purpose of serving a specific political objective.

Eh. I might have to agree with you on that point.

 

[Shusha]

I'm using the Hebrew keyboard on my iphone.

No idea then. For me anything that's not Roman letters is "banned".

I just noticed your avatar. You're Canadian then? What part?

West Coast!

 

[Pogo]

I'm using the Hebrew keyboard on my iphone.

No idea then. For me anything that's not Roman letters is "banned".

I just noticed your avatar. You're Canadian then? What part?

West Coast!

Well no wonder you know your Métis. Beautiful country though I've only been to Victoria. Most of my Canadian travel has been to Cape Breton and Québec, too many times to count.

 

[rylah]

Just saw Jeopardy, where they referenced Israeli currency--shekels. It's the same currency they had 2000 years ago. And Hebrew is the same language they spoke in that land 2000 years ago. They also celebrate the same national holidays that Jesus observed 2000 years ago (like Passover and Hanukkah). Can the so-called Palestinians make the same claim? No, which is why they try to destroy every archeological artifact on the Temple Mount.

There's no such people as the "Palestinians." They came from Jordan and other countries.

Perfect example of how to disenfranchise a people. Claim they don’t exist even if they have been there thousands of years.

In fact,they haven't existed as "a people" for thousands of years. They only became "a people" in the middle of the last century.

They have live there for thousands of years. Who are you or anyone else to say what the are or aren’t?

Except that they have not,
their own agency in the UN defines them as anyone happening to reside there for merely 2 years,"during the period between 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948".

And their leaders are from the same royal Arab tribes that rule in countries
like Saudi Arabia and Qatar to name a few.

 

[rylah]

Just throwing this in, from the Hebrew video I posted, commentary from the videographer Langfocus:

>> One of the most common comments on this video is that I say "Israel" in Hebrew but it says "Palestine" in the subtitles. The reason is that in Hebrew I'm saying "Eretz Israel" which means "Land of Israel", which is the Hebrew way to refer to the country before the State of Israel was founded. In English we normally refer to "Eretz Israel" as "Palestine", or "Mandate Palestine" if we're referring to the time under British control. We normally say "Israel" when talking about the Jewish state created in 1948. This is not controversial at all. Before 1948 the Jews in Palestine referred to themselves as Palestinians or Palestinian Jews. The name of the country was not decided until a couple of days before it declared its independence, so nobody had called themselves Israelis before then. <<
​

NB the site would not let me paste the full text, as Hebrew characters are "banned" here

Had the same thing happen with Cyrillic. Idiot software.

Every Jewish boy from his 8th day, upon being circumcised is identified as an Israeli, a unique tribal sign and direct link, that hasn't been interrupted for 4,000 years.

They literally say "and his name will be called in Israel..."

 

[rylah]

That (the Beowulf bit) would be "Old English" and the Chaucer bit would be "Middle English".
The point is the further back you go, the less mutually intelligible they are.

Sure. And we could refer to Modern Hebrew, Torah Hebrew or Rabbinical Hebrew. One of the reasons that Hebrew as a living, evolving language was able to be revived, though, was the consistency and continued use of the language over thousands of years. My understanding (and I am no where near a competent Hebrew speaker) is that many (most?) nouns and verbs remain near identical. There were changes in syntax (SVO as opposed to VSO), borrowed terms from other languages and the incorporation of 90,000 new words for modern ideas which didn't exist 3000 years ago, incorporation of vowel markings and punctuation. But the language is recognizably the same.

Maybe rylah or Lipush will come along and enlighten us further.

As far as I understand, the one significant modern modification in Hebrew
has been the overall definition of gender for nouns.

Basically a kid learning Hebrew today in the 1st grade in Israel,
and a kid who spoke the ancient Hebrew of the Torah,
could immediately have a conversation..

 

[rylah]

Just saw Jeopardy, where they referenced Israeli currency--shekels. It's the same currency they had 2000 years ago. And Hebrew is the same language they spoke in that land 2000 years ago. They also celebrate the same national holidays that Jesus observed 2000 years ago (like Passover and Hanukkah). Can the so-called Palestinians make the same claim? No, which is why they try to destroy every archeological artifact on the Temple Mount.

Shekels were reinvented when Israel was recreated. Both are modern.

The word is re-constituted.
Weighed against silver, bearing symbolism of the ancient Shekel.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

That (the Beowulf bit) would be "Old English" and the Chaucer bit would be "Middle English".
The point is the further back you go, the less mutually intelligible they are.

Sure. And we could refer to Modern Hebrew, Torah Hebrew or Rabbinical Hebrew. One of the reasons that Hebrew as a living, evolving language was able to be revived, though, was the consistency and continued use of the language over thousands of years. My understanding (and I am no where near a competent Hebrew speaker) is that many (most?) nouns and verbs remain near identical. There were changes in syntax (SVO as opposed to VSO), borrowed terms from other languages and the incorporation of 90,000 new words for modern ideas which didn't exist 3000 years ago, incorporation of vowel markings and punctuation. But the language is recognizably the same.

Maybe rylah or Lipush will come along and enlighten us further.

As far as I understand, the one significant modern modification in Hebrew
has been the overall definition of gender for nouns.

Basically a kid learning Hebrew today in the 1st grade in Israel,
and a kid who spoke the ancient Hebrew of the Torah,
could immediately have a conversation..

And, of course, the invention of words for new technologies that did not exist in the time of the Bible, like televizia (TV) or machashev (computer).

 

[Coyote]

Many, if not most, self-identify as the same as Jordanians and Syrians.

Most self identify as Palestinian.