The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[P F Tinmore]

You are not capable of understanding what even Arab Muslims say about the existence of a different entity, nationality, called "Palestinians" as opposed to Arabs living in a region referred to by some people as Palestine, after they invaded in the 7th century.

Are you implying that every time a new flag flies over city hall that the entire population moves out and an entire new population moves in?

 

[Sixties Fan]

You are not capable of understanding what even Arab Muslims say about the existence of a different entity, nationality, called "Palestinians" as opposed to Arabs living in a region referred to by some people as Palestine, after they invaded in the 7th century.

Are you implying that every time a new flag flies over city hall that the entire population moves out and an entire new population moves in?

Wow, one of the dumbest paragraphs you have ever posted.

Hurray !!!

 

[Coyote]

ll''''

Israel does not deny that now they are a national people. Israel has recognized it publicly.
Their ties go way back to when they invaded the region. They never claimed an identity until the Jews earned legally the right to re-create their nation on their own ancient Jewish land.

Israel denies their ties - it's right there in your narrative claiming that they are they were invaders, when in fact they descended from earlier people's mixed with people's of successive invasions. And the claim that they descend from migrants coming to Israel for work, and relatively recent Arab invaders is everywhere in the Israeli text books, etc. They refuse to grant them their ties to older people's.

No one is arguing that they are "just" foreigners, we are arguing exactly the Arab Palestinian versions that all Jews who built Israel are actually Europeans with no ties to the ancient homeland of the Jews. One can find those denials of Jewish identity and more everywhere on Palestinian media, and all the other Muslim medias as well.

Yes, they do it all the time here. The frequent argument is that they are squatters, invaders, send them all to (pick the Arab state of choice). It's the mirror image of the "Jews are Eurpeans" argument. But you don't notice it.

You responded to an article where Arab Muslims themselves acknowledge that the Palestinian identity is nothing more but an excuse to destroy Israel.

Some more to think on:

Who are the Palestinians? | IMEU

The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of the land of Palestine. They are descendants of the many waves of invaders who settled Palestine through the ages. Following the seventh-century Islamic conquest of the region by peoples originating in the Arabian Peninsula, Palestinians gradually adopted Arabic language and culture. Most also became Muslim, although Christian and Jewish communities that had resided in Palestine since the birth of those religions remained.


Palestinian national identity began to emerge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, partly reflecting the spread of European ideas of nationalism to the region, and partly as a response to early Zionist colonization - that is, European Jewish settlement for the purpose of establishing a Jewish state or homeland in Palestine. ​

The lost Palestinian Jews - A Jewish Historian on Palestinians

After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says. Not only that, many Palestinians retain Jewish customs, including mourning rituals, lighting Shabbat or memorial candles and even wearing tefillin. While the common wisdom among many Israelis is that the group that calls itself "Palestinian" is a motley collection of Arabs from various parts of the Middle East who immigrated to the Land of Israel following the employment opportunities provided by Jews, Misinai says that the vast majority of today's Palestinians are descended from the remnants of Jewish families who managed to avoid being deported over the past 2,000 years, or returned to their lands after they were exiled, as the Jews in the Holy Land suffered blow after blow - from the Roman destruction of the Temple to the Crusades to famine, poverty and war throughout the Middle Ages.​

or...

Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots

But acknowledge that .....you simply are not able to do so.

Deal with the Palestinians and all other Arab Muslims and Christians inability to accept Jewish sovereignty near them, simply because some in Islam consider the whole area Islamic territory, never to become a sovereign part of any non Muslim State.

Everyone must accept each other, and their rights to peaceful coexistence, freedom, equality and the freedom to define their own destiny. I expect the same conduct from the Palestinians as from the Israeli's, and agree it is very lopsided right now both in behavior (from the Palestinians) and power (in terms of the Israeli's). But that doesn't mean denying a people a RIGHT to their history - whether Jewish or Palestinian and just because the Muslims are doing it to the Jews does not mean it is ok to do it to the Palestinians.

I continue not to see any outcries from 1925 on that the Hashemite Arab clan having just moved from Arabia got 78% of the promised Jewish homeland under the Mandate for Palestine.

I am waiting for all of those Palestinians to start a war against Jordan any time now.

You realize that is almost a century ago?

Also, the Mandate promised nothing to the Jews or the Arabs. It was simply an agreement among foreign powers. I believe RoccoR explained it best but it was a long ago thread and I can't find it.

 

[danielpalos]

A Dey seems appropriate for this type of dilemma.

A Delyicate of Palestine would not need to quibble about it.

 

[danielpalos]

A Dey, as lord Temporal (and spiritual), really can ensure Order over Chaos by proclaiming that all the People of Palestine, may render their problems unto Him.

What emir, could say the same.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are not capable of understanding what even Arab Muslims say about the existence of a different entity, nationality, called "Palestinians" as opposed to Arabs living in a region referred to by some people as Palestine, after they invaded in the 7th century.

Are you implying that every time a new flag flies over city hall that the entire population moves out and an entire new population moves in?

Wow, one of the dumbest paragraphs you have ever posted.

Hurray !!!

Clearly my post went right over your head.

 

[Sixties Fan]

ll''''

Israel does not deny that now they are a national people. Israel has recognized it publicly.
Their ties go way back to when they invaded the region. They never claimed an identity until the Jews earned legally the right to re-create their nation on their own ancient Jewish land.

Israel denies their ties - it's right there in your narrative claiming that they are they were invaders, when in fact they descended from earlier people's mixed with people's of successive invasions. And the claim that they descend from migrants coming to Israel for work, and relatively recent Arab invaders is everywhere in the Israeli text books, etc. They refuse to grant them their ties to older people's.

No one is arguing that they are "just" foreigners, we are arguing exactly the Arab Palestinian versions that all Jews who built Israel are actually Europeans with no ties to the ancient homeland of the Jews. One can find those denials of Jewish identity and more everywhere on Palestinian media, and all the other Muslim medias as well.

Yes, they do it all the time here. The frequent argument is that they are squatters, invaders, send them all to (pick the Arab state of choice). It's the mirror image of the "Jews are Eurpeans" argument. But you don't notice it.

You responded to an article where Arab Muslims themselves acknowledge that the Palestinian identity is nothing more but an excuse to destroy Israel.

Some more to think on:

Who are the Palestinians? | IMEU

The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of the land of Palestine. They are descendants of the many waves of invaders who settled Palestine through the ages. Following the seventh-century Islamic conquest of the region by peoples originating in the Arabian Peninsula, Palestinians gradually adopted Arabic language and culture. Most also became Muslim, although Christian and Jewish communities that had resided in Palestine since the birth of those religions remained.


Palestinian national identity began to emerge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, partly reflecting the spread of European ideas of nationalism to the region, and partly as a response to early Zionist colonization - that is, European Jewish settlement for the purpose of establishing a Jewish state or homeland in Palestine. ​

The lost Palestinian Jews - A Jewish Historian on Palestinians

After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says. Not only that, many Palestinians retain Jewish customs, including mourning rituals, lighting Shabbat or memorial candles and even wearing tefillin. While the common wisdom among many Israelis is that the group that calls itself "Palestinian" is a motley collection of Arabs from various parts of the Middle East who immigrated to the Land of Israel following the employment opportunities provided by Jews, Misinai says that the vast majority of today's Palestinians are descended from the remnants of Jewish families who managed to avoid being deported over the past 2,000 years, or returned to their lands after they were exiled, as the Jews in the Holy Land suffered blow after blow - from the Roman destruction of the Temple to the Crusades to famine, poverty and war throughout the Middle Ages.​

or...

Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots

But acknowledge that .....you simply are not able to do so.

Deal with the Palestinians and all other Arab Muslims and Christians inability to accept Jewish sovereignty near them, simply because some in Islam consider the whole area Islamic territory, never to become a sovereign part of any non Muslim State.

Everyone must accept each other, and their rights to peaceful coexistence, freedom, equality and the freedom to define their own destiny. I expect the same conduct from the Palestinians as from the Israeli's, and agree it is very lopsided right now both in behavior (from the Palestinians) and power (in terms of the Israeli's). But that doesn't mean denying a people a RIGHT to their history - whether Jewish or Palestinian and just because the Muslims are doing it to the Jews does not mean it is ok to do it to the Palestinians.

I continue not to see any outcries from 1925 on that the Hashemite Arab clan having just moved from Arabia got 78% of the promised Jewish homeland under the Mandate for Palestine.

I am waiting for all of those Palestinians to start a war against Jordan any time now.

You realize that is almost a century ago?

Also, the Mandate promised nothing to the Jews or the Arabs. It was simply an agreement among foreign powers. I believe RoccoR explained it best but it was a long ago thread and I can't find it.

You have not read the Mandate in order to post your last paragraph.

I will not bother again explaining who is who and what is what.

 

[Coyote]

ll''''

Israel does not deny that now they are a national people. Israel has recognized it publicly.
Their ties go way back to when they invaded the region. They never claimed an identity until the Jews earned legally the right to re-create their nation on their own ancient Jewish land.

Israel denies their ties - it's right there in your narrative claiming that they are they were invaders, when in fact they descended from earlier people's mixed with people's of successive invasions. And the claim that they descend from migrants coming to Israel for work, and relatively recent Arab invaders is everywhere in the Israeli text books, etc. They refuse to grant them their ties to older people's.

No one is arguing that they are "just" foreigners, we are arguing exactly the Arab Palestinian versions that all Jews who built Israel are actually Europeans with no ties to the ancient homeland of the Jews. One can find those denials of Jewish identity and more everywhere on Palestinian media, and all the other Muslim medias as well.

Yes, they do it all the time here. The frequent argument is that they are squatters, invaders, send them all to (pick the Arab state of choice). It's the mirror image of the "Jews are Eurpeans" argument. But you don't notice it.

You responded to an article where Arab Muslims themselves acknowledge that the Palestinian identity is nothing more but an excuse to destroy Israel.

Some more to think on:

Who are the Palestinians? | IMEU

The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of the land of Palestine. They are descendants of the many waves of invaders who settled Palestine through the ages. Following the seventh-century Islamic conquest of the region by peoples originating in the Arabian Peninsula, Palestinians gradually adopted Arabic language and culture. Most also became Muslim, although Christian and Jewish communities that had resided in Palestine since the birth of those religions remained.


Palestinian national identity began to emerge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, partly reflecting the spread of European ideas of nationalism to the region, and partly as a response to early Zionist colonization - that is, European Jewish settlement for the purpose of establishing a Jewish state or homeland in Palestine. ​

The lost Palestinian Jews - A Jewish Historian on Palestinians

After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says. Not only that, many Palestinians retain Jewish customs, including mourning rituals, lighting Shabbat or memorial candles and even wearing tefillin. While the common wisdom among many Israelis is that the group that calls itself "Palestinian" is a motley collection of Arabs from various parts of the Middle East who immigrated to the Land of Israel following the employment opportunities provided by Jews, Misinai says that the vast majority of today's Palestinians are descended from the remnants of Jewish families who managed to avoid being deported over the past 2,000 years, or returned to their lands after they were exiled, as the Jews in the Holy Land suffered blow after blow - from the Roman destruction of the Temple to the Crusades to famine, poverty and war throughout the Middle Ages.​

or...

Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots

But acknowledge that .....you simply are not able to do so.

Deal with the Palestinians and all other Arab Muslims and Christians inability to accept Jewish sovereignty near them, simply because some in Islam consider the whole area Islamic territory, never to become a sovereign part of any non Muslim State.

Everyone must accept each other, and their rights to peaceful coexistence, freedom, equality and the freedom to define their own destiny. I expect the same conduct from the Palestinians as from the Israeli's, and agree it is very lopsided right now both in behavior (from the Palestinians) and power (in terms of the Israeli's). But that doesn't mean denying a people a RIGHT to their history - whether Jewish or Palestinian and just because the Muslims are doing it to the Jews does not mean it is ok to do it to the Palestinians.

I continue not to see any outcries from 1925 on that the Hashemite Arab clan having just moved from Arabia got 78% of the promised Jewish homeland under the Mandate for Palestine.

I am waiting for all of those Palestinians to start a war against Jordan any time now.

You realize that is almost a century ago?

Also, the Mandate promised nothing to the Jews or the Arabs. It was simply an agreement among foreign powers. I believe RoccoR explained it best but it was a long ago thread and I can't find it.

You have not read the Mandate in order to post your last paragraph.

I will not bother again explaining who is who and what is what.

Post #404
The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe the UN should create a Deylicate in Palestine.

 

[Coyote]

Per Rocco's post, which I linked to above:

Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this. This is the short answer. You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,

The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish. The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done. It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews. The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews. It was mandate (an official record of direction and guidance) speaking from the Allied Powers to the British. Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.

Rocco and I may not agree on everything - but he damn sure knows what he is talking about.

 

[Shusha]

Per Rocco's post, which I linked to above:

Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this. This is the short answer. You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,

The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish. The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done. It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews. The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews. It was mandate (an official record of direction and guidance) speaking from the Allied Powers to the British. Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.

Rocco and I may not agree on everything - but he damn sure knows what he is talking about.

Rocco and I agree on nearly everything. And I think I understand what he means here. (Hopefully, he'll come along and clarify if I'm wrong.)

In the technical sense, he is correct that the Mandate did not make a statement of intent ("promise") directly to the Arab or Jewish people. Nor were either Parties to the agreement.

BUT the Mandate absolutely did RECOGNIZE the existing rights of the Jewish people, and provided for Jewish immigration and for Jewish Agencies to take a governmental role in the development of the territory.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is there any Chaos instead of Order in that area?

 

[RoccoR]

RE The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

I thank both of you for the kind words. BUT, there are one more core issues that are not a central issue in itself but has come to orbit the nucleus of the central issues in the debates or discussions. That is "RIGHTS."

Shusha said: ↑
In the technical sense, he is correct that the Mandate did not make a statement of intent ("promise") directly to the Arab or Jewish people. Nor were either Parties to the agreement.

BUT the Mandate absolutely did RECOGNIZE the existing rights of the Jewish people, and provided for Jewish immigration and for Jewish Agencies to take a governmental role in the development of the territory.​

(OBSERVATION)

In 1920, the San Remo Conference the terminology was:

• "The historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine" →
• "Grounds for (a practical basis for) reconstituting their national home" →
• "Civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" →​

This was the common language used in the documentation of the Council of the League and the Allied Powers. The language is duplicated in the Mandate...

The rights in the Treaty of Lausanne have to do with two principles:

• The right to opt for Turkish nationality.
• The right to assume the nationality of the new national authority.
• The equality between the Musims and non-muslims in matters of Civil and Religious rights.​

And of course within the Treaty are the formal abolition of all rights and privileges in the future and governance of the territories outside Turkey.

(COMMENT)

The common thread here is that the obligations in the treaty comes in two flavors:

• Obligations commitments between the Members of the Alied Powers.
• Obligations commitments between an Allied Power and a group of Allied owers.
• Obligations commitments between the Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic.​

While it is clear, very clear, that the Allied Powers did recognize the historic connection, that is not necessarily the same thing as recognizing "existing rights of the Jewish people." Under the principle of equality (both then and now there is no difference between the "Civil and Religious Rights" Muslim and Non-Muslim (in fact - it can be extrapolated to cover any belief system).

In the case of what we call Palestine (that of the Arab - Israeli Conflict), the rights to the future of the territories were to be settled by the (Allied Powers) parties concerned; not including the Jewish or Arab People.

While there was an "intent" on the part of the Allied Powers; prior to the UNSCOP Recommendations of 1947, the shape of the intent was never really articulated well. And that ambiguity allowed every faction to place their own interpretation on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[danielpalos]

It should already be established, from a scientific perspective.

We are simply, quibbling about why there are so many problems in the Middle East; and, what it could possibly take, to establish Order over Chaos in that area.

 

[admonit]

Per Rocco's post, which I linked to above:

Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this. This is the short answer. You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,

The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish. The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done. It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews. The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews. It was mandate (an official record of direction and guidance) speaking from the Allied Powers to the British. Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.

Rocco and I may not agree on everything - but he damn sure knows what he is talking about.

In the technical sense, he is correct that the Mandate did not make a statement of intent ("promise") directly to the Arab or Jewish people. Nor were either Parties to the agreement.

If repeating 4 times "establishment of the Jewish national home" doesn't make a statement of intent, then what does?

 

[admonit]

RE The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
While it is clear, very clear, that the Allied Powers did recognize the historic connection, that is not necessarily the same thing as recognizing "existing rights of the Jewish people."

The wording in the mandate "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" is not clear enough?

 

[Shusha]

While it is clear, very clear, that the Allied Powers did recognize the historic connection, that is not necessarily the same thing as recognizing "existing rights of the Jewish people."

Yeah, no.

The recognition of the historic connection does not exist in a vacuum,as though it had no meaning, even within the context of the Mandate document itself. If the only thing that was recognized was a historic connection with no further extrapolations of what that MEANT there would have been no need for further mention of the Jewish people.

But the Jewish people are mentioned throughout the document.


in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine

The Zionist organization ... shall be recognised as such agency ... to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home

shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country,

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
While it is clear, very clear, that the Allied Powers did recognize the historic connection, that is not necessarily the same thing as recognizing "existing rights of the Jewish people."

The wording in the mandate "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" is not clear enough?

The Mandate was supposed to be a "one state solution." All of the People who normally lived in the territory that became Palestine (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) would be Palestinian citizens. Immigrant Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. Palestine would be an independent state. As Palestinian citizens, Jews would be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine as would all other Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ admonit, et al,

The intent was unspoken; but understood between key Allied Powers. SHORT ANSWER: No itis not all that clear.

RE The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
While it is clear, very clear, that the Allied Powers did recognize the historic connection, that is not necessarily the same thing as recognizing "existing rights of the Jewish people."

The wording in the mandate "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" is not clear enough?

(COMMENT)

A "historic connection" does not mean a contemporary. The Hashemites have a much - much closer historic connection (20th Century) to Mecca and Medina" through the Shiehk/King Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca. But that does not mean the House of Saud that currently reigning over Saudi Arabia has some duty to give it back or reconstitute the Kingdom of the Hadjaz.

"Grounds" (reason) for or practical basis for "reconstitution" (rebuilding the ancient government) is a concept and not an imperative.

What you should have quoted is the plain intent and objective: "adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment (create with some permanency) in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." This is only unambiguous to the extent that the phrase → "national home" (in contemporary times) can take many forms.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well ---- No! This is not correct.

The Mandate was supposed to be a "one state solution." All of the People who normally lived in the territory that became Palestine (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) would be Palestinian citizens. Immigrant Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. Palestine would be an independent state. As Palestinian citizens, Jews would be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine as would all other Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

There is nothing that dictated the final territorial disposition. In 1922/1923 the view was very different that do the Arab Palestinians view today. And in that limited but altered Arab Palestinian view, they dod not include Trans-Jordan.

4. In this agreement the term "Palestine" shall include Transjordania, and the Government of Syria agrees to establish bonded stores in Damascus to deal with goods breaking bulk in that town in transit for Transjordania.

Very early on, the Allied Powers earmarked territory for Kingdoms. One of those Kingdoms (≈ 77% of the territory under the Mandate, was to become Jordan. Almost at the outset, the British installed the Emir.

Emir Abdullah soon succeeded in loosening the British mandate over Transjordan with an Anglo-Transjordanian treaty. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.
•••
On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan.
SOURCE: The Making of Transjordan

I always thought it was strange that the Arab-Palestinians of Jordan have known all this time that the claim → that the Arab Palestinians were alloted less territory than the Jewish was completely wrong. Yet the Arab-Palestinians were actually allocated much much more. But so may promogate this misinformation, that now it is taken for fact. It is a myth that will never change in their eyes. But back in the 1920's to 1946, there was no misunderstanding.

Most Respectfully,
R