The Palestinian National Identity as it is: no lies, propaganda and hidden agendas allowed

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just like you deny the reality of a Civil War prior to the War of Independence, so it is that you see something within the Treaty of Lausanne that is not there; a political delusion and abnormally meaningless revelation of a latent reality.

You want the outcome to be so necessarily favorable to the Arab Palestinian Cause, that your Mental Acuity become twisted and the Emotional Competence and Rational Understanding become dysfunctional.

Addressed more times than I can remember.
You can throw lies at it as often as you want. It doesn't change the facts.
If they are lies then why cant you prove they are, is it because there is no evidence to back you up ?
I am just going by what the treaty said.
What do you have?
(COMMENT)

You are absolutely correct that the Treaty of Lausanne neither creates nor recognized the new Palestinian national identity. You are correct that neither the citizenship clauses in the Palestine Order in Council, or the 1925 Citizenship Order recognized the new Palestinian national identity. In intent of these three documents in the regard of Citizenship and Nationality was to establish a framework for the international protection of stateless persons. Its specific application to persons within the venue of the Government of Palestine (that being the territory placed in the care of the Mandatory - Briton) was to provide for stateless persons; and that they enjoy, at a minimum, the same treatment as other non-nationals. The solution was to make them citizens under the Government of Palestine. In fact, it was only after the Oslo Agreement that the Palestinian Authority (PA) (created by the Oslo Accords) (1995) was there issuance of a PA Passport.

The Treaty does not further you argument except for the prevention of Stateless Persons as the result of WWII.

Most Respectfully,
R

Native people defending themselves from a foreign invader is not a civil war. The Jews came from Europe.






Get it right the Jews came from Israel as slaves of the Catholics 2000 years ago, they were then thrown out when they refused to convert and wandered the lands of Europe as unwanted pariah's. Now they have returned home as you demanded they did in the 1930's and have mace themselves a home they can defend. In the 1940's you captured the Jews working on Hitlers nuclear research and forced them to work in Russia and America for your nuclear research, but some escaped and made it to Israel where they researched as they wanted. You make the same claims as you deny the rights of the Jews and their history and existence in palestine for 4,500 years
 
No one is coming to deny that the Arabs of the land has connection to the homeland, just like the Jews do. But unlike the Jews, they're not told that sitting in a certain areas is illegal just because they're Arabs. Those Palestinians who are not free to sit anywhere on the land is because of the war and because it risks the lives of Jews.

Descrimination is convenient against the Jews of the land.


Once land is "redeemed" by Jews, non-Jews if is off limits to non-Jews. You continue to propagate lies.






And your evidence of this being official Israeli policy is what, and not the policy of some extremist group that places caveats and mandates on the land title.
 
Facts are not slogans. Your Zionist propaganda is fraught with slogans. You understand Zionist propaganda. I state fact. But you knew that.





Facts like those you paste from blogs and islamonazi propaganda outlets ?

Give an example of Zionist propaganda then ?
 
ForeverYoung brought up a good point about the palestinian national identity that can be more apropriately responded in a thread about this subject.

ForeverYoung argues that the fact that there were very few conflicts between Palestinians and Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians is evidence that Palestinians are not a disctinct people and any conflict between them could be explained away as a civil war similar to the american one.

Originally posted by ForeverYoung
Except for 1970, I've never seen the Palestinians, Jordanians and Syrians wage war against each other. Besides there has been the American Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, etc. In ancient times the Greek city-states fought against each other, Antony of Rome fought against Octavian, Israel fought against Judah, etc.
 
My reply:

You believe Black September and I would add Lebannon was the only clash between the national identities of Palestinians and their neighbors because your knowledge of the conflict is somewhat superficial, FY.

Let me cite 2 other conflicts you probably never heard about:

West Bank - 1948, 49, 50, 51:

Palestinian peasants living in appalling conditions in makeshift camps in the West Bank and Jordan began "infiltrating" Israel to take care of their crops, see their relatives, etc... generating brutal israeli reprisal campaigns against refugee camps in Qualqylia, Tulkarm and other cities near the "border" and generating also a huge diplomatic problem to Jordan's government who could not implement a de facto cease-fire in the middle of a low intensity war caused by the infiltrations of refugees leading Abdullah to crackdown on refugee activities.

Gaza Strip - 1948, 49, 50, 51:

The exact same situation descrived above, only with Gaza refugees and the governmemt of Egypt as actors.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Of course the palestinian refugees as a group of peasants, a group of civilians, psychologically traumatized by the mass expulsion, living in improvised shacks, bordering on starvation, facing epidemies, with nothing but small arms that they used to protect their land in Palestine, could not oppose any resistence to the crackdown of the Egyptian and Jordanian army and the civilian infiltrations were gradually supressed and later replaced by fedayeen armed infiltrations.
 
So immediately after the ethnic cleasing of 48 you could already identitify the clashes between the distinct NATIONAL IDENTITIES, the NATIONAL INTERESTS of the

PALESTINIAN PEOPLE = recovering the land lost to Israel

VERSUS the national identity and national interests of

THE JORDANIAN AND EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENTS AND PEOPLES = the preservation of the ceasefire with Israel so that Amman and Cairo did not suffer the consequences of a conflict THAT WAS NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT THEM.

A conflict that did not define the Jordanian and Egyptian nationa identity UNLIKE THE PALESTINIANS THAT WERE THE RESULT OF THE ETHNOCRATIC CONFLICT.
 
Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Indeed, there has been little trouble between Palestine and its neighbors.

What little there has been was centered around Israel. Black September would not have happened without Israel.

The palestinian infiltrations from the West Bank and Gaza and the subsequent Jordanian and Egyptian crackdown, Black September, Lebannon, the attacks in Tunisia...

None of this would have ever happened if Palestinians shared the same national identity as Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians as the scoundrel Corey Gil-Shuster tried to imply in his video.

If they considered themselves to be the same people THE ZIONIST WET DREAM WOULD HAVE HAPPENED DECADES AGO:

The natural absortion of the refugee population by the neighboring countries.

What we see in front of our eyes is the exact opposite...

Palestinians willing to endure the brutal punishments imposed by Israel, an almost inconceivable level of suffering in order to hold on to what makes them distinct from Syrians, Lebanese, etc...:

The struggle for the homeland lost to colonialism.

As Tinmore put it in a previous post:

The Palestinians have fought an uphill battle against Israel and its super power supporters to defend their country. Lesser people would have lost long ago.

Israel's Legal Right To Exist

The peoples who, in the process of their own disposession, didn't develop a distinct national identity to fight for, really accepted the loss of their homeland like german refugees post WWII, like indian refugees after the partition of India

Unlike the Palestinians, all those peoples gave up long ago, as Tinmore say.

Because unlike the palestinian people, THEY WERE NOT DEFINED AS A COMMUNITY BY THEIR LOSS OF LAND.

The fast, more or less consensual displacement of Indians who had to move from Pakistan to India did not create a new national identity centered around the loss of their homeland.

The fast displacement of Germans who had to leave Eastern Europe did not create a new national identity centered around the loss of their homeland.

But the decade-long process of colonization of Palestine and forced expulsion of the native population of Palestine gave rise to a new psychological perception among the arabs who inhabited Palestine just like what happened in South Africa among the Bantu peoples of that region.

The idea that they were a distinct arab people, a group of individuals who shared a common past, present and future that no Syrian, Lebanese or Jordanian ever went through.

Tinmore's words were moving, absolutely true... but it's not exactly that german or indian refugees were "lesser people" for having accepted the displacement... it is the fact that their displacement were the result of a overt or tacit agreement, carried out quickly, more or less accepted population transfers that did not involve colonialism by a foreign people and therefore did not lead to the creation of a new national identity among the displaced population.

The fact that we are still debating a conflict that started 140 years ago is a living testament to the reality of the palestinian national identity.
 
Teddyearp brings up a fascinating topic about the palestinian national identity here:

How would the sense of national identity of the native population of Palestine have developed in an alternate universe where the Ottoman Empire never entered WWI, where Britain and France never had a chance to fulfill their imperialist ambitions towards the Middle East and the zionist movement, without the backing of british rifles and machine guns, were relegated to a footnote in History?

Don't blame the British, blame Ismail Enver, Pasha

The truth is that the arab people of Palestine (not the palestinian people... this national conscience still didn't exist in 1914) the arab people of Palestine never had the chance to develop their sense of national identity without external interference.

The alliance between the british invasion-occupation and jewish-european colonialism took away their freedom of choice... they literally forced, strongarmed the arab people of Palestine into gradually becoming Palestinians.

It's pretty obvious that with or without WWI the Ottoman Empire would collapse sooner or later due to the rise of turkish and arab nationalism.

But what would be the free, sovereign nationalist choice, evolution of the christian, muslim and jewish arabs who inhabited the region of Palestine?

A pure, direct pan-arab identity?

A path to pan-arab national identity through Greater Syria?

A separate palestinian identity?

This question was destined to remain unanswered for all eternity the moment General Allenby's forces entered Palestine in 1917.

If you put a gun to my head and force me to make a guess, I'd say they'd choose to pursue a path to pan-arabism through Greater Syria like people in Syria itself did at the time.

But always, ALWAYS bear in mind the fact that History regards "IFS" as being only marginally more valuable than TP.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top