Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

US softens position on Israeli settlements

143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then
2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Now that is some funny ****.

Yeah, he's got a million of 'em.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Yes, it's all an anti-Semitic conspiracy against the Chosen Ones. The entire World with the exception of Israel and a few American politicians has been wrong all these years. The European immigrants who invaded and stole someone else's land are obviously the victims.

You might want to let someone know.

"If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country. … They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country."

David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister of Israel.

Traditionally, under international law, an "Occupied Territory" occurred when one country invaded another country. The term only applied to nation states. 

The UN, however, changed the meaning, but ONLY when applying it to the occupied Arab territories. So yes, the law is different for Israel than it is for any other conflict zone. 

A more accurate term would have been "disorganised" territory, or - at the very least - "disputed territories". 

Why don't we refer to Northern Cyprus as Greek Occupied Territories ? Or Socotra as Yemini Occupied Territories ? Or Xizang as the Tibetan Occupied Territories ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

It's occupied, but not (in my opinion) Occupied. :D 

(see my post above) 

Feel free to write to the government if you don't like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Feel free to write to the government if you don't like it. 

I wrote to Boris Johnson about it. He passed me on to Jacob Reece Mogg. SAdly, I didn't understand his reply, as it was in Latin ! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
46 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Traditionally, under international law, an "Occupied Territory" occurred when one country invaded another country. The term only applied to nation states. 

The UN, however, changed the meaning, but ONLY when applying it to the occupied Arab territories. So yes, the law is different for Israel than it is for any other conflict zone. 

A more accurate term would have been "disorganised" territory, or - at the very least - "disputed territories". 

Why don't we refer to Northern Cyprus as Greek Occupied Territories ? Or Socotra as Yemini Occupied Territories ? Or Xizang as the Tibetan Occupied Territories ? 

Your argument appears to be that because Europeans stole the land, owned and lived on by Palestinians for at least centuries, before they could be admitted the UN, all bets are off.

Something like 99% of the world, including the most experienced international law lawyers in the world, disagree. 

It's actually ridiculous that you're on the one hand claiming that Israel can take any land they want but the indigenous population, protected by numerous international laws, have no rights. And you actually think it's a valid argument.

I forgot how ridiculous Israeli supporters are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
1 hour ago, and then said:

Yeah, he's got a million of 'em.  

And he's got a bad case of diarrhea too, from the flu of course. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I wrote to Boris Johnson about it. He passed me on to Jacob Reece Mogg. SAdly, I didn't understand his reply, as it was in Latin ! 

Probably better try the foreign secretary. 

Although he didn't seem to know Britain was an island soooo... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
14 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Your argument appears to be that because Europeans stole the land, owned and lived on by Palestinians for at least centuries, before they could be admitted the UN, all bets are off.

Something like 99% of the world, including the most experienced international law lawyers in the world, disagree. 

It's actually ridiculous that you're on the one hand claiming that Israel can take any land they want but the indigenous population, protected by numerous international laws, have no rights. And you actually think it's a valid argument.

I forgot how ridiculous Israeli supporters are.

Owned and lived on by WHO for at least centuries ? 

The land may have been lived on by Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudi Nomads and Lebanese. But it wasn't lived on by Palestinians. There was never a country called "Palestine", ever in history. (Until the Egyptian Yasser Arafat declared it into being in 1988). 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
15 hours ago, and then said:

Oh, we will.  The world will eventually burn over it too.  Are there any other downtrodden groups you give as much energy to defending?  Is your angst over Tibet causing you to lose sleep?  Kashmir causing you restlessness, is it?  Those like you who perpetuate this hatred literally support the deaths of Palestinians and the misery they endure by keeping their hate alive and giving them hope that someday they will be able to make the Jews all die or run away (to be hunted down later).  What ever happened to "peaceful coexistence"?  Or is that for everyone except those you disagree with?


Not only are you awaiting the time for 'the world to burn' over the ever growing Israeli State and the victims they make while doing so, attempt to trivialize the 70+ years old travesty by way of whataboutism, youre also positioning the Palestinians as the ones who hate.. while numerous political as well as religious Jewish leaders have reiterated genocidal desires in regards to the Palesintian people on numerous occasions..

image.png.922725262be2c7cec5775757ed57ec5c.png

 


The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.[1]


Last but not least, lets not forget Hamas was supported and funded by Israel to offer a counterbalance to the secular PLO.. without Israels help chances are it wouldnt have developed into the prominent role it has today. Convenient then, that it is exactly this group which rationalises the military onslaught against Palestinians everytime Hamas sends another one of their impotent missile barrages into Israel..

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
12 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Owned and lived on by WHO for at least centuries ? 

The land may have been lived on by Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudi Nomads and Lebanese. But it wasn't lived on by Palestinians. There was never a country called "Palestine", ever in history. (Until the Egyptian Yasser Arafat declared it into being in 1988). 

It was lived on by their descendants. The people who live there now? Their ancestors also lived there, regardless of whichever occupier they have endured. You can try to play semantics but it doesn't affect the point I made. They'd lived there for countless generations before the Europeans showed up and they were the legal landowners - despite the attempts by Zionists to buy as much as they could - of the vast majority of what is now Palestine before being ethnically cleansed. It doesn't matter what you want to call them - and they have been documented referring to themselves and others as 'Palestinian' as far back as the late 1800s - they're still the same people, the same stock, the same bloodline, etc. 

Again with the lack of self-awareness. Israel also didn't exist before its founding. Surprising how countries don't exist until someone creates them, eh?

It doesn't matter when nationalism is born. The right to self-determination ensures that a people have a right to decide themselves. Unless they have a boot on their neck, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
10 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It was lived on by their descendants. The people who live there now? Their ancestors also lived there, regardless of whichever occupier they have endured. You can try to play semantics but it doesn't affect the point I made. They'd lived there for countless generations before the Europeans showed up and they were the legal landowners - despite the attempts by Zionists to buy as much as they could - of the vast majority of what is now Palestine before being ethnically cleansed. It doesn't matter what you want to call them - and they have been documented referring to themselves and others as 'Palestinian' as far back as the late 1800s - they're still the same people, the same stock, the same bloodline, etc. 

Again with the lack of self-awareness. Israel also didn't exist before its founding. Surprising how countries don't exist until someone creates them, eh?

It doesn't matter when nationalism is born. The right to self-determination ensures that a people have a right to decide themselves. Unless they have a boot on their neck, that is.

Umm.. no. Most of them where NOT the legal landowners. Most of them where serfs living in poverty. The system was a form of feudalism. 

Another large proportion of the population where nomads. 

And "Europeans" didn't occupy the area, other than a tiny fraction of it during the first Crusades. The most recent occupier (other than Jordan) was the Ottoman Empire which, you may recall, originates in Turkey, not Europe. 

The term "Palestinian" did indeed exist towards the end of the 19th century. It meant "anyone who lives in the geographic region of Palestine", and included the Jews. The term "Palestinian", used to denote a specific Arab ethnonational entity did not appear until the 1930's, and only REALLY took off after 1962, when the KGB helped to found the Palestine Liberation Organisation. (which was originally envisaged by the Soviet Union as being a marxist revolutionary organisation). 

As for self-determination; I'd agree. But if you attempt to create a new nation on disputed territory, then you are asking for trouble; as Israel discovered in 1948, and the "Palestinians" discovered in 1988. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.. no. Most of them where NOT the legal landowners. Most of them where serfs living in poverty. The system was a form of feudalism. 

Seriously? Am I going to have to go over this with you every few years? Don't you remember the Jerusalem thread in the US section? I quoted actual statistics from the era, taken from Israel's own archives. They had a shared land-ownership.

Instead of wasting time typing a reply, I'll just direct you to one of our previous exchanges:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Relevant images:

israel-arab-jewish-land-ownership-1945.j

0xM5P.jpg

Also, from the most authoritative source on the subject of Palestinian land-ownership: 

15.thumb.jpg.a66e372cd6328579f247bed7f287662b.jpg.a99a1b78933000927612bdda93cd761c.jpg

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Land-Question-Palestine-1917-1939/dp/0807841781

I'll quote the relevant text in a minute when I can find it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Quote

The musha* land system had at its core collective village ownership or collective tenure of a land area, with each qualified participant in a village or other designated area entitled to shares, generally not parcels, in a particular land area. On a periodic basis of usually one, two, or five years, shares were redistributed allowing each qualified shareholder the opportunity to use the more fertile and arable lands which corresponded to particular shares within a collective unit.

p. 14

Quote

The most harmful aspect of the musha* system was its process of periodic redistribution. Most fellaheen lacked interest in improving their temporarily held land when the fruits of the improvement would be taken from them. As a result, manuring, weeding, terracing, or crop alternation was rarely employed, and the already nutrient-deficient soil was further depleted. In 1933, High Commissioner Arthur Wauchope estimated that there were between 4 and 5 million dunams of musha*- held land, mostly in the plains and valley regions.30 Even though fellaheen all over Palestine in 19 2 1 favored dividing the musha* shares into individually owned parcels, the partition of musha* shares, or ifraz, did not occur. Local notables and landowners who were most often entitled to large percentages of village-owned shares were unwilling to give up the local economic and political leverage that they maintained over a musha* community. When musha* shareholders fell into debt, they often remitted their shares as debt payment and remained as tenants on the land they once owned collectively. By 1923, nearly 75 percent of musha* lands were owned not by fellaheen but by individuals who lived in towns.31 Somewhere between 2.6 million to 3.3 million dunams of musha* land were owned by landowners resident outside of the village community.

p. 15

'The system was basically one of shared ownership, with shares being issued between the people, fellaheen or otherwise. And do you notice that between 4 and 5 million dunams were held through the musha land system and in the plains and valley regions? That's the majority of arable land in all of Palestine. Conversely, Zionists in 1948 didn't even have 2 million dunams of land.

And did you also notice that '75% of musha lands' were owned by individuals? You're trying to claim that fellaheen were the supposed main landowners and that "they were all just liars!".

Your claims regarding this whole topic are completely removed from reality. And that's putting it nicely.'

The above was my comment when I first provided this evidence for you and it applies even more-so today.

The author of the book quoted and linked to above is the single most authoritative voice on the subject. He was given access to the Israeli archives and went through something like 20,000 documents. If you want, I can send you a copy of the book? If you're actually interested in the facts of the subject of land-ownership in Palestine, that is.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It was lived on by their descendants. The people who live there now? Their ancestors also lived there, regardless of whichever occupier they have endured. You can try to play semantics but it doesn't affect the point I made. They'd lived there for countless generations before the Europeans showed up and they were the legal landowners - despite the attempts by Zionists to buy as much as they could - of the vast majority of what is now Palestine before being ethnically cleansed. It doesn't matter what you want to call them - and they have been documented referring to themselves and others as 'Palestinian' as far back as the late 1800s - they're still the same people, the same stock, the same bloodline, etc. 

Again with the lack of self-awareness. Israel also didn't exist before its founding. Surprising how countries don't exist until someone creates them, eh?

It doesn't matter when nationalism is born. The right to self-determination ensures that a people have a right to decide themselves. Unless they have a boot on their neck, that is.

Arab Historian Admits there is No Palestinian People

 

“There was nothing called a Palestinian people” in 1917, says Palestinian historian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Buzz_Light_Year
2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Let's go a little further back to 132 AD when the Romans crushed the Jewish revolt under Shimon Bar Kokhba. The lands that were known as Judea were renamed to Palestinia to slight the Jewish inhabitants and to minimize Jewish identification with the land. This was but an administrative renaming of the land and had no affect on the makeup of the people that occupied the land. The inhabitants were still Jewish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
21 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and don't take my word for it, take theirs

Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all of the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
46 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and don't take my word for it, take theirs

Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all of the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Wikipedia isn't a source at all, it's a portal. An encyclopedia. The source for all of the topics in those links are contained within the Wiki pages.

For instance, from the Shaw Commission link:

  1. Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine:Une Mission sacrée de civilisation, 1922-1947, Fayard, Paris, 2002 p.183
  2. ^ Aryeh L. Avneri,The claim of dispossession: Jewish land-settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948, Transaction Publishers, 1984 p.125
  3. ^ Naomi Wiener Cohen, The year after the riots: American responses to the Palestine crisis of 1929-39, Wayne State University Press, 1988 p.34
  4. ^ Aryeh L. Avneri,The claim of dispossession: ibid.p.126
  5. ^ Aryeh L. Avneri,The claim of dispossession: ibid.p.127
  6. ^ Great Britain, 1930 : Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929, Command paper Cmd. 3530 (Shaw Commission report).
  7. ^ Aug 1947 - UK DELEGATION TO THE UN, The Political History of Palestine under British Administration, The disorders of August 1929

And the Hope:

References[edit]

  1. ^ Shamir, Ronen (2013). Current Flow: The Electrification of Palestine. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sir John Hope Simpson: Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement, and Development (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1930.)

External links[edit]

Passfield:

References[edit]

  1. ^ Shapira (2014), 86-7.
  2. ^ Hyamson (1942), p. 146. Hyamson mentions that this Arab disappointment probably had something to do with the fact that following the white paper Jewish immigration continued at higher levels than they wanted, the purchase of land by Jews continued without restrictions, and the steps taken to protect Arab tenant farmers from being removed from their land was ineffective. p.145
  3. ^ Shapira (2014), p. 87.

Bibliography[edit]

If you read the documents you can clearly see that 'Palestine', 'Palestinian', 'Palestinian nationalism' and other similar terms have been used for a very, very long time. Or you can check out this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Modern_period

Quote
  • 1563: Josse van Lom, physician of Philip II of Spain: A treatise of continual fevers: "Therefore the Scots, English, Livonians, Danes, Poles, Dutch and Germans, ought to take less blood away in winter than in summer; on the contrary, the Portuguese, Moors, Egyptians, Palestinians, Arabians, and Persians, more in the winter than in summer"
  • 1591: Johannes Löwenklau: Historiae Musulmanae Turcorum Latin: "Cuzzimu barec ea ciuitas est Palæstinæ, quam veteres Hierosolyma dixerunt, Hebræi Ierusalem. Nomen hodiernum significa locum benedictum vel inclytum", translates as "Quds Barış is the city of the Palestinians, also known as Hierosolyma, in Hebrew, Jerusalem. The name means the holy one or the glorious one"
  • 1594: Uri ben Shimon and Jakob Christmann (ed.): Calendarium Palaestinorum Et Universorum Iudaeorum... "Auctore Rabbi Ori filio Simeonis, Iudeo Palaestino" [Author Rabbi Uri son of Simeon, Palestinian Jew]"
  • 1833: Heinrich Friedrich Pfannkuche: "In the writings of the Greeks and Romans, we need not look for indications of a very familiar acquaintance with the history and language of the Palestinian Jews, since they did not even vouchsafe their attention to the language and national writings of the more civilized nations of antiquity, such as the Carthaginians, Phoenicians, and Strabo, from whom we have quoted above the passages bearing upon our subject, is perhaps the only one who imparts this general information of the Syrians, (to whom the Palestinians also belonged,) that they and their neighbours spoke a cognate language, but he enters on no farther explanation as to the difference between their dialects"
  • 1898: Khalil Beidas, his preface to his translation of Akim Olesnitsky's A Description of the Holy Land: "the people of Palestine were in need of a geography book about their country... the Palestinian peasant waits impatiently for winter to come, for the season’s rain to moisten his fossilized fields". It has been proposed that this represents the first instance in modern history where the term ‘Palestinian’ or ‘Filastini’ appears in Arabic.
  • 1902: Salim Qub‘ayn, "A Palestinian describes Palestinian towns".[363]
  • 1918: House of Commons of the United Kingdom: Minutes: "Major Earl Winterton asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities have been given to the Palestinian and Syrian political leaders now in Egypt to visit Palestine?"[382] An early use of the word Palestinian in British politics, which was used often in following years in the British govern.

Or go back slightly further.

Quote
  • c. 735 BC: Qurdi-Ashur-lamur to Tiglath-Pileser III, Nimrud Letter ND 2715: "Bring down lumber, do your work on it, (but) do not deliver it to the Egyptians (mu-sur-a-a) or Palestinians (pa-la-as-ta-a-a), or I shall not let you go up to the mountains."
  • c. 8 AD: Ovid, Metamorphoses: (1) "...Dercetis of Babylon, who, as the Palestinians believe, changed to a fish, all covered with scales, and swims in a pool"[65] and (2) "There fell also Mendesian Celadon; Astreus, too, whose mother was a Palestinian, and his father unknown"[66][64]
  • c. 500: Zosimus, New History: "Finding the Palmyrene army drawn up before Emisa, amounting to seventy thousand men, consisting of Palmyrenes and their allies, [Emperor Aurelian] opposed to them the Dalmatian cavalry, the Moesians and Pannonians, and the Celtic legions of Noricum and Rhaetia, and besides these the choicest of the imperial regiment selected man by man, the Mauritanian horse, the Tyaneans, the Mesopotamians, the Syrians, the Phoenicians, and the Palestinians, all men of acknowledged valour; the Palestinians besides other arms wielding clubs and staves."[154]
  • c. 1000: Suda encyclopedic lexicon: "Παλαιστίνη: ὄνομα χώρας. καὶ Παλαιστι̂νος, ὁ ἀπὸ Παλαιστίνης." / "Palestine: Name of a territory. Also [sc. attested is] Palestinian, a man from Palestine.[182]
  • 1100–27: Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127): "For we who were Occidentals have now become Orientals. He who was a Roman or a Frank has in this land been made into a Galilean or a Palestinian."[187]

To claim that there's was no such usage of the word 'Palestinian' in reference to the indigenous population is, frankly, a demonstrable lie.

Sources at the bottom of the Wiki page, BG.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The inhabitants were still Jewish.

Some of them, at least. Though I'm not sure of your point? There have always been Jewish Palestinians, and they have mostly lived peacefully alongside Christians or Muslims. That's never been up for debate. At the time the Europeans invaded Israel, around 10% of Palestinians were Jewish.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Good ! And it's not an occupation ! 

No, it's a steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Wikipedia isn't a source at all, it's a portal. An encyclopedia. The source for all of the topics in those links are contained within the Wiki pages.

For instance, from the Shaw Commission link:

  1. Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine:Une Mission sacrée de civilisation, 1922-1947, Fayard, Paris, 2002 p.183
  2. ^ Aryeh L. Avneri,The claim of dispossession: Jewish land-settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948, Transaction Publishers, 1984 p.125
  3. ^ Naomi Wiener Cohen, The year after the riots: American responses to the Palestine crisis of 1929-39, Wayne State University Press, 1988 p.34
  4. ^ Aryeh L. Avneri,The claim of dispossession: ibid.p.126
  5. ^ Aryeh L. Avneri,The claim of dispossession: ibid.p.127
  6. ^ Great Britain, 1930 : Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929, Command paper Cmd. 3530 (Shaw Commission report).
  7. ^ Aug 1947 - UK DELEGATION TO THE UN, The Political History of Palestine under British Administration, The disorders of August 1929

And the Hope:

References[edit]

  1. ^ Shamir, Ronen (2013). Current Flow: The Electrification of Palestine. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sir John Hope Simpson: Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement, and Development (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1930.)

External links[edit]

Passfield:

References[edit]

  1. ^ Shapira (2014), 86-7.
  2. ^ Hyamson (1942), p. 146. Hyamson mentions that this Arab disappointment probably had something to do with the fact that following the white paper Jewish immigration continued at higher levels than they wanted, the purchase of land by Jews continued without restrictions, and the steps taken to protect Arab tenant farmers from being removed from their land was ineffective. p.145
  3. ^ Shapira (2014), p. 87.

Bibliography[edit]

If you read the documents you can clearly see that 'Palestine', 'Palestinian', 'Palestinian nationalism' and other similar terms have been used for a very, very long time. Or you can check out this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Modern_period

Or go back slightly further.

To claim that there's was no such usage of the word 'Palestinian' in reference to the indigenous population is, frankly, a demonstrable lie.

Sources at the bottom of the Wiki page, BG.

< sigh > 

There was AMPLE useage of the term "Palestinian" throughout the ages. But the term simply meant "a resident of the region of Palestine", which included the Jews, along with various Arab nomads. However, the useage in the sense of a nation state is VERY recent, dating back to 1962 and the KGB-inspired formation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Ooft. Well, there goes the mountains of documented evidence. You might want to let the world know.

Some light reading for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_Commission - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Simpson_Enquiry - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passfield_white_paper - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald_Letter  - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission - aha, this DOES mention the concept of a Palestinian nationality. The commission created the UN partition plan. The "Palestinian" Arabs  rejected it outright.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhead_Commission  - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939 -  - no contextual mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. The concept only occurs in reports and commentaries written WAY later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Conference -  no contextual mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. The concept only occurs in reports and commentaries written WAY later, and included in the footnotes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_Committee_of_Inquiry - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_of_Information_Relating_to_Acts_of_Violence -  - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine -   - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality in the UN report itself, with only references to "Arab Palestinians" outside of it, and THAT in the sense of "Arabs that lived in the Region of Palestine", and NOT refering to a distinct Palestinian culture or national identity. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_trusteeship_proposal_for_Palestine - - no mention of "The Palestinians" in the sense of a nation state, or ethnonationality. 

 

So much, then, for your "mountain of evidence". ? 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

There was AMPLE useage of the term "Palestinian" throughout the ages. But the term simply meant "a resident of the region of Palestine", which included the Jews, along with various Arab nomads. However, the useage in the sense of a nation state is VERY recent, dating back to 1962 and the KGB-inspired formation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. 

Read the documents. 1962 is just complete bull****. Palestinian nationalism dates back to the 1800s, with it becoming organised in the early 1900s. And they still identified as Palestinian long before that. The Grand Mufti is evidence enough that Palestinian nationalism was gaining strength in the 1920s. His existence completely demolishes your 1962 argument.

59 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So much, then, for your "mountain of evidence". ? 

Yes, I remember you posted something similar in the other thread. Like I said then, I guess you only read the Wiki page? Probably did a ctrl-F search for the word, yeah? I was making reference towards the actual documents, not the Wiki page. 

Take the Shaw Report, for instance: 

Quote

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the Byes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. 

https://buconflict.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/shaw-commission.pdf

In that single document from 1929 the term 'Palestinian' is used 23 times. Here a few quotes for you:

Quote

In August of the latter year the international status of Palestine was regularized by the Treaty of Lausanne, the nationality provisions of which governed generally the terms of the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council. 

On the 1st of November, 1927, Egyptian currency ceased to be legal tender in Palestine and was replaced by a Palestinian currency

 The Congress claims for the Executive the right to dispose of the certificates granted by the Palestinian Government

 

Take all the documents together along with others from the era and, yes, it's a mountain of evidence.

All this is irrelevant, though. In reality it doesn't matter when nationalism is born. The right to self-determination stands on its own, not matter when its invoked.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
11 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Not only are you awaiting the time for 'the world to burn' over the ever growing Israeli State and the victims they make while doing so,

Gee, P80, I'm beginning to get the idea that you don't like me very well.  How long have you had this gift of being able to read minds and know hearts?  You must have those gifts because you make statements as though you are quoting my words when you never can find any of them to back your assertions.  You should probably learn to relax and just let other people have their own opinions without it twisting your guts into knots.  As to the world burning, that will be the choice of the world, not me.  It doesn't take a prophet or a genius to look at the trends and see what's coming.  I think part of your angst comes from the fact that you see it coming as well and it just guts you to know I'm accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.