Define Palestinian: "Jew-Hater." Dennis Miller Rant.

[andyfox]

"Only with respect to these two sides."

Should have said that, thought it would be understood. Certainly, in addition to the examples you sight, the Kamikazes are another.

[Chris Alger]

I apologize. I read your statement as saying that the occupied territories "belong" to Jordan and Egypt, not "belonged," as you actually wrote. Still, "belonged" isn't quite the right word, certainly not now, according to (among others) Egypt and Jordan.

[ QUOTE ]
The Palestinians would like the west bank to become part of a Palestinian state. They do not want it returned to Jordan. That is why there has been violence directed at Jordan by Palestinians. And that is why the Jordanians are none too fond of the Palestinians--and why Jordan has quietly been of help to the US during the recent events in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jordan has unequivocally endorsed a Palestinian state along the same lines as the PA and the rest of the world. The notion that Jordan has "quietly" been helping the U.S. recently (Jordan has been a de facto ally for decades) because Jordan opposes Palestinian aspirations is fantastic.

[ QUOTE ]
Nations are legitimized when they are recognized by other nations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning that the recognition of Palestinian Arabs as a "nation" with legitimate aspirations to territorial sovereignty contradict your claims to the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
No nations recognize any nation-state called Palestine. There is a Palestinian Authority which represents Palestinian interests in the international arena, but there is no Palestinian state.

[/ QUOTE ]
The UN did 17 years ago by UNGAR 43/177 (passed 104-2-36, Israel and the U.S. opposed). The resolution "1. Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; 2. Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; 3. Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system...."

The exclusive reason that one sees "Occupied by Israel" instead of "Palestine" on most maps is Israel's U.S.-backed refusal to permit a formal state to be declared in the territories and its repeated threat to annex the occupied territories outright if one is declared. Outside of this rejectionist camp, the whole world has been willing to accept a Palestinian state for decades.

[ QUOTE ]
If the borders of Israel were restored to the status quo antebellum, those occupied territories which have not already been returned would be returned to the nations of which they were once a part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if one restricts the term "status quo ante bellum" to the situation, not the legal status, of the territories during the 19 years prior to June 1967. Between 1948 and 1967, however, Egypt and Jordan were at war with Israel following the Zionist conquest of most of Mandatory Palestine, the population of Gaza with refugees, and Israel's collusion with Jordan to prevent the realization of UNGAR 181 (partition).

Until 1948, the territories were considered part of Mandatory Palestine, a territory the League of Nations entrusted to Great Britain "until such time as [it] is able to stand alone" (League of Nations Covenant, Art. 22), "while ensuring that the rights and position of other [Arab] sections of the population are not prejudiced" (Palestine Mandate, Art. 6). The situation to which you refer was created by the undermining of that mandate by the declaration of a Jewish state, Israel's expulsion of most of the Arab population, the invasion of the Arab states and the subsequent occupation by Jordan and Egypt of Gaza and the West Bank.

Accordingly, there has been no internationally internationally accepted "status quo" since 1948, a fact tacitly acknowledged by Israel, which still refuses to define its own borders.

[Gamblor]

All of the theory and rhetoric don't mean anything imo.

I argue it, but in reality, it doesn't have any bearing on the 4 million people living a couple dozen kilometers from the baby-eating money-grubbing agreement-breaking media-controlling hooknoses.

what DOES, however, is the question of what they really want and what Israel really wants and how to make those compatible. So I can sit and tell you how they are all dirty murderous animals, but you don't care.

Funny thing is, neither do most israelis. they just want to be left alone.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There has never in the history of the world been an independent nation-state called Palestine.

[/ QUOTE ]

A significant number of states existing today gained independence after being "non existent" since the dawn of time. The notion that none of these states should have independence today because ..they never had it in the past would be preposterous, not to say idiotic. (Should I bore you with examples? I'll start from the letter A -- and give you Albania. Under the letter U there's a country you all know.)


[ QUOTE ]
Palestine has been a province in assorted empires. And so the occupants of the province of Palestine (which over the centuries have included Christians, Muslims, Jews, Druze, whoever and whatever) have been legitimately called Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]
This goes against the very notion of national self-identification and the modern nation state, as we know it. It is interesting, though, that the rhetoric used by pro-Zionist "theorists" against the idea of a Palestinian nationhood turns against the idea of Israel! Just replace names.

[ QUOTE ]
It should also be remembered that Palestinian Arab Muslims attacked Jordan; the Jordanians haven't forgotten it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are referring to the September 1970 wholesale massacre of Palestinian Arabs by King Hussein's Jordanian army, then you are completely reversing reality. It was a massacre (and an attack) by the King's loyal troops from Jordan against the Palestinians in Jordan.

That was the infamous Black September. I have no idea what else you might be talking about.


[ QUOTE ]
The origins of the refugee camps lay largely in the voluntary evacuation of Palestine Arabs in anticipation of the war on Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I note with amusement your use of the term "Palestine Arabs" which strains your effort to avoid the simple and self-identifying term Palestinain Arabs.

But, seriously, the refusal to recognize the historical fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave, terrorized into leaving their native land, in fact, is quite telling of your point of view. You are asking us to believe that the inhabitants of a land who have lived there for generations upped and left without any other reason than their advance knowledge that the Israelis would win the war! Amazing, simply amazing.

(And even if that's why they left, because they feared that the Israelis would win, what did they have to fear from the Israelis? You think that the Palestinian men, women and children who left should have been afraid of victorious Israelis? ...See? I told you, truth is impossible to keep hidden no matter how hard you try.)

But enough with the ahistorical hogwash. For a much more informed understanding of the question of Palestinian identity and how it has suffered under the onslaught of Zionist propaganda ("a land without a nation for a nation without a land" - yeah, right) one would be advised to check out Keith Whitelam's "The Invention Of Ancient Israel And The Silencing Of Palestinian History" and, of course, Norman Finkelstein's "Image And Reality Of The Israel-Palestinian Conglict".

[/ QUOTE ]

My advice is to read with care before responding to someone's post. I have said that I support the founding of a Palestinian state. Simply because there has never been a Palestinian state does not mean that there should never be one. But the fact is that there never has been a Palestinian state. I hope to live to see one (as I said before).

When I referred to "assorted empires," that goes back as far as the Roman Empire. The modern notion of nation-state is anachronistic for most of the period to which I was referring. The fact is that Palestine, over a period of thousands of years, no matter under which empire it happened to be existing, was home to a variety of peoples at various times (including Jews, Christians from Western Europe and from the Byzantine Empire, Muslim Arabs, Druzes, and so forth. They could all be called Palestinians according to their place of residence. Fact, like it or not. During the Ottoman Empire the land which would be called Palestine under the British Mandate was in fact called Syria, and not Palestine.

Among other things when I referred to the bad blood between Palestinians and Jordan, I was thinking of the assassination of King Abdullah of Jordan by a Palestinian in 1951.

As for Black September, there are varying interpretations of the events of that period. In the late 60s several Palestinian guerrilla groups (including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) were operating in Jordan. Hussein attempted at first to accommodate the fedayeen, but Hussein began to feel that the Palestinian guerrillas were threatening his authority and ultimately his throne. This insecurity on the part of Hussein was increased by a series of airjackings by Palestinians on September 6, 1970. This led to martial law and war between Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Army led by Yasser Arafat. Syria supported the PLA and then withdrew under pressure. A ceasefire was negotiated and signed September 25-27, after substantial loss of life on both sides and significant destruction of property. Al Fatah called for the overthrow of Jordan, and Hussein opposed the founding of a Palestinian state. Later in 1970 a group of Palestinians calling themselves Black September struck against Jordan with assassination and attempted assassination. The Arab world blamed and blames Hussein for this, but in my view the fedayeen with their guerilla activities in Jordan aimed at Hussein did not have clean hands. I am aware that other people's mileage varies.
In any case, the fact is that the formation of a Palestinian state would have to include territory belonging to Jordan prior to 1967.

I am glad you find typographical errors amusing.

I never claimed that the Palestinian Arabs left their homes out of fear of the Israelis. There were Palestinians who left to get out of the way and there were Palestinians who were forced to leave by the Israelis. Arab hostilities to Jews were whipped up during the decades before 1948 by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who conferred with Hitler. The period before the founding of Israel saw such atrocities as the massacre of a Jewish medical convoy.

When Israel was declared a state by the UN and recognized by the world's most powerful countries, Arab forces invaded. Had this not happened and had the Palestinians accepted the state they were offered at the end of the British mandate, there would be in all likelihood no refugee problem. It should also be remembered that the foundation of Israel imperiled the Jewish populations of Arab countries. Yhey too became refugees, lost their property, and can never return to their homelands.

The blame for this mess falls largely on the shoulders of Britain which promised the same land to the Arabs and the Jews, the Arabs for their help in defeating the Turks and the Jews in the Balfour Declaration. Big mistake, and the reason why I think that the state of Israel should never have been founded in the first place.

But Israel exists and has a right to exist and to protect itself. The best thing that could happen would be the peaceful co-existence of two states, Israel and Palestine, and the administration of Jerusalem by an international body committed to maintaining the sacred sites and facilitating access to them by all who hold them sacred.

LOL

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The blame for this mess falls largely on the shoulders of Britain which promised the same land to the Arabs and the Jews, the Arabs for their help in defeating the Turks and the Jews in the Balfour Declaration. Big mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your assigning the blame to the British is, IMO, absolutely correct. Let it be said, though, that the practice of creating and inciting hostility between native tribes in a country has been a honourable and ancient bastion of British foreign policy. This has been the guideline in cases like the drawing of the borders of Iraq, which should have rightly included the areas now known as Kuwait, the withdrawal from the colony of Cyprus, where the Brits succeeded in getting the Greeks and the Turks to slug it out, etc. Nothing new there.


[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that there never has been a Palestinian state. I hope to live to see one.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I hope to live to see Palestinians and Jews (or Nepalese) living in one state. (I do not care if it is named Israel or Araphatistan.)

[ QUOTE ]
As for Black September, there are varying interpretations of the events of that period. In the late 60s several Palestinian guerrilla groups were operating in Jordan ... [with] guerrilla activities in Jordan aimed at Hussein.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correction: Out of Jordan. There were no operations inside Jordan. The Palestinian guerrillas were NOT attacking Hussein!

But King Hussein was worried, arguably correctly, that (A) the heavy presence of Palestinian guerrillas would de-stabilize his grip on power (Palestinians being a catalyst for progressive, secular, democratic politics in monarchist Jordan), and (B) Israel might get angry -- and belligerent (which, in view of Lebanon 1982, was prescient).

Still, the fact remains, that the Palestinians did NOT start any war or anything hostile against Hussein, as you asserted. For the reasons stated above, Hussein attacked and stabbed the Palestinians in the back. ...For the good of Jordan.


[ QUOTE ]
The modern notion of nation-state is anachronistic for most of the period to which I was referring.

[/ QUOTE ]
A nit: "anachronistic" is not correct. I assume you mean "non-existent". (Note that whatever argument one offers pro or against the creation of an Israeli state, goes for the Palestinians!)


[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that Palestine, over a period of thousands of years, no matter under which empire it happened to be existing, was home to a variety of peoples at various times (including Jews, Christians from Western Europe and from the Byzantine Empire, Muslim Arabs, Druzes, and so forth. They could all be called Palestinians according to their place of residence. Fact, like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
The residents of ancient Palestine did not include a nationality that defined itself as "Palestinian Arabs" for the simple fact that the Arabs did not come into the area until much later.

And by the unanimously accepted right of a people to define itself nationally (i.e. if a group of people want to call themselves by a certain ethnic name, they should be entitled to), if the Palestinians, be it in 3000 BC or 1900 AD want to call themselves that, they have every right to do so, and they have every right for self determination "as the next guy". Fact, like it or not.

Here is the heart of the matter: Jews are an ancient people; the Palestinian Arabs, as such, are not. (These notions are based on the false premise of biological continuity on which rests the foundation of the modern nation-state. But let's not digress.) Modern Jews, i.e. Jews from the time that Herzl-inspired Zionism became a factor, demanded the physical area of ancient Israel. At, let's accept for argument's sake, the same time, the people that today call themselves Palestinians asserted their national identity and demanded their rights of self-determination -- which directly led to demanding the area of Palestine as the land of their nation-state-to-be. The only problem here was that Israel=Palestine. Ay, caramba!

That's all there is to it. Denying to the Palestinians the rights to the land that the Jews want to have is an exercise in intellectual and logical futility. Hence, the Zionists' resort to calling the Palestinians names such as "animals", "sub-humans", "barbairians", etc. Definitely rings a bell.

Recommended reading, repetition :
Keith Whitelam's "The Invention Of Ancient Israel And The Silencing Of Palestinian History".

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

"As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges
as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to
the Palestinians, weeping for their deep bond with
their lost 'land' and 'nation'."

More hoghwash. The Palestinians objected to the Zionist enterprise, recognizing it for what it was, an attempt to take over their land, from the very beginning.

How is this different to white people objecting to black people moving on to their land (a neighborhood). Would that be a case of the blacks trying to "take over?" Many American whites viewed in that context.

In my mind, land does not "belong" to an ethnic group. Sounds like different sets of rules for different groups.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
In my mind, land does not "belong" to an ethnic group. Sounds like different sets of rules for different groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely! I, for one, completely agree.

Do you think this principle can hold any water in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

[LittleOldLady]

"On the other hand, I hope to live to see Palestinians and Jews (or Nepalese) living in one state. (I do not care if it is named Israel or Araphatistan."


I don't know how the Nepalese got into this--they have problems of their own.


The one-state idea that you advocate, the current Israelis and Palestinians living productively and peacefully in one state, has considerable theoretical appeal, but I wonder whether it would work in practice. The Muslim countries (Arab and non-Arab) of the Middle East and North Africa do not have a stellar record when it comes to treatment of their historical Jewish minorities. In fact, the Jewish populations of these countries had to flee en masse after 1948, and no one speaks of the losses suffered by these ancient communities. This may be in part because these Jews were resettled by the international Jewish community, most in Israel where there is a certain level of ongoing friction between them and the Israelis of European descent and some in the United States and elsewhere. In contrast the Palestinian refugees have not been resettled, but continue, almost 60 years later, to live in the deplorable conditions of the refugee camps.


Could Israeli Jews feel secure that they would be able to live peacefully with full civil rights and without discrimination in a country in which they would be a minority? Clearly they don't, and I don't think their fears on this score are unwarranted. OTOH there are Palestinian Arabs who live in Israel, who are citizens, have civil rights and are represented in the Knesset. They are of course a minority, they are not necessarily beloved by the majority population of Israel, their lives are not a complete bed of roses, but their position is viable.


The State of Israel was founded under the auspices of the UN to give Jews a place where they would be in the majority and safe from the genocidal pressures which have been brought to bear on them, particularly in Christian Europe, for many centuries. The irony of course is that Israel has been under attack by its neighbors from the instant of its creation. The bottom line is that empowering one people at the expense of another is not going to work. When two different peoples lay claim to the same territory there is trouble (Think Kashmir, Taiwan, and Alsace-Lorraine....).


Frankly, I do not think the one-state solution you propose would work. I think it would amount to a Palestinian state, and that the Israelis would have to be resettled as immigrants elsewhere. And who would want them? In WWII there was an unwillingness of the world to resettle European Jews fleeing Hitler. Many were forced to go to China as one of the better of the limited possibilities. Today I wonder how many countries would be willing to accept large numbers of Israelis, particularly the Sephardim. Europe today is struggling to cope with large numbers of North African and Turkish Muslim immigrants. Would those countries be thrilled to add Israelis to an already rather volatile situation? Would the United States be ready to accept large numbers of Jews of, say, Yemeni and Moroccan origin? Perhaps Australia and New Zealand would accept them, I don't know.


The one-state option would mean the end of the hope of any sort of safe haven for Jews where they would be in the majority, able to pursue their way of life (actually ways of life) without discrimination and with self-determination. That is what the Israelis are fighting to preserve and, to the horror and embarrassment of their neighbors and the rest of the world, fighting very effectively indeed. It can be argued that the foundation of Israel was an act of hubris, the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland belonging instead on the to-do list of the Messiah.


LOL

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If those outsiders that moved in and started growing oranges were Muslim outsiders, I doubt they would have been met with equal enmity as were the Jewish outsiders.

[Gamblor]

I hope to live to see Palestinians and Jews (or Nepalese) living in one state. (I do not care if it is named Israel or Araphatistan

Tell that to either party, they'll laugh you right out of the building.

Wait, the Arabs will probably kill you first.