West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on July 30, 2006, 05:36:36 AM
-
It's funny we are seeing people complaining that Isreal doesn't have the right to exist, when in fact not only do they exist, but they have the strongest military power in the whole middle east. It's the Palestinians who used to exist, but were wiped off the map when the Western Powers and Isreal killed or drove off 1 million Palestinians from their land, and created the state of Isreal in place of what used to be Palestine, thus creating the worst refugee crisis in the world today.
-
Don't you live in the United States? Same thing happened to the Natives.
-
Before 1967 the Palestinians which are known today as Palestinians, the ones who you call Palestinians, the ones claiming to be an inseparable part of the Arab Nation, didn't exist. Gaza and West Bank were conquered from Egypt and Jordan, two non-Palestinian sovereignties.
-
jews were talking about creating israel since the 19th century. There was a lot of racism toward them in europe back then because in every country they lived they were taking control of the economy. The second world war was a good pretext to create that state. They should have given them new york though, since americans like them so much.
-
Before 1967 the Palestinians which are known today as Palestinians, the ones who you call Palestinians, the ones claiming to be an inseparable part of the Arab Nation, didn't exist. Gaza and West Bank were conquered from Egypt and Jordan, two non-Palestinian sovereignties.
What's your point? Your not even arguing whether Isreal stole the land, your just arguing which Arabs/Muslims they stole the land from. You know you can't win the argument so your just trying to muddy the water. You have no moral ground to stand on.
It's like the English telling the Native Americans that they have no rights to the land because they don't have any signed documents sitting in a lawyers office biulding, even though the people have been living their for thousands of years. If you want lawyers and office biuldings, we got that too, the Islamic Ottoman Empire. They were the legitimate, PEACEFUL (offering visa's for Jews and Christians to vist Holy sites), world recognized, governing body in the region for 100's of years up until WW1. With the decline of Islam polotically, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian people were at the mercy of the white world powers like Britian who paved the way for the Jews to have their own homeland in Palestine by the time 1948 rolled around.
-
bryan i wasnt complaining about israel, i was asking why muslims dont think israel has the right to exist. jesus bryan do you have to put a bizaare slant on everything before you rationalize it? fuckin psycho
-
bryan i wasnt complaining about israel, i was asking why muslims dont think israel has the right to exist. jesus bryan do you have to put a bizaare slant on everything before you rationalize it? fuckin psycho
And I was asking why you don't think Palestine has the right to exist.
-
bryan i wasnt complaining about israel, i was asking why muslims dont think israel has the right to exist. jesus bryan do you have to put a bizaare slant on everything before you rationalize it? fuckin psycho
And I was asking why you don't think Palestine has the right to exist.
you fag i never said it didnt
-
Sorry, there wasn't a "Palestine" before it became Israel, both Jews AND Muslims occupied that land prior to it officially becoming the Jewish state...PeACe
-
Sorry, there wasn't a "Palestine" before it became Israel, both Jews AND Muslims occupied that land prior to it officially becoming the Jewish state...PeACe
off hand can you tell me what the population of that area was in terms of jews/arabs in the 1930s
no you cant.
hence why are u talkin
-
bryan i wasnt complaining about israel, i was asking why muslims dont think israel has the right to exist. jesus bryan do you have to put a bizaare slant on everything before you rationalize it? fuckin psycho
on some real shit, israels creation was a great injustice. it was a bitch move to the 100th degree. it was complete bullshit. some people cant forget that shit
-
Sorry, there wasn't a "Palestine" before it became Israel, both Jews AND Muslims occupied that land prior to it officially becoming the Jewish state...PeACe
off hand can you tell me what the population of that area was in terms of jews/arabs in the 1930s
no you cant.
hence why are u talkin
Can you? What does it matter, my reply was completely valid, so shut your mouth unless you have some useful input...My great grandparents were born in Israel almost 80 years ago...
-
you fag i never said it didnt
None of the Muslims at the forum said Isreal didn't have a right to exist.
-
Sorry, there wasn't a "Palestine" before it became Israel, both Jews AND Muslims occupied that land prior to it officially becoming the Jewish state...PeACe
There wasn't a "Palestine" in the same way that there wasn't a "native American Indian land" in America. The point of the matter is there were people living there, and they called themselves Palestine, but the white colonial powers never would fully recognize them. Instead, the opted to aid the Jews in stealin the land and naming it Isreal.
-
Sorry, there wasn't a "Palestine" before it became Israel, both Jews AND Muslims occupied that land prior to it officially becoming the Jewish state...PeACe
There wasn't a "Palestine" in the same way that there wasn't a "native American Indian land" in America. The point of the matter is there were people living there, and they called themselves Palestine, but the white colonial powers never would fully recognize them. Instead, the opted to aid the Jews in stealin the land and naming it Isreal.
They didn't "steal" it...It wasn't anyones land officially, and like I stated, Jews have lived there for thousands of years...Not even comparable to the Native American situation...PeACe
-
They didn't "steal" it...It wasn't anyones land officially
Just like it wasn't the Native American's land "officially".
And by the way, the owners of the land had been the Islamic Ottoman Empire for 400 years prior to World War 1 when they were defeated by the British. From World War 1 to World War 2 Britian was the "official" rulers and administrators of the region. Ofcourse, the British white man gave the land to the Jews and kicked the dark-skinned Arabs off the land, like Malcolm X said.
-
They didn't "steal" it...It wasn't anyones land officially
Just like it wasn't the Native American's land "officially".
And by the way, the owners of the land had been the Islamic Ottoman Empire for 400 years prior to World War 1 when they were defeated by the British. From World War 1 to World War 2 Britian was the "official" rulers and administrators of the region. Ofcourse, the British white man gave the land to the Jews and kicked the dark-skinned Arabs off the land, like Malcolm X said.
Dude, you're ignoring my main point...JEWS LIVED THERE BEFORE, NOT THE SAME CASE WITH THE NATIVE AMERICANS. Lots of Arabs still live in Israel, man, there are so many primarily Arab neighborhoods in Israel. The land was officially given to the Jews because Jews needed an official country, there are hundreds of Muslim countries, Israel was one of the places Jews existed and have historically occupied for thousands of years, it made the most sense...There's no "dark-skinned" conspiracy...PeACe
-
Train of thought
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Train of thought (disambiguation).
Train of thought, also known as stream of thought or stream of consciousness is thinking in words. It also refers to the semi-constant internal mono-dialogue one has with oneself at a conscious or semi-conscious level.
is this what you weirdos think about all the time? you disgust me!
-
your just arguing which Arabs/Muslims they stole the land from.
LMAO...So winning a war against two states that wished Israel to cease existing is as good as stealing land?
I guess this fits into your pan-Arabic ideas homie. The American who wants to live in a Caliphate :). The term Palestine existed BEFORE the Ottoman empire, it existed BEFORE the Arabization of the region. The Palestinians of today who see themselves as "Arabs" lived in this region since the Ottoman empire which was an Islamic conquest\occupation of the region. The name Palestine was there before. I understand Muslims here need to support the pertaining of the land of Palestine to the Waqf and therefore they need rationalizations for shitting on Israel, but fact is you people are concealing religious beliefs. The people who are leading the struggle against the "Zionist Enemy" de facto, are people lead by pious religious views, they are willing to sacrifice lives for the land that is theirs according to their religion and they do so. They encourage children to become Shahids, namely to commit suicide bombings. These leaders admitted in many occasions that their objective was never even "Palestinian Sovereignty" but Arab-Muslim-Unition . LOL@Infinite talking about the "peaceful" Ottoman Empire that btw conquered the region by force centuries ago. The only reason you view it as peaceful is because it was an Islamic empire. The "Palestinian Ploy" from the begining on is a scheme to obliterate the state of Israel. Had the Arab\Muslim nations wanted peace with Israel from the start, there would be no "Palestinian claim to the land", and the educated among you guys (Tech) know this is true.
-
European Jews colonized Palestine.
-
And by the way, the owners of the land had been the Islamic Ottoman Empire for 400 years prior to World War 1 when they were defeated by the British. From World War 1 to World War 2 Britian was the "official" rulers and administrators of the region. Ofcourse, the British white man gave the land to the Jews and kicked the dark-skinned Arabs off the land, like Malcolm X said.
Kind of like the peaceful loving Ottoman Empire kicked all of the Greeks out and sent them to the part of Greece that was taken back after the revolution in hopes of overcrowding the country. The Greek forced off "Turkish" land had a lineage that dated back thousands of years and they were just given the boot. Of course you'll find some way to deny it because your devil worshipping ways won't allow you to go against anyone that's on your side. (No man of God would be so ignorant. Men of God see what is wrong with other men of God gone astray and correct them. Men of Satan see what is wrong with men their own people and cover up and defend them).
I don't blame the Turks or Muslims for what happened to my direct ancestors. Not the ones today and not the ones then. Shit happens. That's life. It's not like every Greek at the time was a perfect being. They just happened to be on the short end of the stick during those 400 years and another time in history they were the oppressor. I am a strong believer in the Creator and don't worry so much about what man does to man. If I am put in a position to stop evil I will try, but if it's out of my hands then I'll let God handle it. He's better at it then I am. I belive God looks after those that suffer and forgives those that are tricked into causing suffering. If you really had as much faith in Allah as you claim you wouldn't care what happened to Arabs in Palestine. If they truly are Muslims like you say then they will be taken care of by God, and nothing Israel or Britain, or your friend Satan, can do anything to stop that. Why don't you try a little walk with your talk for a change?
-
If you really had as much faith in Allah as you claim you wouldn't care what happened to Arabs in Palestine. If they truly are Muslims like you say then they will be taken care of by God, and nothing Israel or Britain, or your friend Satan, can do anything to stop that.
So basically you mean leave the Middle East to it's fate and pray God somehow prevents the tonnes of explosives from falling on people?
Somehow I don't think God really intervenes like that Superman style it just dosn't happen and it's stupid to expect God to. How about as people we try to solve our problems ourselves and stop calling on the Creator of the Universe. I believe Jesus was a person and as a person he is a testament to what people can do to make the world a better place.
-
If you really had as much faith in Allah as you claim you wouldn't care what happened to Arabs in Palestine. If they truly are Muslims like you say then they will be taken care of by God, and nothing Israel or Britain, or your friend Satan, can do anything to stop that.
So basically you mean leave the Middle East to it's fate and pray God somehow prevents the tonnes of explosives from falling on people?
Somehow I don't think God really intervenes like that Superman style it just dosn't happen and it's stupid to expect God to. How about as people we try to solve our problems ourselves and stop calling on the Creator of the Universe. I believe Jesus was a person and as a person he is a testament to what people can do to make the world a better place.
I mean when you die you are saved, go to heave, reach the promised land, enter the pearly gates, etc. I was speaking to Infinite and Infinite alone on the grounds that he is supposedly someone who believes that good people go to Allah when they die. If I were speaking to an athiest I obviously wouldn't bother with that argument. But from an athiests perspective, what did Jesus actually do to change anything? He taught what? morality? That was nothing new. It was only in his spiritual signficance that changes started happening, and that was after the man died.
-
wasn't the ottoman empire defeated fair and square ? why did they unite with the germans and try take over ?
-
No man of God would be so ignorant. Men of God see what is wrong with other men of God gone astray and correct them. Men of Satan see what is wrong with men their own people and cover up and defend them
thats some real shit right there..
-
wasn't the ottoman empire defeated fair and square ? why did they unite with the germans and try take over ?
the ottoman empire collapsed from within, ww1 just put the final nail in their coffin
-
Before 1967 the Palestinians which are known today as Palestinians, the ones who you call Palestinians, the ones claiming to be an inseparable part of the Arab Nation, didn't exist. Gaza and West Bank were conquered from Egypt and Jordan, two non-Palestinian sovereignties.
you talk about gaza and the west bank being taken from other countries but before mass jewish migration to "palestine" they were all part of one single entity and had been for some time the people that lived there deserved to be given their own country like everyone who lived under british rule eventually did, but the americans robbed them of that right. Britain was against jewish migration, which is why we sent back or detained many of those that who arrived and we were too tired from ww2 to carry on fighting so we gave into american pressure and let the UN decide...........
-
they were all part of one single entity and had been for some time the people that lived there deserved to be given their own country
That's why they rejected the Partition Plan (That granted them a country on the majority of the territory) while the Zionists accepted it?
That's why Nasser was talking about Arab Unity plans (Pan-Arabism)? That's why intead of granting them a country, 7 Arab armies invaded their territory promissing to remove Israel from the map, subsequently failing to do so? That's why Arab states and Arab leaders orchestrated the refugee problem prior to their invasion of Palestine, forcing them to leave the land?
-
Before 1967 the Palestinians which are known today as Palestinians, the ones who you call Palestinians, the ones claiming to be an inseparable part of the Arab Nation, didn't exist.
You can't neglect or deny a people's existence just because that population has no nationalist narrative. Nationalist narratives assume that nations have existed throughout history. They also assert that nationalist movements exist merely to bring those nations to a state of self-awareness. That's obviously not true because nationalist movements don't bring preexisting nations to a state of self-awareness; nationalist movements create those nations.
Nationalist movements first emerged in Europe with the advent of the modern era (world market economic system and modern nation state system). There were millions of Jews living in Europe, so that Jews would join a nationalist movement was inevitable, but there would be a Jewish nationalism, Zionism, was not. The main reason for the emergence of Zionism was the widespread anti-Semitism in Europe (exclusion of Jews from movements, pogroms, etc). Palestinian nationalism emerged during the period between the two world wars in response to Zionist settlement. The fact that Palestinian nationalism developed later than Zionism and in response to it does not in any way diminish its legitimacy. All nationalisms arise in opposition to some "other". Why else would there be a need to specify who you are? In Europe, Zionism was defined by its opposition to the different European nationalisms emerging and the anti-Semitism, but in the same way, it was defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian population of the region. This can be seen in the Zionist slogans of "the conquest of labor" and "the conquest of land"... originating as a result of the confrontation with the Palestinian "other".
Just as it was with the Jews in Europe, it was inevitable that there would be a nationalism emerging among the population in Palestine, but that there would be a Palestinian nationalism was not. Before World War I, most of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine viewed themselves as Ottoman citizens (subjects before the 1850s). With the destruction of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, an Ottoman identity was no longer a viable option. Some, particularly the small number of educated elites, adopted Arab nationalism, as you mentioned. Other Arab inhabitants of Palestine viewed themselves as Syrians (Greater Syria). However, the mandates system divided the Arab world, also severing Palestine from Syria in the process, so neither of those nationalist options no longer proved practicable. What encouraged the emergence of a Palestinian nationalism was the confrontation with Zionism. Zionism/Zionist colonization presented the Palestinians with a problem that no other population in the Middle East faced... it was very different from what Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon experienced under the British and French mandates. The British and French did not appropriate land, establish a rival and competing economy, or rival and competing political structures. Last but not least, mandatory rule was temporary, far from the permanent settlement program of the Zionists. This is why Palestinian nationalism took a much different route from let's say Syrian or Iraqi nationalism... meaning had it not been for Zionist colonization (European Jews colonizing Palestine), there would be a PALESTINE today.
-
That's why they rejected the Partition Plan (That granted them a country on the majority of the territory) while the Zionists accepted it?
LOL @ this guy.
30% of the population (Jews) given 55% of the land, while owning less than 10% of it at the time... LOL... it's not rocket-science. Put it this way, even within the land that the Jews were to be given, the Arabs would've been the majority there.
Ben Gurion gave them another reason to reject it:
“A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish state will serve as a means in our historical efforts to redeem the country in its entirety. …We shall organize a modern defense force ..and then I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means… We will expel the Arabs and take their places .... with the force at our disposal.”
...then a year later...
"I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine."
...acted out in 1967.
-
the ottoman empire collapsed from within, ww1 just put the final nail in their coffin
No, they were sabatoged from the outside AND from within. Europe and Russia were attacking them from the outside, and Britian was also formenting rebellion from within, by giving weapons and financial aid to all of the enemies of the Empire, and spreading nationalism throughout the Islamic Empire. Because of Europe's racist influences, nationalism started to spread throughout the Empire. The Arabs told British operative T.E. Lawrence that they had no reason to rebel against an Islamic government, but T.E. Lawrence told them that they needed to fight in the name of Arab nationalism.
T.E. Lawrence wrote in his diaries of Britian's plan to divide and conquer the Muslim lands, and the efforts to aid Sharif Hussien in his rebellion (Sharif Hussien is a family member of today's Saudi and Jordanian royal families, who were the puppet dictators installed by Britian to lead Arabia after the fall of the Ottoman Empire).
"Sharif Hussien's activities in Arabia are beneficial to us, because they march in step with our immediate aims, which is the breakup of the Islamic bloc, and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If this is properly handled, they will remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities, incapable of political cohesion."
-
I'm not denying a people's existence due to absence of nationalist narrative, God forbid.
I recognize the historical land of "Palestine" per se, as a legitimate basis for nationalist claims. This isn't even my point. Here it is:
Before 1967 the Palestinians which are known today as Palestinians, the ones who you call Palestinians, the ones claiming to be an inseparable part of the Arab Nation, didn't exist.
Today's "Palestinians" view themselves as an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. Even though the historical land of "Palestine" existed before, yes before, the Arabization of the region and before the massive immigration of Arabs from Syria and Arabia to Palestine during the Ottoman Empire. Before that, the Arab population did not have the prominence it had later. The Ottoman empire per se was also a conquest (although an Islamic one) of the land, as was the British conquest centuries later. The charter of the current Palestinian leadership states their final goal is Arab Unition under a single sovereignty, as opposed to Palestinian sovereignty. Question is what made "Palestinian Arab" leaders distinguish the "Palestinian Arabs" from the Arab Nation, when all they want is really Arab unition. Another question is what made them use the term "Palestinian" in an exclusive application to the Arabs of the region, when the name Palestine was there before the Arabization of the region (BEFORE the Arab prominence in the region) and included other groups as well among which were also Jews. I recall the Palestinian Charter made a reference to a possibility of non-Arab Palestinians, true, although it also stated the inseparability of the "Palestinian People" from the Arab Nation. All I'm saying is that today's Palestinians are merely a political token in the fight for Arab Unition. Even without the Zionist movement there would be "Palestine" today, like it was there centuries ago, before Zionism and before the Ottoman Empire. However, hadn't there been an Islamic conquest of this and other regions, there would be no Arab claim to the land now, hence no Palestinian Arab claim to the land.
-
the ottoman empire collapsed from within, ww1 just put the final nail in their coffin
No, they were sabatoged from the outside AND from within. Europe and Russia were attacking them from the outside, and Britian was also formenting rebellion from within, by giving weapons and financial aid to all of the enemies of the Empire, and spreading nationalism throughout the Islamic Empire. Because of Europe's racist influences, nationalism started to spread throughout the Empire. The Arabs told British operative T.E. Lawrence that they had no reason to rebel against an Islamic government, but T.E. Lawrence told them that they needed to fight in the name of Arab nationalism.
T.E. Lawrence wrote in his diaries of Britian's plan to divide and conquer the Muslim lands, and the efforts to aid Sharif Hussien in his rebellion (Sharif Hussien is a family member of today's Saudi and Jordanian royal families, who were the puppet dictators installed by Britian to lead Arabia after the fall of the Ottoman Empire).
"Sharif Hussien's activities in Arabia are beneficial to us, because they march in step with our immediate aims,which is the breakup of the Islamic bloc, and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire.The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If this is properly handled, they will remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities, incapable of political cohesion."
the turks were not stable in their last century of empire, they were like an imparla surrounded by lions, with no real source of wealth their richest countries were the baltic states which were relatively poor compared to europe which is where their grip was also weakest..........
-
and the reason we encourage mutany in the ottoman empire was because they allied themselves with germany, heence they dug their own grave
-
and the reason we encourage mutany in the ottoman empire was because they allied themselves with germany, heence they dug their own grave
No, the unbelievers (British, etc.) had been against the Kalifah for quite some time, and even now Tony Blair says Britian will never allow and accept the emergence of another Kalifah. The reason why is because the disbelievers will never be pleased with those who believe until they change their way. It is their goal to spread emnity and hate amongst those who believe. The Arabs, Africans, Indians, and Turks were united by the rope of Allah but it was the goal of people like Lawrence of Arabia to divide them along the lines of racial lines, and draw for them new boundaries of nationalism.
-
and the reason we encourage mutany in the ottoman empire was because they allied themselves with germany, heence they dug their own grave
No, the unbelievers (British, etc.) had been against the Kalifah for quite some time, and even now Tony Blair says Britian will never allow and accept the emergence of another Kalifah. The reason why is because the disbelievers will never be pleased with those who believe until they change their way.
a kalifah goes against one of britians principle values, freedom of religion, therefore is it a suprise tony blair is opposed. In britiain you can be any religion you want and you don't have to practise in hiding
-
Question is what made "Palestinian Arab" leaders distinguish the "Palestinian Arabs" from the Arab Nation, when all they want is really Arab unition.
As I've stated in my post, even in the past it was the small group of educated elites that strived for an "Arab nationalism". The problem here is that you're assuming that that's ALL they want. I know this might be shocking but how about considering that there are people living on a land, watching European colonizers take over and establish their own country kicking the indigenous population off... ever consider that maybe they don't want that?
Another question is what made them use the term "Palestinian" in an exclusive application to the Arabs of the region, when the name Palestine was there before the Arabization of the region (BEFORE the Arab prominence in the region) and included other groups as well among which were also Jews.
Read my post.. I described how the "Palestinians" aligned themselves with different nationalisms as time passed. The reason it applied exclusively to the Arabs of the region is also in my post: All nationalisms arise in opposition to some "other". What encouraged the emergence of a Palestinian nationalism was the confrontation with Zionism. The Jews among the "Palestinians" naturally aligned themselves with the Zionists.
However, hadn't there been an Islamic conquest of this and other regions, there would be no Arab claim to the land now, hence no Palestinian Arab claim to the land.
Really, Jewstradamus? This has nothing to do with what labels you put on the people. Call them Muslims, call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, etc... point is, these indigenous inhabitants of Palestine watched European Jews colonize their land and eventually take a majority of it to establish their own country. The only reason it became "Palestinian Arab" is because the Jewish inhabitants of the region aligned themselves with the Zionist movement.
-
1. I don't contend that the Arabs living on the land, prior to the establishment of Israel, were greatly fond of Zionism and its main objective to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. I asked why the Palestinian leaders after 1967, in their rhetoric, claimed on the one hand to be representatives of a separate "Palestinian" national entity while on the other hand they claimed to be an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. If these leaders represented the interests of the Arab states, having Arab unition as their primary objective, why come up with a "Palestinian" nationality? Why would they need such duality, such ambiguity in their self-determination?
2.While it's understandable how Arab nationalism had arisen in response to Zionism after WW1, it is unclear why Palestinian nationalism arose in addition to Arab nationalism, having exactly the same objective as Arab nationalism- Arab Unition. Palestinian nationalism was subsequent to failing attempts by the Arab states to obliterate Israel. Israel contained both Jewish and Arab "Palestinians". So the newly declared Palestinian nationalism, as an inseparable part of Arab nationalism, was in support of attacking other "Palestinians", who were "Palestinians" by the definition of the "Palestinian" charter itself. Somewhat weird isn't it?
3.Islamic conquest of this region and other regions seems to be a just conquest in your view?
-
1. I don't contend that the Arabs living on the land, prior to the establishment of Israel, were greatly fond of Zionism and its main objective to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. I asked why the Palestinian leaders after 1967, in their rhetoric, claimed on the one hand to be representatives of a separate "Palestinian" national entity while on the other hand they claimed to be an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. If these leaders represented the interests of the Arab states, having Arab unition as their primary objective, why come up with a "Palestinian" nationality? Why would they need such duality, such ambiguity in their self-determination?
The Palestinian nationalist movement was well under way during the period between the two world wars... the Arab nationalism was present in the region before that, during that, and after that period... Pan-Arabism like you said was at its peak during the 1960s (because of Nasser in Egypt)... but the two things aren't contradicting. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc all had their own nationalist narratives while also holding on to the idea of "Arab unition". That's one point I'm making, but remember that you yourself said it was after 1967... and then you say they "came up with a Palestinian nationality".... that's flawed because they "came up with a Palestinian nationality" well before that time.
2.While it's understandable how Arab nationalism had arisen in response to Zionism after WW1, it is unclear why Palestinian nationalism arose in addition to Arab nationalism, having exactly the same objective as Arab nationalism- Arab Unition. Palestinian nationalism was subsequent to failing attempts by the Arab states to obliterate Israel. Israel contained both Jewish and Arab "Palestinians". So the newly declared Palestinian nationalism, as an inseparable part of Arab nationalism, was in support of attacking other "Palestinians", who were "Palestinians" by the definition of the "Palestinian" charter itself. Somewhat weird isn't it?
You got shit twisted. Arab nationalism arose after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. With the establishment of the mandates, the people in Palestine could no longer align themselves with an Arab nationalism (or a Syrian one since Palestine was now a separate mandate)... that along with the fact that they were facing the threat of European Jews colonizing their land led to the emergence of a Palestinian nationalism. With the resurgence in Pan-Arabism, certain groups in Palestine viewed the Palestinian movement as part of the Pan-Arab movement... but it's not exclusive to it. For example, Egyptian nationalists during the 60s were aiming to strengthen Egypt in the face of imperialist threats while some among them also considered Egypt part of the United Arab Republic
3.Islamic conquest of this region and other regions seems to be a just conquest in your view?
What conquest are you referring to? I don't exactly get your question but I do want to state that:
You can't compare the premodern and early modern empires to the modern era of nation-states. If you need me to explain the specific differences, I can do so.
-
1. Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism don't contradict. Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism don't contradict. Had they contradicted their separate existence would be understandable because their agendas would be more distinct. My problem is not their contradiction, because they don't contradict as you said, my problem is the coexistence of the two. The Palestinian claim for independence came after 1967. Palestinian separatism didn't show during the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by two Arab states.
2.Question is why the Palestinian national agenda stood for belligerence against other people defined as Palestinians according to the Palestinian charter itself?
3. I agree premodern and early modern empires differ from the modern era of nation-states. The question is whether you view the Ottoman empire as more legitimate than other conquests of this and other regions?
-
there are hundreds of Muslim countries
:loco: There aren't even 200 countries in the world.
-
1. Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism don't contradict. Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism don't contradict. Had they contradicted their separate existence would be understandable because their agendas would be more distinct. My problem is not their contradiction, because they don't contradict as you said, my problem is the coexistence of the two. The Palestinian claim for independence came after 1967. Palestinian separatism didn't show during the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by two Arab states.
The Palestinian claim for independence existed before 1967... it may have changed by that time in the sense that it was more out there and more organized, and the idea of what an independent Palestine should be, but that doesn't mean the Palestinian population weren't aiming for their independence well before that period of time.
2.Question is why the Palestinian national agenda stood for belligerence against other people defined as Palestinians according to the Palestinian charter itself?
Again you'd need to be more specific, but from what I'm getting is that you're looking at it as a Jew vs. "Arab" thing. Here's the thing, the Palestinians didn't have a problem with Jews migrating to Palestine. Yes, naturally minor conflict did arise at the beginning when they saw their lands being taken away; however, the main and most important issue at hand is the fact that these colonizers eventually began to seek the establishment of their own independent state (a Jewish state) on a greater proportion of the land, and even in that "Jewish state", the majority would've been "Arabs". If you don't see a problem with that, then I don't know what else to tell you. Think about the mandates system. They all eventually became independent nations (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, etc)... except Palestine... and why? Because of Zionists. Remember, there were thousands of Jews living in Iraq as well. Because European Jews all of a sudden wanted a claim to the land they had been colonizing for decades, the only losers in the whole situation were the Palestinians (or indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.. whatever floats your boat). The European Jews had everything to gain and nothing to lose, whereas the Palestinians were facing the exact opposite because had it not been for the Zionist movement, they would've seen the same fate as the other mandates... independent nationhood.
3. I agree premodern and early modern empires differ from the modern era of nation-states. The question is whether you view the Ottoman empire as more legitimate than other conquests of this and other regions?
Since you can't compare the two, IN MY OPINION, which is what you're asking for (which I don't see why it matters), any conquest prior to the modern era of nation-states is more legitimate than conquests during the modern era. Empires have existed for all of recorded history. Those empires all had certain things in common:
- rulers expected two things from their populations..to behave (not rebel) and to pay taxes... to back this up, there were no "borders" back then, so empires were only as large as the territory from which they could extract taxes.
- empires were governed by imperial elites who were frequently of a different religion, different descent, and spoke a different language from those they ruled... ex: court language in Russia was French, Russian was spoken by peasants... in the Ottoman empire, Turkish-speaking elites ruled over populations that spoke a variety of languages, practiced a variety of religions, and included Slavs, Arabs, Kurds, Turks, etc.... and very rarely did empires attempt to impose any sort of uniformity on their populations... THIS WAS NORMAL UNTIL THE MODERN ERA
With that being said, the Ottoman "conquest" was more legitimate than the "conquests" after, but just as legitimate as the ones before...the Assyrian, Roman, Byzantine, Persian, etc.. it has nothing to do with it being an "Islamic" one. Those conquests of the premodern era can't even be compared to what the Europeans did in the region during the 19th/20th centuries.
-
^^Exaggeration... :D
-
1. The Palestinian claim for independence existing prior to 1967 in an unorganized form is plausible if we accept "unorganized" as "inactive". Two reasons for this: 47 Partition Plan rejection (It would mean a Palestinian Arab state even though it may have been insufficient for territorial continuity of the envisioned Pan-Arab state), Inaction and absence of any kind of separatism during Egyptian\Jordanian rule over the West Bank and Gaza. It is as if there was an almost complete mergence of Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism between 47 and 67.
2. I personally don't view it as a Jew vs. Arab thing. I described how the Palestinian charter put it- "Palestinian (Jew)" vs."Palestinian (Arab)", due to the inseparability of Palestinian nationalism from Arab nationalism. Historically though, the indigenous Arab population of Palestine largely viewed itself as an inseparable part of Syria. I don't see how, had it not been for Zionism, Palestine could avoid being annexed first by Syria and then by the entire Pan-Arab state (To which Israel is an obstruction to this day).
3. The Ottoman empire, as you know, was still there in the modern era unlike the Assyrian, Roman, Byzantine, Persian. That is unless you view WW1, or the British conquest of the region in particular, as what marked the start of the modern era. The idea of nation-states came earlier. The reason why I asked you this question was because it had something to do with Arab unition. It's important to know whether you personally favour this notion, since I know you personally don't favour the notion of Zionism. Had it not been for Zionism, the Islamic empire would continue its existence after, and inspite of, the British conquest (Maybe with a slight change of title) and there would be Arab\Muslim unition.
Since you view the Ottoman conquest as legitimate and any subsequent conquest as illegitimate, even though "it has nothing to do with it being an 'Islamic' conquest", I think it would be safe to say ( and correct me if Im wrong) that you essentially favour Arab\Muslim unition and view it as a legitimate claim?
-
1. The Palestinian claim for independence existing prior to 1967 in an unorganized form is plausible if we accept "unorganized" as "inactive". Two reasons for this: 47 Partition Plan rejection (It would mean a Palestinian Arab state even though it may have been insufficient for territorial continuity of the envisioned Pan-Arab state), Inaction and absence of any kind of separatism during Egyptian\Jordanian rule over the West Bank and Gaza. It is as if there was an almost complete mergence of Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism between 47 and 67.
Palestinian nationalism, hence the claim for an independent nation, arose after World War I, not 1967. The rejection of the 47 Partition Plan only makes sense for reasons I've already stated. No there wasn't an "almost complete mergence of Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism" during that time... you're completely overlooking the main issue, which is the colonization of Palestine by European Jews, who later aimed at establishing their own state (where the majority of the people would've been "Arabs")
2. I personally don't view it as a Jew vs. Arab thing. I described how the Palestinian charter put it- "Palestinian (Jew)" vs."Palestinian (Arab)", due to the inseparability of Palestinian nationalism from Arab nationalism. Historically though, the indigenous Arab population of Palestine largely viewed itself as an inseparable part of Syria. I don't see how, had it not been for Zionism, Palestine could avoid being annexed first by Syria and then by the entire Pan-Arab state (To which Israel is an obstruction to this day).
There is no inseparability of Palestinian nationalism and Arab nationalism. To prove that, look at 1960s Egypt. The indigenous Arab people of Palestine first viewed themselves as Ottoman citizens, then as Syrians after World War I, but right after the mandates system created a separate Palestine from Syria, that was gone as well. That is when Palestinian nationalism arose, as previously mentioned. Annexed by Syria? Was Iraq, Lebanon, or Jordan annexed? Palestine was its own mandate. If you look at all the other mandates, they eventually ended up as independent nations. What makes you think Palestine would've been any different? The only reason Palestine took a different route is because of Zionism. Arab nationalism is irrelevant when you're talking about the struggle of a people who have lost their right to self-determination... the only reason the Palestine mandate didn't result in an independent Palestinian nation is because of Zionism... the obstacle to Arab unition, whether it is or isn't, is irrelevant.
3. The Ottoman empire, as you know, was still there in the modern era unlike the Assyrian, Roman, Byzantine, Persian. That is unless you view WW1, or the British conquest of the region in particular, as what marked the start of the modern era. The idea of nation-states came earlier. The reason why I asked you this question was because it had something to do with Arab unition. It's important to know whether you personally favour this notion, since I know you personally don't favour the notion of Zionism. Had it not been for Zionism, the Islamic empire would continue its existence after, and inspite of, the British conquest (Maybe with a slight change of title) and there would be Arab\Muslim unition.
Since you view the Ottoman conquest as legitimate and any subsequent conquest as illegitimate, even though "it has nothing to do with it being an 'Islamic' conquest", I think it would be safe to say ( and correct me if Im wrong) that you essentially favour Arab\Muslim unition and view it as a legitimate claim?
The Ottoman empire was there in the modern era, but you may overlooked the minor detail that the conquest occurred about 400 years before its destruction. The "fall of the Islamic empire"/Ottoman empire had nothing to do with Zionism. By the way, you have to remembed that the idea of Pan-Arabism existed even before the fall of the Ottoman empire... (and the Ottomans were Muslim as well)... so your idea of it having to do anything with a Muslim unition is incorrect. Again, to prove that what I'm stating is indeed a fact, read up on the British support of Arab revolts against the Ottomans, and the promise of a united Arab nation... (which they of course lied about, since the British and the French had their own pact after the war actually ended in their favor).
-
Anyways, Arab nationalism, Pan-Arabism, Ottoman conquest, etc are really irrelevant to the main issue at hand... plus, nothing I say will change what you think (and vice versa)... and nothing either of us says will change the situation.
My point was that "Palestinians" did exist, and the mere label that they identified with doesn't change the injustice those PEOPLE faced and still face. Let's assume EVERY Palestinian said "we're part of a unified Arab nation"... does that justify European Jews colonizing the land, and establishing a state on the land where the indigenous inhabitants are still the majority?
On another note, it's funny how the one thing in this discussion that clearly has to do with the topic at hand, you lied about, then ignored....
That's why they rejected the Partition Plan (That granted them a country on the majority of the territory) while the Zionists accepted it?
LOL @ this guy.
30% of the population (Jews) given 55% of the land, while owning less than 10% of it at the time... LOL... it's not rocket-science. Put it this way, even within the land that the Jews were to be given, the Arabs would've been the majority there.
Ben Gurion gave them another reason to reject it:
“A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish state will serve as a means in our historical efforts to redeem the country in its entirety. …We shall organize a modern defense force ..and then I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means… We will expel the Arabs and take their places .... with the force at our disposal.”
...then a year later...
"I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine."
...acted out in 1967.
How are Palestinians/Arabs receiving a MAJORITY of the territory when the Jewish state is supposed to consist of 55% of the land? LOLLL... with shit like this, I'm really not surprised that you guys believe even half the shit you say. It's one thing to lie (or try to) about facts, but to say that 55% is less than 50%.... give me a fucking break.
-
3.Islamic conquest of this region and other regions seems to be a just conquest in your view?
3. I agree premodern and early modern empires differ from the modern era of nation-states. The question is whether you view the Ottoman empire as more legitimate than other conquests of this and other regions?
Muslims are supposed to be unified under a Kalifah (supreme Islamic political ruler), so therefore the Palestinians willingly pledged allegiance to the Kalifah for a period of 400 years, and before that they were united under the previous Kalifah that existed before the Ottomans. Muslims had never sought to be independant, nationalist, racist states prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire Kalifah in WW1. The Kalifah was himself a Turk, but Muslims of all nationalities, Caucasion, African, Indian, Asian, and even Christians and Jews existed in relative harmony under the Kalifah. It was Britian's colonial period that played the primary role in infecting nationalism, racism, and independance within the Muslim regions.
-
3.Islamic conquest of this region and other regions seems to be a just conquest in your view?
3. I agree premodern and early modern empires differ from the modern era of nation-states. The question is whether you view the Ottoman empire as more legitimate than other conquests of this and other regions?
Muslims are supposed to be unified under a Kalifah (supreme Islamic political ruler), so therefore the Palestinians willingly pledged allegiance to the Kalifah for a period of 400 years, and before that they were united under the previous Kalifah that existed before the Ottomans. Muslims had never sought to be independant, nationalist, racist states prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire Kalifah in WW1. The Kalifah was himself a Turk, but Muslims of all nationalities, Caucasion, African, Indian, Asian, and even Christians and Jews existed in relative harmony under the Kalifah. It was Britian's colonial period that played the primary role in infecting nationalism, racism, and independance within the Muslim regions.
BRYANNNNN!!
-
Palestine originally included Jordan. Now how much of Palestine did the Arabs get and how much did the Zionists get?- Who had the majority of the territory?
-
If you really had as much faith in Allah as you claim you wouldn't care what happened to Arabs in Palestine. If they truly are Muslims like you say then they will be taken care of by God, and nothing Israel or Britain, or your friend Satan, can do anything to stop that.
So basically you mean leave the Middle East to it's fate and pray God somehow prevents the tonnes of explosives from falling on people?
Somehow I don't think God really intervenes like that Superman style it just dosn't happen and it's stupid to expect God to. How about as people we try to solve our problems ourselves and stop calling on the Creator of the Universe. I believe Jesus was a person and as a person he is a testament to what people can do to make the world a better place.
what did Jesus actually do to change anything? He taught what? morality? That was nothing new. It was only in his spiritual signficance that changes started happening, and that was after the man died.
thats your opinion of the Man. Im saying forget the dogmatic bullshit, for me it dosn't matter whether he had supernatural powers or not. The way he lived his life, not the way he died, is what matters.
-
Palestine originally included Jordan. Now how much of Palestine did the Arabs get and how much did the Zionists get?- Who had the majority of the territory?
Jordan became its own distinct, independent unit on March 22, 1946.
Partition Plan = 1947.
The majority of the PALESTINE MANDATE under the Partition Plan was then to be given to the Jews (55% > 50%, in case you haven't realized)... again, they only made up 30% of the population, and owned less than 10% of the land at the time.