Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Why does Palestine not have the right to exist?
Don Rizzle:
--- Quote from: Hajj Abdul-Infinite...BANNED FOR SPEAKING TRUTH! on August 02, 2006, 04:10:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: Don Rizzle on August 02, 2006, 01:21:37 AM ---and the reason we encourage mutany in the ottoman empire was because they allied themselves with germany, heence they dug their own grave
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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
J @ M @ L:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on August 02, 2006, 01:13:25 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
I TO DA GEEZY:
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?
J @ M @ L:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on August 02, 2006, 10:33:27 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
I TO DA GEEZY:
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version