Lifestyle > Train of Thought

Why does Palestine not have the right to exist?

<< < (9/11) > >>

mauzip:

--- Quote from: Now_I_Know on July 30, 2006, 05:00:22 PM ---there are hundreds of Muslim countries
--- End quote ---

 :loco: There aren't even 200 countries in the world.

J @ M @ L:

--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on August 03, 2006, 01:36:53 AM ---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.


--- End quote ---

Now_Im_Not_Banned:
^^Exaggeration... :D

I TO DA GEEZY:
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?

J @ M @ L:

--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on August 03, 2006, 12:26:18 PM ---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).

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page