Why does Palestine not have the right to exist?

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

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 TO DA GEEZY]

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.

[Don Rizzle]

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..........

[Don Rizzle]

and the reason we encourage mutany in the ottoman empire was because they allied themselves with germany, heence they dug their own grave

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

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. 

[Don Rizzle]

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

[J @ M @ L]

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.  

[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]

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.

[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?

[mauzip]

there are hundreds of Muslim countries

  There aren't even 200 countries in the world.

[J @ M @ L]

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.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

^^Exaggeration...

[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]

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).