Arab historian says there are no Palestine people.

An interesting piece on the non-Palestinian People. The article, written by an Arab, says it's an invention.

It's another piece of evidence that adds to my theory that there never was a real intention to create a Palestine by it's neighboring Islamic nations. That land had already been 'penciled in' in an Islamic super state which has been at least temporarily shelved by Extremist Militants of ISIS/ISIL who are now deemed worse than the status quo.

In any event, worthy of a read.

en.mida.org.il...

While I tire of the old arguments, this piece is worth the responsibility of response to the OP....

a reply to: nwtrucker
People on both sides of the fence make too much of the name.
Yes, they are just Arabs living in what used to be called Palestine. Not a distinct ethnic group from other Arabs,
Just as "Texans" are really just Americans living in the state called Texas. Not a distinct ethnic group from other Americans.
However, their political claims are not based on the name being attached to their group. The claims are based on the fact that they and their ancestors have been living on the land for centuries.
So the incessant argument about "they are not really Palestinians" is a red herring.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: nwtrucker
People on both sides of the fence make too much of the name.
Yes, they are just Arabs living in what used to be called Palestine. Not a distinct ethnic group from other Arabs,
Just as "Texans" are really just Americans living in the state called Texas. Not a distinct ethnic group from other Americans.
However, their political claims are not based on the name being attached to their group. The claims are based on the fact that they and their ancestors have been living on the land for centuries.
So the incessant argument about "they are not really Palestinians" is a red herring.

Sorry, but you and others have used the poor Palestinians as your 'red herring' for a while now.

It does clear up a lie in the argument/debate and it also increases, at least in my view, the validity of an equal Jewish indigenous history.

An afterthought, sans Hamas and outside machinations, from either side, it opens the door to a new definition of a new State while allowing the existence, formally and in reality, of a Jewish State to be newly negotiated.

Many of the same arguments would still apply, but it is a possibility.

I note the article is authored by "Judith Bergman." She quotes the Arab historian as saying that we live in a "post-factual" era, but I find the article mostly devoid of palpable facts. It too, is propaganda.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
I note the article is authored by "Judith Bergman." She quotes the Arab historian as saying that we live in a "post-factual" era, but I find the article mostly devoid of palpable facts. It too, is propaganda.

Then that 'propaganda' matches the other side's equally. If one discounts this without questioning both arguments then you've made your choice, as I have made mine and any discussion is worthless...beyond propaganda.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
An interesting piece on the non-Palestinian People. The article, written by an Arab, says it's an invention.

Judith Bergman is an Arab? Regardless, looking at her writings she certainly isn't unbiased in this.

Secondly I don't care if the Palestinians are called that or purple people eaters. They have still been screwed over.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Sorry, but you and others have used the poor Palestinians as your 'red herring' for a while now.

I don't think I've ever written about poor Palestinians, for or against. For what it's worth, my emotional sympathies have been with Israel since 1967, simply because it was coming under attack. However, I've tended to keep out of the arguments on this site.

I put forward that post wearing my "student of history" hat. I thought of giving an explanation of that kind on the recent History forum thread by GBP/JPY, but that thread got so far into theology that trying to bring it back to the facts of history seemed pointless.

Just to recap my points;
a- It is the case, on the one hand, that there never was a distinct "Palestinian" nation.
b- It is also the case, on the other hand, that their position in the land is not dependent on any claim to be a distinct nation.
I am not taking any sides here. "All I want is the fax, Ma'am."

a reply to: nwtrucker

Then there is no isreali people..

Obviously..


Unless your saying they became isrealies In the 7 days war by right of conquest..

Which is the oldest claim to statehood..


But that still leaves room for the Palestinians to claim their own land through the same process..


All that makes any “are not a real people” claim ridiculous..

NVM

a reply to: nwtrucker

So one person gets to decide what history is?

What war did she win?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Nice source by the way, an Israeli website.

What's next, using WWII German literature to quote "facts" about Jews?

This thread is a joke.

originally posted by: intrepid


They have still been screwed over.

I agree, they are refugees no one ever wanted. Egypt had ownership of Gaza for a long time and they walled them off, and Jordan had ownership of the West Bank to basically do the same. Today, no Arab country lifts a finger to help them other than to use them as a political pawn against Israel.

The sad part is they could work with Israel and actually prosper, but they will most likely never stop seeing Israel as the little Satan even though they have Devils all around them...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Good post. If we go by the logic that created Israel, expand that to today. We can make a space for the Palestinians in, say Arizona. That would probably work out the same way this did.

Good point, and accurate.

Nice article.
It is well documented that most of now Israel was tainted and sometimes marshy ground where crops failed to grow. Apart from Jerusalem and a handful of other places inc Gaza, Be'er sheva, Nazereth, Tel aviv and Haifa which had decent mixed populations.
It is now Israel and reinforced as Israel with the failed attempts to destroy it. An industrious garden has been created which makes many in Dessert lands bitter and Jealous. The Palestinians who have any claim have been swamped with others who claim the label , will never believe in peace and are led and follow Terrorists.

Double posted.. Sorry.. Shalom.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Xtrozero

Good post. If we go by the logic that created Israel, expand that to today. We can make a space for the Palestinians in, say Arizona. That would probably work out the same way this did.

We need to remember that the whole area was the Ottoman empire and not countries until they lost in WWI. When Britain and France split up the region in the 1920s they didn't do it to make countries as much as just splitting up the spoils of war. It wasn't until Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq all gained independence by force or other means in the 1940s did these countries finally exist. Iraq most likely should have been three countries with the Kurds of the north being one of them as to how screwed up their plans were outside of just spoils of war.

The biggest driver for Israel to exist was WWII with Nazi Germany really driving a point for them to have their own independent state. I feel if Germany didn't do what they did Israel would not be as it is today, so once again war drives much of all this and has always driven borders and who rules/controls what.

One interesting point is Israel is very small, and just to the west is Jordan who are Palestine too, so why didn't a large and rich country like Jordan just give these refugees an area on their side of the river after they lost the West Bank to Israel? We can ask the same question about Egypt as to why they didn't move Gaza refugees a short distance into Egypt after they lost Gaza and most of their northern oil fields to Israel, which Israel gave back.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Fair enough.

a reply to: Xtrozero

another driving force was the european christian churches who were fully supporting, funding, and encouraging the migration of the jewish people back to isreal.... that other group of refugees that the europeans had put up with through the ages. and let's not forget, that great migration was the beginning what what the christian churches saw a the fullfillment of bible prophecy...

asking why egypt and jordan didn't take in the people who were uprooted because of this great migration would be like asking why the iroquios didn't take in the cherokee people instead of letting them be marched westward to their deaths. and would the cherokee people have been more willing to leave their own homes if other tribes had offered to take them in any ways? I mean, aren't there something like over 300,000 palestinian refugees in refugee camps in jordan? it seems to me that if they are still in the refugee camps, there seems to be a big problem asimilating them into the jordanian culture. seems to me that a refugee camp is still a refugee camp weather it's on land that is controlled by isreali or jordanian.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
One interesting point is Israel is very small, and just to the west is Jordan who are Palestine too, so why didn't a large and rich country like Jordan just give these refugees an area on their side of the river after they lost the West Bank to Israel?

They did, originally. Lots of refugees just crossed the river ahead of the Israeli armies.
Then the more militant Palestinians tried to overthrow the royal goverment and take over the country (from memory, this was happening in 1970).
I suspect, though, that the children of the more peaceable refugees are still there. Only a couple of decades after the 1967 war did the King of Jordan actually renounce his own claims on the West Bank.