Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Has a sovereign Palestine ever existed?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Many argue that Palestine never really existed since there has never been a state of Palestine and before the establishment of the state of Israel, the lands were of Syria and Jordan.

Of course on the flip side, Palestinians will argue that them having never had an official state does not mean that they are not their own independent people. They argue that even when the land was owned by Syria they were seen as an independent people.

What do you think? Has Palestine ever existed? If they were never a state, does that change this conflict at all?



[edit on 8-1-2009 by johnny2127]




posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


No. The Name Palistine was derived from Philistine which were staunch enemies of the Jews in ancient history. When the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and sent most of the Jews (not all) into captivity, the Romans set out to obliderate all vistages of a Jewsih nation, going so far as to renaming the land of the Jews to Philistine.

Today, the refugees in the West Bank and in Gaza are of Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian origin. The modern term Palistinian was coined by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after the 6 day war. Incidently the Grand Mufti was the uncle of Yassir Arafat, the head of terrorist organization,f the PLO. (incidently, the Grand Mufti was a close associate and Ally of the Third Reich's Adolf Hitler.)

No such thing as a Palistinian. These are as I have said, refugees from Jordan ( who incidently slaughtered 50,000 of these Heshemites for stage a failed coup d'stat against the King of Jordan). They are Egyptians and Syrian. Do the research.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I liken it to the Kurds in Iraq. Did they ever really have a country? No, but they were seen as an independent group. We all know what happened to the country that tried to get rid of them...



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


Good analogy. My question is, what rights do the Palestinians actually have? I am not asking that in a rhetorical sense, but in earnest. Some argue that Israel stole all their land from Palestine. While others argue it wasn't Palestinian land but that of Syria and Jordan, and what they have was given to them or they won.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Some of it was won, some of it was stolen in land grabs in the name of "settlement". I have found a map of what Israel was in the beginning and what they have taken through various means since then:



I am not giving any kind of editorial as to whether or not it was justified, just pointing out the changes.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
What a silly question.

Palestine is the Latin name of of the region and except for a few brief periods of self rule has been a province of one empire or another for its entire history.

People have come and gone through the region for thousands of years just like they have almost every other place on earth... The Jews and the Arabs are just two many.

None of that however changes the fact that the area exists and that people lived there prior to the 47 war who called it home and in some cases called it home for hundreds if not thousands of years.

At the risk of sounding extreme what happened to the Palestinians in the years leading up to 47 and after wards is not so much different as to what happened to the American Indian with the advent of the Europeans... i.e. a long established people was forced off of their land to make room for another.

The Arabs there (who BTW are Muslim, Christian and Jewish as opposed to all Muslim which the media seems to suggest) were long standing stewards of the land and as such have a right and a valid claim to be there and sooner or later Israel has got to get off its high horse and accept that fact or there will never be peace there.

Really the only solution that will work is the one no one wants to talk about and that is the formation of a joint Israeli/Palestinian state with full rights for all of the people there and to work out some sort of fair compenstation.... this will happen before this century is out if only because of demographics but the sooner both sides recognize this and start a legitimate and valid dialogue to achieve the less blood will be spilled.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Yes it is an overly simplistic question and for that I apologize. But I think you get the gist of the conversation is was meant to foster. The level of misunderstanding is shocking and most people don't know the facts.

However, even with the facts laid out, it doesn't answer the main question of what is right and moral.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
No before it was Israel it was the British Mandate of Palestine, before that it was part of the ottoman empire.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Palestinians could also claim Jordan and Syria they also have historical rights to claim them.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The thing that strikes me as a history buff is that the immigration into Palestine by the Jews starting in the late 19th century and accelerating up through the 47 war and the subsequent explusion of the Arabs already living there is the only real example in modern times of a wholesale eviction and replacement of a population. The Assyrians were famous for this tactic as were the Romans... in essence what happened was that one wrong... the failure of the Jews to either be accepted or assimilated into Europe after their eviction by the Romans... was replaced by another, the eviction of the Palestinian Arabs to make room for the Jews using guilt for the holocaust and a musty 3,000 year old religious claim as their homeland (after they slaughtered the people living there when they arrived).... in short none of this is right.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


So would you say the actions of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are moral or immoral?



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Really the only solution that will work is the one no one wants to talk about and that is the formation of a joint Israeli/Palestinian state with full rights for all of the people there and to work out some sort of fair compenstation


Problem is, both want Jerusalem. Israel isn't about to give it up, and the Palestinians don't have the military muscle to take it. Therefore, if both sides were sensible, they'd create a separate Palestinian state (that doesn't include Jerusalem), and be done with it. Israel was on board to do it during Clinton's run..., but the Palestinians aren't going to bend on Jerusalem. Since no deal can be reached when both sides want the same thing....the violence in the region will continue with no end in sight....


So would you say the actions of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are moral or immoral?


The intentional or indiscriminate harming of civilians is immoral whether you are talking about Hamas or the IDF....

[edit on 8-1-2009 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Exactly what point I have been trying to make. No matter who kills innocent children and adults on purpose is immoral. Some people can't bring themselves to say that about their 'side'.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
As far as those organizations are concerned they are at war with Israel and so since they are the underdog, anything goes... the Israelis behaved the same sort of way in the years leading up to the 47 partition... terrorist activities against both British and Palestinians, sabatoge, raids on civilian communities etc.

Such tactics are always the tools of the underdog.

There is nothing moral about it because there is nothing moral about war.

But when you have a half dozen or so Israelis dead to hundreds of Palestinians dead, the majority civilian and the Israelies moaning about how they have been so brutally attacked... well then there is something seriously wrong about that... after all the rockets Hama's fires are really little more than nusience attacks because they are so inefficent... they can hardly be called battlefield weapons...

... in the long run they are both a bullheaded and stubborn people who deserve each other more and more every day.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Therefore make Jeursalem a trans-national locale, an international city as it were with joint control.

Mind you I am not... I stress... I am not anti-Israeli... I am just not deluded into thinking that they can do no wrong or are always the guys in the white hats.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by grover]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Therefore make Jerusalem a trans-national locale, an international city as it were with joint control.

Mind you I am not... I stress... I am not anti-Israeli... I am just not deluded into thinking that they can do no wrong or are always the guys in the white hats.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by grover]


This is exactly the solution that many believe The Bible foretells, including a divided temple mount with a third temple across from the mosque and the dome of the rock.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The Bible foretells no such nonsense.

Like the Quran and all religious texts... people read into them what they want to see and call it the word of God.

Also I didn't say anything about dividing the city... in fact that would be a disaster... the Israelis and Palestinians have already discussed (during the Clinton years) what joint aspects of governing the city that they could profitably share...

... Indeed given the nature of the temple mount, it belongs to neither group, but is a hertiage of all mankind.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by grover]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Would it be possible to make Jerusalem, Judea, Samariaa, Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem, Tulkarm, Hebron, Jenin and Gaza all city states

Then annex the land around them as world heritage sites so no claims can be made.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
So would you say the actions of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are moral or immoral?


Those are 2 different entities. The only 2 things I see that they have in common is that they share a common enemy and both fight guerilla warfare. All they can do against a formidable opponent. The lesson from Viet Nam. It works when you don't have the firepower. Moral? Who's moral in war anymore? Is it moral to fire rockets at children? Is it moral to iradicate a population?

The REAL war that's going on now is the digital one. Propaganda. Israel is WAY ahead but it's going to even out. People are beginning to see that Tel Aviv isn't as white washed as many thought.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by johnny2127
So would you say the actions of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are moral or immoral?


Those are 2 different entities. The only 2 things I see that they have in common is that they share a common enemy and both fight guerilla warfare. All they can do against a formidable opponent. The lesson from Viet Nam. It works when you don't have the firepower. Moral? Who's moral in war anymore? Is it moral to fire rockets at children? Is it moral to iradicate a population?

The REAL war that's going on now is the digital one. Propaganda. Israel is WAY ahead but it's going to even out. People are beginning to see that Tel Aviv isn't as white washed as many thought.


So, again, are the actions of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah moral or immoral to you? I understand what you define them as doing, but are their tactics and strategies moral or immoral? Do you think they have made things better for the Palestinian people or worse?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
What a silly question.

Palestine is the Latin name of of the region and except for a few brief periods of self rule has been a province of one empire or another for its entire history.

People have come and gone through the region for thousands of years just like they have almost every other place on earth... The Jews and the Arabs are just two many.

None of that however changes the fact that the area exists and that people lived there prior to the 47 war who called it home and in some cases called it home for hundreds if not thousands of years.

At the risk of sounding extreme what happened to the Palestinians in the years leading up to 47 and after wards is not so much different as to what happened to the American Indian with the advent of the Europeans... i.e. a long established people was forced off of their land to make room for another.

The Arabs there (who BTW are Muslim, Christian and Jewish as opposed to all Muslim which the media seems to suggest) were long standing stewards of the land and as such have a right and a valid claim to be there and sooner or later Israel has got to get off its high horse and accept that fact or there will never be peace there.

Really the only solution that will work is the one no one wants to talk about and that is the formation of a joint Israeli/Palestinian state with full rights for all of the people there and to work out some sort of fair compenstation.... this will happen before this century is out if only because of demographics but the sooner both sides recognize this and start a legitimate and valid dialogue to achieve the less blood will be spilled.


You are quite wrong on all accounts.
The Arab people who lived there were refered to as palestinians. The Jews lived among them and they were generally at peace prior to the early 20th century. The place was a possession of the Ottoman Empire at that time then after WWI it became controlled by the British. This is where all the modern conflict started.
Research AL Heuseini who was appointed as Gran Mufti of Jeruselem for life. He was directly seated by the British to that authority. His nephew Yasser Arafat took over his role when he died. HAMAS and the PLO are his surviving entities.
The Gran Mufti was considered a common thug by the ruling Arabs at the time before his appointment. Later he allied with Hitler, was forever banished from Jeruselem, he raised SS divisions in the Caucuses, was found guilty of war crimes in Yugoslavia after WWII, at the Nuremburg trials testimony was given that he was a close confidant of Himmler and personally toured the gas chambers at Auschwitz. He was also implicated in the asassination of King Abdulah of Jordan in 1951. A sinister character indeed.

Above is referenced from this source.
www.palestinefacts.org...

For a unique perspective from an author at the time before WWII of the situation in Palestine here is a good read. It lays heavy blame on British colonialism against both the Arabs and the Jews and bears witness to the populations peacefull attitudes and hopes and asperations towards one another.

www.twf.org...

To sum it up IMO, todays structure is the final chapters of what was started during the period before WWII and after WWI. The power structure of the Palestinians is exactly the same today. It could have been a lot different with the Palestinians living side by side with the Jews sharing mutual prosperity. When the British empire gave up control, where did the support come from for the Mufti and later Arafat and the PLO? Or Perhaps the Mufti and later Arafat solidified their control by extending networks of support throughout the world. In either case the palestinian people have no control over their own destiny and are held hostage to this power structure that is still in place.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by SectionEight]






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join