The Myth of the Palestinian Nation

[Yitzi_K]

Following ninwa's helpful suggestion to start topics primarily about the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I thought I'd kick it off with an interesting debate: Is there such a thing as the Palestinian Nation?

The obvious question, which is unfortunately ignored by everyone, is why the 'Palestinians" never campaigned for the own separate state during the period from 1948-1967, when they were the under Jordanian rule. The obvious answer is that they were perfectly content to be under Jordanian rule, because as far as they were concerened, they were Jordanian. It was only when the Israelis liberated the 'West Bank' that the myth of the Palestinain nation began, so that the Arabs had a pretext to remove the state of Israel.

In fact, it was not until 1974 (26 years after the foundation of Israel) that the Palestine Liberation Organisation even thought of campaigning for an independent state. What took them so long? The answer is, it was not until 1974 that they realised that the Israelis were there to stay, and could not be removed by the surrounding Arab nations. At that point, they had to come up with a new strategy to dispose of the Jewish State, because the 'driving them into the sea' policy was found not to be feasible. And hence, the myth of the Palestinian nation was born.


But hey, don't take it from me. Take it from the 'palestinians' themselves:

"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937

"Palestine was part of the Province of Syria... politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."

- The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted this in a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

- Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, to the UN Security Council

"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian People, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people."

- Syrian President Hafez Assad to PLO leader Yassir Arafat.

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity.... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council (Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977)

The 'Palestinians' that we here about all the time today are in no way different to the residents of the surrounding countries of Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. They are the same ethnically, culturally, and historically. They no more deserve their own state than the people of Geelong have an historic 'right' to secede from Victoria and form their own state.

[Chavi]

lol mate, just began it here:
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,34200.0.html

NB; great minds think alike  8-)

[Chavi]

I'll play the devils advocate and say that all identities are self-conceived. So even if the Palestinians never existed historically before 1964 (founding of the PLO - note: 3 years before Israel gained control of Gaza and the "west bank") - the rest is moot, as they view themselves as a separate nation - whether grounded in fact or not.
In the same way that anyone can claim to be a religious 'Jedi' (however absurdly) on the census papers - they can claim to be whatever they like.

[kakar0t]

Woah... this thread is so loaded for a vce forum.

[Chavi]

Woah... this thread is so loaded for a vce forum.

We're smart kids with a knack for debating.

VCE eh? Ok, attn: all year 11s. See how many persuasive techniques you can pick out during the course of this thread. Hand me a media analysis on Monday. Extra marks for identifying ad-hominems.

[kakar0t]

Woah... this thread is so loaded for a vce forum.

We're smart kids with a knack for debating.

VCE eh? Ok, attn: all year 11s. See how many persuasive techniques you can pick out during the course of this thread. Hand me a media analysis on Monday. Extra marks for identifying ad-hominems.

Now this is my kind of thread.

It was only when the Israelis liberated the 'West Bank'

Liberated from what? Liberated from who? Please be more specific.

They no more deserve their own state than the people of Geelong have an historic 'right' to secede from Victoria and form their own state.

So this so-called 'Palestinian Nation' is within the borders of Israel? Is this why this issue is controversial?

[Cianyx]

Is there a Palestinian nation? Probably not. As you said, it consists of Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese. A Palestinian nationality is about as valid as a Taiwanese nationality. However, does a Palestinian state exist? Well, it was certainly alluded to in the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948

[Yitzi_K]

Now this is my kind of thread.

It was only when the Israelis liberated the 'West Bank'

Liberated from what? Liberated from who? Please be more specific.

From the Jordanians, who invaded and captured it from Israel in 1948. Funny how there was never any reference to a Jordanian 'occupation', yet as soon as Israel takes it back in a defensive war, they're the 'occupiers'.

They no more deserve their own state than the people of Geelong have an historic 'right' to secede from Victoria and form their own state.

So this so-called 'Palestinian Nation' is within the borders of Israel? Is this why this issue is controversial?

Well yes, those claiming to be 'palestinians' claim that they are entitled to a state within the borders of Israel. As I've said, the relationship is inverse; they only claim to be palestinian so as to get the land from Israel. When they were Jordanian, they were perfectly content to stay that way.

[Chavi]

It was only when the Israelis liberated the 'West Bank'

Liberated from what? Liberated from who? Please be more specific.

It was 'liberated' (or occupied depending on what you believe) from Jordan and Egypt in 1967 - 2 countries that had no legal rights to the land.

Is there a Palestinian nation? Probably not. As you said, it consists of Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese. A Palestinian nationality is about as valid as a Taiwanese nationality. However, does a Palestinian state exist? Well, it was certainly alluded to in the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948

An 'Arab' state was alluded to in the British mandate. Not a "Palestinian" one. They had in mind the creation of the 23rd Arab state in that tiny sliver of land.

[Yitzi_K]

Is there a Palestinian nation? Probably not. As you said, it consists of Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese. A Palestinian nationality is about as valid as a Taiwanese nationality. However, does a Palestinian state exist? Well, it was certainly alluded to in the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948

The same British mandate which in the Balfour Declaration promised land far larger than the current state of Israel to the Jews?

[kakar0t]

From an Arab perspective the entire state of Israel is considered as 'occupied territory', correct?
From an Israeli perspective the entire state of Israel is considered as their rightful land?

From what I've seen on the news, the Israeli Army has been facilitating 'settlements' beyond their borders. Does the concept of a 'Palestinian nation' include these areas also?

[Cianyx]

An 'Arab' state was alluded to in the British mandate. Not a "Palestinian" one. They had in mind the creation of the 23rd Arab state in that tiny sliver of land.

Fair enough

[Chavi]

From an Arab perspective the entire state of Israel is considered as 'occupied territory', correct?
From an Israeli perspective the entire state of Israel is considered as their rightful land?

From what I've seen on the news, the Israeli Army has been facilitating 'settlements' beyond their borders. Does the concept of a 'Palestinian nation' include these areas also?

This is tricky, because there are so many differing opinions from every imaginable standpoint on what constitutes the land of Israel, the state, the area etc.

Basically, in a nutshell - the area of land in between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea was the site of two historical Jewish states (i.e. Israel is the 3rd Jewish state in the area - check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_%28Hasmonean%29).

During the 19th century, the Jews of Europe, facing a wave of pogroms and antisemitism developed political zionism (as opposed to religious zionism which has existed for centuries) - which in a nutshell aimed to return the Jews to their homeland and establish a sovereign state (they were ironically told to "go back to Palestine where they came from" - today they're told to "go back to Europe"). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl)

Initially the surrounding Arabs welcome the idea, and the new industries built by returning Jews led to an influx of Arab immigration into the area. Eventually, when the time came to establish a Jewish state, the surrounding Arab countries invaded, and most have been at war with Israel ever since. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War)

Then in 1967, Egypt, Jordan and Syria began threatening to wipe Israel off the map - they blockaded the country and moved their troops to the borders. Israelis thought their tiny country would be destroyed. Somehow, Israel managed to win that war, capture surrounding territory and defeat all the armies - in 6 days. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)

Now one of the areas that they captured - known as the 'West bank of the Jordan river' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_bank)- actually happened to be the site of their previous historical homeland, as well as Jewish towns that were destroyed when the Jordanians occupied in 1948. Israelis - of their own volition - returned to these areas. Today they are branded as "settlers". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_and_Samaria_Area).

According to international law, this area is officially 'disputed' - not 'occupied'. Gaza - another territory captured in the 6-day war from Egypt, was given over to the locals in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan).

According to most Arabs (at least those I've spoken to, and read online) Israel has no right to exist. Some are more violent and believe that the country's 6 million Jews (1/2 the world's Jewish population) should be killed or deported i.e. the official Hamas, Hezzbollah and Iranian view. Others want to see Israel dismantled and replaced by an Arab state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution). Most Palestinians are against a two state solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution) which calls for an establishment of another Arab state alongside Israel.

[MuggedByReality]

I'll play the devils advocate and say that all identities are self-conceived. So even if the Palestinians never existed historically before 1964 (founding of the PLO - note: 3 years before Israel gained control of Gaza and the "west bank") - the rest is moot, as they view themselves as a separate nation - whether grounded in fact or not.
In the same way that anyone can claim to be a religious 'Jedi' (however absurdly) on the census papers - they can claim to be whatever they like.

 Just as a not insignificant movement in America believes that, in the eventuality of certain preconditions being met, the "Rapture" will see them swept up into heaven and given the chance to dine at God's table.

 

[Cthulhu]

In the same way that anyone can claim to be a religious 'Jedi' (however absurdly) on the census papers - they can claim to be whatever they like.

Believing that there is a force that exists surrounding anything and everything that was described in a movie is ridiculous but believing in an omnipotent being that can do the same thing but described in a book written thousands of years ago isn't?