This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- Palestine protests at unis/boycotts
- Lost a lot of friends by not supporting Hamas
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- EPQ
- Is Jordan safe for a year abroad?
- The current situation in Israel/Gaza is having an impact on my friendships
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- Claims that a 9 year-old boy was treated poorly by staff ‘because he’s Jewish’
- Ireland, Spain and Norway to recognise Palestine
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- Joe Biden Withdraws from Re-Election
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Course Grade and Political View
- MA International Relations
Israel and Palestine: How much do you really know about it? (part I)
I shall probably be discredited as a Zionist after this, but i think it is time that some people around here were made aware of certain truths about the Arab-Israeli conflict. In law they say "audi alteram partem" - hear the other side - and for decades many have been fed and willingly believed an extremely biased version of the story. Tendentious reporting has served to perpetuate inexactitudes that range in extremity, from bias to pure falsification. I would like to correct some of the more popular myths.
1. The Myth of "Palestine"
There is no such thing and never has been any such thing as the State of Palestine. Since biblical times what we now call "palestine" was simply a geographical region, not a specific state or nation. The people who were initially called "Philistines" (from Plesheth, meaning "migratory" or "normadic") were the Sea Peoples; they were niether Arabic nor Semetic and were in fact more Greek than anything. They had no ethnic, cultural or linguistic connection to what we now call Arabs. The region was inhabited at various times by Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians, each being conqured and re-conquered by one another and by other tribes. After the Bar Kochba revolt in AD135, the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the region from Judea, to Syria-Palestine. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Golda Meir said:
"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]"
Arabs and Jews often lay claim to the land on the basis of their supposed habitation in ancient times. True "Arabs" are traditionally those who are descendant from Abraham and Ishmael. They were not an homogenous people, but rather are a collection of nomadic tribes, and modern Pan-Arabism is a very recent concept (late 19th/early 20th century) with no historical precedent (however, the peoples of that region were later to be united - to some extent - by the religion of Islam). Arabs at least until the establishment of Islam, identified themselves by their city of origin, their tribes, as Christian and Jewish, or as part of larger political entities. After the Romans, the region was in the hands of the Byzantines, the Zaroastrians and finally, in the early 7th century, the Arab-Islamic Epmire. In 1099, the christian Crusaders captured Jeruslem and held it for a century. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Egyptian Mameluks, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul. Although from that time onwards, there would be a strong Muslim presence in the region of Palestine, the Arab claims to "ancient rights" to the land seem pretty flimsy, if not downright false. So why is the region so important to the Arabs of today? The answer lies in Islam.
Under the leadership of Muhammed, the newly established religion of Islam inspired a period of conquest throughout the region (for all their enmity, I find it interesting how similar the social and spiritual message of Islam is to the already established Jewish and Christian faiths). In AD638, Jerusalem was captured by Muslims. Originally, Muslims were instructed to face Jerusalem when praying as a concilliatory gesture to Arabic Jews. The "holiness" is a result of an occasion when The Prophet supposedly rose to heaven, and for some reason, this miracle was associated (quite arbitrarily) with Jerusalem. This began a period of 1300 years of Islamic dominance of the region, which was often bloody and brutal for Christians and Jews.
At this point I will remind that there was a Jewish population in Palestine throughout this time. Even after the Jewish state was ended by the Romans, Jewish communities continued to exist. All of the successor governments tried to eliminate the Jews at one time or another, but none succeeded as numerous accounts testify over the centuries. When the Zionists started the modern "return" to Eretz Yisrael in the 19th Century, they were joining Jews who never left. The Arabs do not as they claim, hold ancient rights to the land, nor was there any "Palestinian state" for the Jews to "occupy" when the state of Israel was created. I will deal with the myth of "occupation" in my next thread. For now I will go to bed.
1. The Myth of "Palestine"
There is no such thing and never has been any such thing as the State of Palestine. Since biblical times what we now call "palestine" was simply a geographical region, not a specific state or nation. The people who were initially called "Philistines" (from Plesheth, meaning "migratory" or "normadic") were the Sea Peoples; they were niether Arabic nor Semetic and were in fact more Greek than anything. They had no ethnic, cultural or linguistic connection to what we now call Arabs. The region was inhabited at various times by Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians, each being conqured and re-conquered by one another and by other tribes. After the Bar Kochba revolt in AD135, the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the region from Judea, to Syria-Palestine. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Golda Meir said:
"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]"
Arabs and Jews often lay claim to the land on the basis of their supposed habitation in ancient times. True "Arabs" are traditionally those who are descendant from Abraham and Ishmael. They were not an homogenous people, but rather are a collection of nomadic tribes, and modern Pan-Arabism is a very recent concept (late 19th/early 20th century) with no historical precedent (however, the peoples of that region were later to be united - to some extent - by the religion of Islam). Arabs at least until the establishment of Islam, identified themselves by their city of origin, their tribes, as Christian and Jewish, or as part of larger political entities. After the Romans, the region was in the hands of the Byzantines, the Zaroastrians and finally, in the early 7th century, the Arab-Islamic Epmire. In 1099, the christian Crusaders captured Jeruslem and held it for a century. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Egyptian Mameluks, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul. Although from that time onwards, there would be a strong Muslim presence in the region of Palestine, the Arab claims to "ancient rights" to the land seem pretty flimsy, if not downright false. So why is the region so important to the Arabs of today? The answer lies in Islam.
Under the leadership of Muhammed, the newly established religion of Islam inspired a period of conquest throughout the region (for all their enmity, I find it interesting how similar the social and spiritual message of Islam is to the already established Jewish and Christian faiths). In AD638, Jerusalem was captured by Muslims. Originally, Muslims were instructed to face Jerusalem when praying as a concilliatory gesture to Arabic Jews. The "holiness" is a result of an occasion when The Prophet supposedly rose to heaven, and for some reason, this miracle was associated (quite arbitrarily) with Jerusalem. This began a period of 1300 years of Islamic dominance of the region, which was often bloody and brutal for Christians and Jews.
At this point I will remind that there was a Jewish population in Palestine throughout this time. Even after the Jewish state was ended by the Romans, Jewish communities continued to exist. All of the successor governments tried to eliminate the Jews at one time or another, but none succeeded as numerous accounts testify over the centuries. When the Zionists started the modern "return" to Eretz Yisrael in the 19th Century, they were joining Jews who never left. The Arabs do not as they claim, hold ancient rights to the land, nor was there any "Palestinian state" for the Jews to "occupy" when the state of Israel was created. I will deal with the myth of "occupation" in my next thread. For now I will go to bed.
Scroll to see replies
Socrates
*yawns*
I'm pretty sure this has been posted before, because its a copy paste.
I'm pretty sure this has been posted before, because its a copy paste.
Erm, no it's not!
There very nearly was a Palestinian state. As far as I can work out, the original plan was for an Israel and a Palestine to be created in '48, but various Arab states in the area supported the Palestinians' rejection of the creation of Israel and launched a joint war against Israel, which went spectacularly badly, Israel benefitting to the tune of great territorial gains. The blame for the lack of a Palestinian state today thus seems undeniably to fall on the Palestinians themselves, and their allies. The question is: Can all that be consigned to the past and a fresh start made? Can the Israel of today bring herself to give up beloved territory in the cause of regional stability? Or will she reject a new Palestine the way Palestine tried to reject her fifty years ago?
Chiron
I shall probably be discredited as a Zionist after this
There is nothing to be "discredited" in being a Zionist. Zionism is the belief in a right to self-determination for the Jewish people in their own country. Just because one of the many propaganda successes of the Islamists and their allies on the left has been to create the impression that the word "zionism" is a dirty one, does not make it so. I am a proud Zionist.
--------------
Agent Smith
The question is: Can all that be consigned to the past and a fresh start made? Can the Israel of today bring herself to give up beloved territory in the cause of regional stability? Or will she reject a new Palestine the way Palestine tried to reject her fifty years ago?
The question is, why is Israel made out to be the bad guy in light of the fact that they wanted to live happily in peace and it was the Arabs who rejected the deal and went for a war of annihilation instead.
JonathanH
There is nothing to be "discredited" in being a Zionist. Zionism is the belief in a right to self-determination for the Jewish people in their own country. Just because one of the many propaganda successes of the Islamists and their allies on the left has been to create the impression that the word "zionism" is a dirty one, does not make it so. I am a proud Zionist.
--------------
The question is, why is Israel made out to be the bad guy in light of the fact that they wanted to live happily in peace and it was the Arabs who rejected the deal and went for a war of annihilation instead.
--------------
The question is, why is Israel made out to be the bad guy in light of the fact that they wanted to live happily in peace and it was the Arabs who rejected the deal and went for a war of annihilation instead.
I concur wholeheartedly.
Socrates
*yawns*
Unfortunately this is the typical reaction of people like "Socrates" when faced with information that they don't like, but still not quite in possession of the guts to openly deny it.
JonD
I know you're just trying to enourage debate here, but what's the relevance of the previous existance of a Palestinian state? Just because they haven't had one before (assuming the article is correct) doesn't mean they have no right to have one now if they want one. Or does it?
The reason I mention it is because many Muslims and Arabs speak of the israeli "occupation". I don't believe that the Israeli presence can justly be called an occupation when there is and was no extant Arab or Palestinian state with any real political or any singular cultural dominance in the region. Furthermore, I actually happen to be a proponent of a Palestinian state, but the problem is that many people justify their right to such, on the basis that they previously owned the land. They did not. My later threads on the topic will attempt to explore the issue in a little more depth.
Chiron
The reason I mention it is because many Muslims and Arabs speak of the israeli "occupation". I don't believe that the Israeli presence can justly be called an occupation when there is and was no extant Arab or Palestinian state with any real political or any singular cultural dominance in the region. Furthermore, I actually happen to be a proponent of a Palestinian state, but the problem is that many people justify their right to such, on the basis that they previously owned the land. They did not. My later threads on the topic will attempt to explore the issue in a little more depth.
I thought the "occupation" usually referred to was the land outside of Israel that Israel controls? I know there were a few who deny Israel's right to existance because the land used to be Muslim (Ottoman, etc), but I thought that line had gone out of fashion.
JonD
I thought the "occupation" usually referred to was the land outside of Israel that Israel controls? I know there were a few who deny Israel's right to existance because the land used to be Muslim (Ottoman, etc), but I thought that line had gone out of fashion.
Even that land, Israel has some legitimate claim to, and I will explore that in a later thread. You'd be surprised how many people still pedal that line and indeed how many people make no distinction between the post-1967 issue of "occupation" with "occupation" as manifest in the existence of the state of Israel.
JonD
but I thought that line had gone out of fashion.
Oh no, it's as popular today as it ever was. Many still deny any right of Israel to exist and promote its destruction as a valid political viewpoint.
I can see where people who argue how can one speak of occupied lands if there was no Palestine in the first place to speak of. However, there is an argument by some international lawyers that the 1948 Resolution establishing the state of Israel and the state of Palestine established both states, even if the Arabs rejected the resolution.
This land that is meant to be an Arab state cannot be said to be nothing and belong to no one. Arguably it was the UN Resolution based on British proposals for the mandate of Palestine that established both states. The resolution reflected British proposals as it was only the wishes of the British when reliquishing their mandate that could be implemented as they were 'trustees' of the land so to speak and only a trustee can perform trust functions. Now common law of the Leage of Nations (which was dissolved and later emerged as the United Nations. Note that dissolution of the League of Nations does not render its case law irrelevant, because although there is no principle of stare decisis in international law, the institutions tend to take a line of consistency and uniformity) had established that a state could not relinquish its mandate until it had left the people of the land in a viable position of self-governance. Thus Britian's trusteeship could only be said to have been properly relinquished once the resolution creating both states was passed.
However, this is a very contentious issue among lawyers, and at this moment in time I am not sufficently well read to make any further comments.
Sorry if this makes no sense whatsoever - It was written in a rush and reading it over I don't think it sounds very coherent or flowing in any sense of the word.
This land that is meant to be an Arab state cannot be said to be nothing and belong to no one. Arguably it was the UN Resolution based on British proposals for the mandate of Palestine that established both states. The resolution reflected British proposals as it was only the wishes of the British when reliquishing their mandate that could be implemented as they were 'trustees' of the land so to speak and only a trustee can perform trust functions. Now common law of the Leage of Nations (which was dissolved and later emerged as the United Nations. Note that dissolution of the League of Nations does not render its case law irrelevant, because although there is no principle of stare decisis in international law, the institutions tend to take a line of consistency and uniformity) had established that a state could not relinquish its mandate until it had left the people of the land in a viable position of self-governance. Thus Britian's trusteeship could only be said to have been properly relinquished once the resolution creating both states was passed.
However, this is a very contentious issue among lawyers, and at this moment in time I am not sufficently well read to make any further comments.
Sorry if this makes no sense whatsoever - It was written in a rush and reading it over I don't think it sounds very coherent or flowing in any sense of the word.
=Socrates]*yawns*
I'm pretty sure this has been posted before, because its a copy paste.
I'm pretty sure this has been posted before, because its a copy paste.
Chiron
Erm, no it's not!
Socrates
Theres no shame in admitting it. I've read it word for word before, it may have been on here, it may have been elsewhere. You may have read one of the many Zionist websites and then changed a few words, but that doesn't make it any more original. 
Still, Zionism isn't discredited by having dishonest or otherwise shady spokesmen, nor would any other nationalist movement be... 
oh er, where can we read part two Chiron?
edit: http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/jewish_history.html
for balance
oh er, where can we read part two Chiron?
edit: http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/jewish_history.html
for balance
Socrates
Theres no shame in admitting it. I've read it word for word before, it may have been on here, it may have been elsewhere. You may have read one of the many Zionist websites and then changed a few words, but that doesn't make it any more original.
I used a number of sources Socrates, I do not ever simply copy and paste withous specificaly saying that is what I did. I am not sure how "original" one can be when it comes to history: it either happened or it didn't. But I can assure, you I did not just "copy and paste", I have tried to amalgamate information from several sources which i have sifted myself.
Chiron, good post! Contrary to what Socrates said, it's NOT a copy paste, but it is so well-presented, it looks like something a journalist could have written.
I've said the same thing before on this forum and had people tell me I was wrong. The scary thing about this whole situation is that most people don't know anything about the history of this region and believe whatever they hear. By repeating lies over and over again, lies become the truth and truth become lies. I think most people in the world really believe that there was a country called Palestine with Palestinian people whose existance in the region predates the existance of the Jews.
I've said the same thing before on this forum and had people tell me I was wrong. The scary thing about this whole situation is that most people don't know anything about the history of this region and believe whatever they hear. By repeating lies over and over again, lies become the truth and truth become lies. I think most people in the world really believe that there was a country called Palestine with Palestinian people whose existance in the region predates the existance of the Jews.
Made in the USA
By repeating lies over and over again, lies become the truth and truth become lies.
"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on..." - Mark Twain
That's the tactic the "palestinians" have been using for decades. In fact, their very existence as a "people" who need a "homeland" as is the belief so many people have today, is perhaps one of the greatest pieces of mass public deception ever perpetrated.
Related discussions
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- Palestine protests at unis/boycotts
- Lost a lot of friends by not supporting Hamas
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- EPQ
- Is Jordan safe for a year abroad?
- The current situation in Israel/Gaza is having an impact on my friendships
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- Claims that a 9 year-old boy was treated poorly by staff ‘because he’s Jewish’
- Ireland, Spain and Norway to recognise Palestine
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- Joe Biden Withdraws from Re-Election
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Course Grade and Political View
- MA International Relations
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
An academic has correctly called 9 out of the last 10 US Presidential electionsLast reply 1 month ago
University Tuition Fees to rise in England for the first time in 8 yearsLast reply 1 month ago
Achieved top grades (3 A*) at school, but not sure uni is right for me
