hmmm. israel from 1250 bc to 135 ad. vs palestinians in palestine from 135 til' 1947.
Doc Martian
cheers!
Doc
AnonMoos
Indigoonie!
There was a Kingdom of Israel more-or-less uninterruptedly from
ca. 1000 BC to 721 BC, and a kingdom of Judah or a province of
Judah/Yehud/Judea within a larger empire more-or-less uninterruptedly
from ca. 920 BC to 135 AD.
There was a province of Palaestina or Filastin within the
Roman/Byzantine empire and the early Arab caliphate more-or-less
uninterruptedly from about 135 AD to 1070 AD. But when the British
chose to arbitrarily name their new Mandate territory "Palestine"
after WW1, they were importing a name from Europe that hadn't been
much used by Turks and Arabs during the 19th century.
And most importantly of all, there has never been an independent
sovereign nation-state under the name "Palestine" at any time in
history, and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and allegiance
until after 1964. Before that time, people had self-identities as
Muslims, Arabs, Mashriqis, Greater Syrians, and/or inhabitants of a
local district that were as important (often more important) than any
"Palestinian" self-identity -- and most Palestinians assumed that
Israel/Palestine would relatively soon be swallowed up by some
neighboring Arab state, and they generally saw no great problem with
this...
--
Some Qur'an quotes: 5:20 qaala muusaa 5:21 "yaa qawmi ´dkhuluu ´l-'arDa
´l-muqaddasata ´llatii kataba ´llaahu lakum" 17:104 waqulnaa ... libanii
'israa'iila "´skunuu ´l-'arDa" || In English: Moses said, "My people,
go into the Holy Land which God has assigned to you!" And we said to the
Children of Israel, "Inhabit the land!" http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Doc Martian
post-genocide claims.
yes. joshua attempted genocide.
cheers!
Doc
p.s. all i have to do is say 'you're a dipshit' i don't have to display your
i.q. you demonstrate that it's down there in the low 80s.
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message
news:429BACE5...@io.com...
Doc Martian
"Doc Martian" <docma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Q%Nme.10220$3u3.7268@trnddc07...
AnonMoos
> regardless... they have 500 years of ownership to your 1300 years of
Why do you assume I'm a Jew, Indigoonie? -- I'm no more a Jew than you
are an Arab! And the Arab rulership of Canaan/Israel/Palestine pretty
much ended in with the Turkish conquest of 1070 A.D. -- after that
time, it was mainly ruled over by Seujuq/Artukid Turks, European
Crusaders, Ayyubid Kurds, Mamluk Turks, Ottoman Turks, and the British
down to 1948. Anyway, you're ignoring the main fact, that there was no
particular separate "Palestinian nation" (in terms of self-perception)
before the 1960's, while a distinctive Israelite national consciousness
started to exist even before 1000 B.C.
Doc Martian
again.
as far as israel? it wasn't a world-recognized soveriegn nation until 60
years ago, but face it israel recognizes itself as israel just as strongly
as the palestinian people recognize themselves of inhabitants of palestine.
and you can take that to the bank.
cheers!
Doc
p.s. i think it's cute how you call me indigoonie and i call you moron.
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message
news:429BB174...@io.com...
docrem...@safe-mail.net
> dude. you're a whore for israel... you've demonstrated it time and time
> again.
>
> as far as israel? it wasn't a world-recognized soveriegn nation until 60
> years ago, but face it israel recognizes itself as israel just as strongly
> as the palestinian people recognize themselves of inhabitants of palestine.
>
> and you can take that to the bank.
>
The East Bank surely being the right place.
Cheers!
AnonMoos
>"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message news:429BB174...@io.com...
>> Why do you assume I'm a Jew, Indigoonie? -- I'm no more a Jew than
>> you are an Arab! And the Arab rulership of Canaan/Israel/Palestine
>> pretty much ended in with the Turkish conquest of 1070 A.D. -- after
>> that time, it was mainly ruled over by Seljuq/Artukid Turks,
>> European Crusaders, Ayyubid Kurds, Mamluk Turks, Ottoman Turks, and
>> the British down to 1948. Anyway, you're ignoring the main fact,
>> that there was no particular separate "Palestinian nation" (in terms
>> of self-perception) before the 1960's, while a distinctive Israelite
>> national consciousness started to exist even before 1000 B.C.
> dude. you're a whore for israel... you've demonstrated it time and
> time again.
At least I'm not a moronic lying idiot like you -- whose idea of
contributing to the debate on the middle east is to post 50 blank
messages with subject lines like "PISS IN THE IZZRAYLEE'S COFFEE!1!"
> as far as israel? it wasn't a world-recognized soveriegn nation
> until 60 years ago, but face it israel recognizes itself as israel
> just as strongly as the palestinian people recognize themselves of
> inhabitants of palestine.
That's nice; if you argue only on the basis of current-day nationalist
feelings, then your arguments would be irrefutable on that ground.
It's only when you begin lying about history that he problems start!
And the fact remains that the idea of a separatist distinct
Palestinian Arab "nation" only began to take hold about 40 years ago --
anything before that is in fact NOT any kind of so-called "historic
Palestine" in the particular sense in which the PLO propagandists use
the phrase "historic Palestine".
As I've said before, if the Palestinians would just admit that their
separatist nationalism is relatively recent (like that of a number of
new countries which gained independence in the 1960's or later), then
I would be much more supportive -- but when they start telling their
lies about supposed "Historic Palestine" [sic], then that has the
effect of alienating sympathies I might otherwise feel...
Doc Martian
> > dude. you're a whore for israel... you've demonstrated it time and
> > time again.
>
> At least I'm not a moronic lying idiot like you -- whose idea of
> contributing to the debate on the middle east is to post 50 blank
> messages with subject lines like "PISS IN THE IZZRAYLEE'S COFFEE!1!"
actually... i believe i said 'poop in the israelis coffee while you steal
their car.' but that's beside the point. since you admit you're israel's
whore.... i've taken the liberty to forward your email to the u.s.
department of justice..... they like to keep an eye on israel's whores.
> That's nice; if you argue only on the basis of current-day nationalist
> feelings, then your arguments would be irrefutable on that ground.
> It's only when you begin lying about history that he problems start!
>
> And the fact remains that the idea of a separatist distinct
> Palestinian Arab "nation" only began to take hold about 40 years ago --
> anything before that is in fact NOT any kind of so-called "historic
> Palestine" in the particular sense in which the PLO propagandists use
> the phrase "historic Palestine".
>
> As I've said before, if the Palestinians would just admit that their
> separatist nationalism is relatively recent (like that of a number of
> new countries which gained independence in the 1960's or later), then
> I would be much more supportive -- but when they start telling their
> lies about supposed "Historic Palestine" [sic], then that has the
> effect of alienating sympathies I might otherwise feel...
dude.... face it.... canaanite/arab/palestinian claims go back farther then
israeli claims.... and dickheads like you are the ones who united them
together. but.... i do admit that the hebrew people have a claim to a small
portion of iraq.... that's where they came from.
cheers!
Doc
Osric
AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote in message news:429BACE5...@io.com...
> All you're doing is displaying your pathetic ignorance of history,
> Indigoonie!
>
> There was a Kingdom of Israel more-or-less uninterruptedly from
> ca. 1000 BC to 721 BC, and a kingdom of Judah or a province of
> Judah/Yehud/Judea within a larger empire more-or-less uninterruptedly
> from ca. 920 BC to 135 AD.
>
> There was a province of Palaestina or Filastin within the
> Roman/Byzantine empire and the early Arab caliphate more-or-less
> uninterruptedly from about 135 AD to 1070 AD. But when the British
> chose to arbitrarily name their new Mandate territory "Palestine"
> after WW1, they were importing a name from Europe that hadn't been
> much used by Turks and Arabs during the 19th century.
>
> And most importantly of all, there has never been an independent
> sovereign nation-state under the name "Palestine" at any time in
> history, and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and allegiance
> until after 1964. Before that time, people had self-identities as
> Muslims, Arabs, Mashriqis, Greater Syrians, and/or inhabitants of a
> local district that were as important (often more important) than any
> "Palestinian" self-identity -- and most Palestinians assumed that
> Israel/Palestine would relatively soon be swallowed up by some
> neighboring Arab state, and they generally saw no great problem with
> this...
>
True, not that any of it makes any difference.
--
Osric
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
Osric
><docrem...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
>news:1117505396.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>Doc Martian wrote:
>> dude. you're a whore for israel... you've demonstrated it time and time
>> again.
>>
>> as far as israel? it wasn't a world-recognized soveriegn nation until 60
>> years ago, but face it israel recognizes itself as israel just as
strongly
>> as the palestinian people recognize themselves of inhabitants of
palestine.
>>
>> and you can take that to the bank.
>>
>The East Bank surely being the right place.
LOL
AnonMoos
>"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message news:429BF5D8...@io.com...
>>>"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message news:429BB174...@io.com...
>>>> Why do you assume I'm a Jew, Indigoonie? -- I'm no more a Jew than
>>>> you are an Arab! And the Arab rulership of Canaan/Israel/Palestine
>>>> pretty much ended with the Turkish conquest of 1070 A.D. -- after
>>>> that time, it was mainly ruled over by Seljuq/Artukid Turks,
>>>> European Crusaders, Ayyubid Kurds, Mamluk Turks, Ottoman Turks, and
>>>> the British down to 1948. Anyway, you're ignoring the main fact,
>>>> that there was no particular separate "Palestinian nation" (in terms
>>>> of self-perception) before the 1960's, while a distinctive Israelite
>>>> national consciousness started to exist even before 1000 B.C.
>>> dude. you're a whore for israel... you've demonstrated it time and
>>> time again.
>> At least I'm not a moronic lying idiot like you -- whose idea of
>> contributing to the debate on the middle east is to post 50 blank
>> messages with subject lines like "PISS IN THE IZZRAYLEE'S COFFEE!1!"
> actually... i believe i said 'poop in the israelis coffee while you steal
> their car.' but that's beside the point. since you admit you're israel's
> whore.... i've taken the liberty to forward your email to the u.s.
> department of justice..... they like to keep an eye on israel's whores.
What a pathetically feeble lameoid you are, Indigoonie -- you hate free
speech, and you aren't too capable of conducting a reasoned or factual
argument, so when you realize that you're losing an argument, your
instinctive response is to threaten your interlocutor's free speech;
only your threats are so unbelievable and ineffectually lame that
they're much more likely to make the other person laugh instead of
tremble in their boots!
>>> as far as israel? it wasn't a world-recognized soveriegn nation
>>> until 60 years ago, but face it israel recognizes itself as israel
>>> just as strongly as the palestinian people recognize themselves of
>>> inhabitants of palestine.
>> That's nice; if you argue only on the basis of current-day
>> nationalist feelings, then your arguments would be irrefutable on
>> that ground. It's only when you begin lying about history that the
>> problems start! And the fact remains that the idea of a separatist
>> distinct Palestinian Arab "nation" only began to take hold about 40
>> years ago -- anything before that is in fact NOT any kind of
>> so-called "historic Palestine" in the particular sense in which the
>> PLO propagandists use the phrase "historic Palestine". As I've
>> said before, if the Palestinians would just admit that their
>> separatist nationalism is relatively recent (like that of a number
>> of new countries which gained independence in the 1960's or later),
>> then I would be much more supportive -- but when they start telling
>> their lies about supposed "Historic Palestine" [sic], then that has
>> the effect of alienating sympathies I might otherwise feel...
> dude.... face it.... canaanite/arab/palestinian claims go back farther then
> israeli claims....
That's nonsense -- Canaanite claims could theoretically go back before
Israelite claims, but there is no modern group which has preserved a
traditional "Canaanite" self-identity that has been continuously
handed down from generation to generation since ancient times. As for
Arabs, there was no large number of Arabs in the Judea/Samaria/Galilee
area (as opposed to on the fringes of the desert in Nabatea) until the
7th century AD. And a province called Palaestina/Filastin existed
from about 135 AD to 1070 AD (generally with rather different
boundaries than the 1923-1947 British mandate territory), but the
inhabitants of this province didn't then consider themselves to belong
to a "Palestinian nation" any more than inhabitants of Iowa today
consider themselves to belong to an "Iowan nation". During the 400
years of Ottoman Turkish rule before WW1, the Arabic word "Filastin"
was a semi-obsolescent toponym which was a relic of the early Caliphal
period. Few Arabs called themselves Filastiniyun, and the idea of a
separate "Palestinian nation" would have been considered rather
bizarre. As I said, the British basically imported the name
"Palestine" from Europe after WW1, and the idea of a separatist
specifically-Palestinian Arab nationalist ideology didn't begin to
gain mass support and allegiance until after 1964.
> i do admit that the hebrew people have a claim to a small portion of
> iraq.... that's where they came from.
That's rather pathetic, considering that it's by no means clear that
Abraham's Ur was the Sumerian Ur. Why don't you just leave history and
Bible exegesis completely alone, if that's the best you can do!
>>>>"Doc Martian" <docma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message news:429BACE5...@io.com...
>>>>>> All you're doing is displaying your pathetic ignorance of history,
>>>>>> Indigoonie! There was a Kingdom of Israel more-or-less
>>>>>> uninterruptedly from ca. 1000 BC to 721 BC, and a kingdom of Judah
>>>>>> or a province of Judah/Yehud/Judea within a larger empire
>>>>>> more-or-less uninterruptedly from ca. 920 BC to 135 AD. There was
>>>>>> a province of Palaestina or Filastin within the Roman/Byzantine
>>>>>> empire and the early Arab caliphate more-or-less uninterruptedly
>>>>>> from about 135 AD to 1070 AD. But when the British chose to
>>>>>> arbitrarily name their new Mandate territory "Palestine" after
>>>>>> WW1, they were importing a name from Europe that hadn't been much
>>>>>> used by Turks and Arabs during the 19th century. And most
>>>>>> importantly of all, there has never been an independent sovereign
>>>>>> nation-state under the name "Palestine" at any time in history,
>>>>>> and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
>>>>>> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and
>>>>>> allegiance until after 1964. Before that time, people had
>>>>>> self-identities as Muslims, Arabs, Mashriqis, Greater Syrians,
>>>>>> and/or inhabitants of a local district that were as important
>>>>>> (often more important) than any "Palestinian" self-identity -- and
>>>>>> most Palestinians assumed that Israel/Palestine would relatively
>>>>>> soon be swallowed up by some neighboring Arab state, and they
>>>>>> generally saw no great problem with this...
--
Flying Elephant
>Abraham's Ur was the Sumerian Ur. Why don't you just leave history and
>Bible exegesis completely alone, if that's the best you can do!
As you said, pathetic. You're saying that the name Palestine never
existed for a state or entity in the region, fine. Let's say we want a
country by the name BlaBla for the people that were living on the lands
of actual israel for hundreds of years; that way we dismiss your
irrelevant arguments about names and labels.
As far as the canaanites, arabs, etc.. they all came from the same
region (south) and they all procreated and had descendants which
populated the area for thousands of years. No one says i'm cannaanite
or phoenician nowadays beacause it is a silly thing to say; but the
majority of the people there have canaanites, arab, etc.. blood, i.e.
semite blood, because those people are also semites. They were there
before the jews (who have the same origins by the way) and they are
still there.
As for the Ottomans (or the kurdish ot whatever) having ruled the land
called palestine, well ruling does not mean the land is inhabited by
turkish, kurdish, etc.. Otherwise you may as well call the palstinians
Greec, or Romans, because they were ruled by them. Hebrews also were
ruled by them, but i'm not gonne call the hebrews romans (such an
insult for the romans !)
Doc Martian
> What a pathetically feeble lameoid you are, Indigoonie -- you hate free
> speech, and you aren't too capable of conducting a reasoned or factual
> argument, so when you realize that you're losing an argument, your
> instinctive response is to threaten your interlocutor's free speech;
> only your threats are so unbelievable and ineffectually lame that
> they're much more likely to make the other person laugh instead of
> tremble in their boots!
you have the right to say anything you want.... BUT.... the u.s. government
likes to keep their eye on israel's whores.... especially since 9/11.
> > dude.... face it.... canaanite/arab/palestinian claims go back farther
then
> > israeli claims....
>
> That's nonsense -- Canaanite claims could theoretically go back before
> Israelite claims, but there is no modern group which has preserved a
> traditional "Canaanite" self-identity that has been continuously
> handed down from generation to generation since ancient times. As for
> Arabs, there was no large number of Arabs in the Judea/Samaria/Galilee
> area (as opposed to on the fringes of the desert in Nabatea) until the
> 7th century AD. And a province called Palaestina/Filastin existed
> from about 135 AD to 1070 AD (generally with rather different
> boundaries than the 1923-1947 British mandate territory), but the
> inhabitants of this province didn't then consider themselves to belong
> to a "Palestinian nation" any more than inhabitants of Iowa today
> consider themselves to belong to an "Iowan nation". During the 400
> years of Ottoman Turkish rule before WW1, the Arabic word "Filastin"
> was a semi-obsolescent toponym which was a relic of the early Caliphal
> period. Few Arabs called themselves Filastiniyun, and the idea of a
> separate "Palestinian nation" would have been considered rather
> bizarre. As I said, the British basically imported the name
> "Palestine" from Europe after WW1, and the idea of a separatist
> specifically-Palestinian Arab nationalist ideology didn't begin to
> gain mass support and allegiance until after 1964.
barf barf barf barf barf.... the hebrew people have never gone underground?
really? the canaanite people have.... persecution will do that to yah.
is that such a surprise to you? why, when there are still assyrians.
> > i do admit that the hebrew people have a claim to a small portion of
> > iraq.... that's where they came from.
>
> That's rather pathetic, considering that it's by no means clear that
> Abraham's Ur was the Sumerian Ur. Why don't you just leave history and
> Bible exegesis completely alone, if that's the best you can do!
yes... there were so many cities named ur in the ancient middle east. give
it up dumbass... you're just digging yourself in deeper.
cheers!
Doc
dsha...@hotmail.com
>>Abraham's Ur was the Sumerian Ur. Why don't you just leave history and
>>Bible exegesis completely alone, if that's the best you can do!
Flying Elephant wrote:
>As you said, pathetic. You're saying that the name Palestine never
>existed for a state or entity in the region, fine.
He said much more than that, but, like history and biblical exegesis,
it apparently went over your head.
>Let's say we want a
>country by the name BlaBla for the people that were living on the lands
>of actual israel for hundreds of years; that way we dismiss your
>irrelevant arguments about names and labels.
If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have gone to
such pains to make them.
>As far as the canaanites, arabs, etc.. they all came from the same
>region (south)
Wrong. So-called "Canaanites" (pre-Israelite inhabitants of Israel)
were a mixed bag of Indo-European invaders from Anatolia, who
overwhelmed the earlier Chalcolithic peoples and whose subsequent
civilization, such as it may have been, was in turn subsumed by
Hurrians (non-Semitic, non-Indo-European), Hittites (non-Semitic,
Indo-European), Amorites (Semitic speakers), and Egyptians. At the time
of the Israelite invasion, they were ruled by Egypt.
>and they all procreated and had descendants which
>populated the area for thousands of years. No one says i'm cannaanite
>or phoenician nowadays beacause it is a silly thing to say; but the
>majority of the people there have canaanites, arab, etc.. blood,
"Canaanite" is not synonymous with "Arab", sonny.
>i.e. semite blood, because those people are also semites.
>They were there
>before the jews (who have the same origins by the way) and they are
>still there.
>As for the Ottomans (or the kurdish ot whatever) having ruled the land
>called palestine, well ruling does not mean the land is inhabited by
>turkish, kurdish, etc..
Definitely, history is not your forte.
>Otherwise you may as well call the palstinians
>Greec, or Romans, because they were ruled by them.
Today's "Palestinians" are Arabs, and were not ruled by Greeks or
Romans.
>Hebrews also were ruled by them, but i'm not gonne call the hebrews
>romans (such an insult for the romans !)
Another typically ignorant anti-Semite.
Deborah
AnonMoos
>"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message news:429C82EB...@io.com...
>>> dude.... face it.... canaanite/arab/palestinian claims go back
>>> farther then israeli claims....
>> That's nonsense -- Canaanite claims could theoretically go back
>> before Israelite claims, but there is no modern group which has
>> preserved a traditional "Canaanite" self-identity that has been
>> continuously handed down from generation to generation since ancient
>> times. As for Arabs, there was no large number of Arabs in the
>> Judea/Samaria/Galilee area (as opposed to on the fringes of the
>> desert in Nabatea) until the 7th century AD. And a province called
>> Palaestina/Filastin existed from about 135 AD to 1070 AD (generally
>> with rather different boundaries than the 1923-1947 British mandate
>> territory), but the inhabitants of this province didn't then
>> consider themselves to belong to a "Palestinian nation" any more
>> than inhabitants of Iowa today consider themselves to belong to an
>> "Iowan nation". During the 400 years of Ottoman Turkish rule before
>> WW1, the Arabic word "Filastin" was a semi-obsolescent toponym which
>> was a relic of the early Caliphal period. Few Arabs called
>> themselves Filastiniyun, and the idea of a separate "Palestinian
>> nation" would have been considered rather bizarre. As I said, the
>> British basically imported the name "Palestine" from Europe after
>> WW1, and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
>> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and
>> allegiance until after 1964.
> barf barf barf barf barf....
Is that what you say when you know you're losing an argument?
> the hebrew people have never gone underground? really? the canaanite
> people have.... persecution will do that to yah.
Whatever -- the Jews were persecuted by the Seleucids and Romans, and
yet a large numbers of them kept their Jewish identity down the centuries.
By contrast, in the post-500-BC period the Canaanites weren't really
persecuted by anybody just for being Canaanites (though many of them
were caught up in various conquests, of course) -- but after 200 years
of rule within the Persian empire followed by 275 years of rule within
the Greco-Macedonian empires, they had adopted the middle-eastern
lingua franca of Aramaic (and forgotten their former Canaanite
languages), and they thought of themselves as Syrians more than as
Canaanites. It was a natural process of cultural-linguistic
amalgamation that has happened to many peoples over the course of
history.
> is that such a surprise to you? why, when there are still assyrians.
Hardly -- the "Assyrians" of today are Syriac-speaking Christians, and
have little specific cultural continuity with the ancient Assyrian
empire (which fell, never to rise again, in 612 B.C.). A good thing
too, since the ancient Assyrian empire was mainly famed for its cruelty
and brutality....
Doc Martian
> > barf barf barf barf barf....
>
> Is that what you say when you know you're losing an argument?
nope.... that's just a mimicry of your empty rhetoric.
>
> > the hebrew people have never gone underground? really? the canaanite
> > people have.... persecution will do that to yah.
>
> Whatever -- the Jews were persecuted by the Seleucids and Romans, and
> yet a large numbers of them kept their Jewish identity down the centuries.
>
> By contrast, in the post-500-BC period the Canaanites weren't really
> persecuted by anybody just for being Canaanites (though many of them
> were caught up in various conquests, of course) -- but after 200 years
> of rule within the Persian empire followed by 275 years of rule within
> the Greco-Macedonian empires, they had adopted the middle-eastern
> lingua franca of Aramaic (and forgotten their former Canaanite
> languages), and they thought of themselves as Syrians more than as
> Canaanites. It was a natural process of cultural-linguistic
> amalgamation that has happened to many peoples over the course of
> history.
>
1000 years of persecution tends to result in an outwardly guarded cultural
identity.... as far as the possibility of canaanites still existing.... take
a look at your home territory.... how many mexican-americans do you think
don't identify with aztec culture and heritage? really? you should go around
telling them... you don't have aztec heritage... the aztecs were wiped out
centuries ago by european bloodlines.... p.s. buy some cheap sunglasses
before you do... because yer gunna catch one in the face.
now... as far as a cultural groups 'rights' to a parcel of land? we can use
the judaic peoples as an example.... they still claim the right to a region
that they took by genocide of the native populace as chronicled in the book
of joshua.... now... while the book of joshua may be a thin tissue of lies
and fabrication by priests of the judaic faith... chances are that there is
an element of truth that consists of a number of escaped slaves (with or
without egyptian chariots and weaponry) that attempted to genocide the
inhabitants of the canaan region under a theocratic leadership.... the
descendents of these escaped slaves were dispersed some 1500 years later by
the romans. their descendents knocked around europe and the near east for
about 1700 years and then claimed the right to 'their land' after wwii. of
course.... it was no more 'their land' then the gold that the nazi germans
took from them during the attempt at genociding the european jews was the
nazi's gold.... but.... any bunch of idiots that goes around touting their
divine mandate to anything but a quick trip to heaven tends to be so
brainwashed that it is hardly worth telling them otherwise. so.... does the
canaan region 'belong' to the jews or to the canaanites and their
descendents? i think that trade ability is going to be the deciding factor
to that... and since the modern israel is pretty much a dependent of the
united states.... i'd say that after awhile... the u.s. will get sick of
supporting their asses and leave them to the vengeance of the people that
are currently being oppressed by the military of the state of israel.
> > is that such a surprise to you? why, when there are still assyrians.
>
> Hardly -- the "Assyrians" of today are Syriac-speaking Christians, and
> have little specific cultural continuity with the ancient Assyrian
> empire (which fell, never to rise again, in 612 B.C.). A good thing
> too, since the ancient Assyrian empire was mainly famed for its cruelty
> and brutality....
racial identity... cultures evolve.... much like judaic culture did when it
evolved away from nation building and the need to enslave and oppress other
cultures. www.jewsnotzionists.org.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
>> Let's say we want a
>> country by the name BlaBla for the people that were living on the lands
>> of actual israel for hundreds of years; that way we dismiss your
>> irrelevant arguments about names and labels.
>
> If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have gone to
> such pains to make them.
The fact that these arguments are irrelevant to Palestinian Nationalism
does not mean that you can distort history has you have been doing
recklessly: denying the existence of the Jund Filastin; deying the regular
use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to describe the
region; denying the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
before WWI; claiming that Jordan is Palestine; and other similar
imbecilities.
Fact is that you and your Zionist ilk, you are the ones that imply that
the name is something of an utter importance, when you use it as part of
your argument for the well known Golda Meir style revisionism about the
alleged non existance of Palestinians.
This is a fight that you have lost from its very start, and I should
perhaps be ashamed of spanking the dumby, but since some people seem to
actually believe your nonsense, I believe it is worth it.
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Flying Elephant
>such pains to make them.
What is a Pallie ? I think that no one but you and your alike is trying
to prove something that is not and will never be true. It seems you're
trying pretty hard to prove that the land belongs to the "descendants"
of some tribes that lived there a few thousands years ago, though some
of those descendants have managed to become black or blond with blue
eyes.
>Wrong. So-called "Canaanites" (pre-Israelite inhabitants of Israel)
>were a mixed bag of Indo-European invaders from Anatolia, who
>overwhelmed the earlier Chalcolithic peoples and whose subsequent
>civilization, such as it may have been, was in turn subsumed by
>Hurrians (non-Semitic, non-Indo-European), Hittites (non-Semitic,
>Indo-European), Amorites (Semitic speakers), and Egyptians. At the time
>of the Israelite invasion, they were ruled by Egypt.
Ignorance itself. Canaanites came from where arabs and hebrew came
from: south, the arabic penisula and the yemen (birth of judaism.) Most
of the civilisations in the middle east were founded by tribes that
have migrated north, always to the north. But no one is saying that
there weren't tribes or civilisations that came from elsewhere, for
example the persian are aryans. But that is not the point, you might as
well go back to the ice age... But, for your information, the jews' big
nose comes from their fornications with the hittites who were known to
have big noses (another proof that there is no jewish pure blood and
that all your racist and nazi claims are worthless)
>"Canaanite" is not synonymous with "Arab", sonny.
Again, cannanites and arabs come from the same environnement: they were
all nomade tribes wandering in the arabic desert, Golda
>>i.e. semite blood, because those people are also semites.
>>They were there
>>before the jews (who have the same origins by the way) and they are
>>still there.
>>As for the Ottomans (or the kurdish ot whatever) having ruled the land
>>called palestine, well ruling does not mean the land is inhabited by
>>turkish, kurdish, etc..
>Definitely, history is not your forte.
Beleive me it is. Googling does not make you a history ace, it is a
life time effort and a minimum of intelligence.
>Today's "Palestinians" are Arabs, and were not ruled by Greeks or
>Romans.
What happened to what you would call "yesterday's palestinians" ?
>>Hebrews also were ruled by them, but i'm not gonne call the hebrews
>>romans (such an insult for the romans !)
>
>Another typically ignorant anti-Semite
i'm semite myself, Golda. So your typical "antisemite curse" wont work
on me
AnonMoos
>dsha...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> "Canaanite" is not synonymous with "Arab",
> Again, cannanites and arabs come from the same environnement: they
> were all nomade tribes wandering in the arabic desert,
It's possible that the Canaanites came from Arabia some time before
2500 B.C., if Arabia was the original Semitic homeland (something
which is by no means certain).
However, the Canaanites of the second millennium B.C. did not call
themselves Arabs, were not called Arabs by others, and did not speak
an Arabic language, so they cannot be considered "Arabs" by any valid
criterion.
P.S. I would have replied to your message
URL:<news:1117556206.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> if
you hadn't been so dishonest in carefully snipping away everything
relevant that I had written in message URL:<news:429C82EB...@io.com>
, while leaving in some irrelevant material. Care to try again?
AnonMoos
>On 31 May 2005 12:47:56 -0700, <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Let's say we want a country by the name BlaBla for the people that
>>> were living on the lands of actual israel for hundreds of years;
>>> that way we dismiss your irrelevant arguments about names and
>>> labels.
>> If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have gone
>> to such pains to make them.
> The fact that these arguments are irrelevant to Palestinian Nationalism
On the contrary, lies about so-called "Historic Palestine"[sic] seem
to be highly essential to Palestinian nationalism -- or PLO spokesmen
and propagandists wouldn't intone them with such mechanical rote
regularity!
> does not mean that you can distort history has you have been doing
> recklessly: denying the existence of the Jund Filastin; deying the
> regular use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to
> describe the region; denying the existence of the concept of a
> Palestinian Nation before WWI; and other similar imbecilities.
I don't agree with everything Sharavi wrote, but your paragraph above
contains a number of historical "imbecilities". Jund Filastin
literally meant "the army or military district of Palestine", and its
capital was first at Lod then at Ramle (never Jerusalem!), and it had
completely different borders from the later 1923-1947 British mandate
territory. This internal administrative subdivision called Filastin
existed as a small backwater province during the early Arab Caliphate
period from the 7th century AD to the 11th century AD, but it was
pretty much wiped off the map by the Turkish invasion of 1071 and the
Crusades which followed soon after. The name Palestine was NOT used
for any official internal administrative subdivision during the
Ottoman period (the 400 years preceding 1917), and during the
nineteenth century the word "Palestine" was in fact more frequently
used by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area.
Furthermore the idea of a "Palestinian nation" would have then seemed
ludicrous -- the term "Palestine" was in fact a semi-obsolescent
toponym in the Arabic language at the time (a terminological relic of
the early Caliphate period), and the inhabitants of the geographical
region formerly known as "Palestine" didn't then consider themselves
to belong to a "Palestinian nation" any more than inhabitants of Iowa
today consider themselves to belong to an "Iowan nation".
The old tendency was to consider themselves as part of the Islamic
"nation" (umma) or Ottoman nation, while the rising new intellectual
tendency was to consider themselves as part of the pan-Arab "nation"
(qawm). Local separatist nationalism was not then greatly in fashion,
except perhaps in a few countries which had already achieved some
degree of independence and separate national identity (such as Egypt).
ari...@37.com
Dude, your a complete ignoramus. LOL!
to borrow a phrase from Disraeli: when our ancestors where kings and
prophets in our land, yours (your so-called "palestinians", and your
entire family) were monkeys swinging on tree branches. lol
Cheers
Ariel
ari...@37.com
that "palestine" propaganda crap won't fly, unless you're part of the
nazi, antisemite, muslim gang of criminals.
The bottom line is this: "palestinians" are a made-up people. They're a
real people though, but with a fictional name and a nonexistant
nationality. They're arabs, that's all. These poor "palestinians" and
their ignorant supporters (like you) can't even realise that the name
"palestine" isn't ever arab in origin, it's latin!!! LOL!
These "palestinians" claim to be muslims in their majority, yet the
name "palestine" does not appear even ONCE in the Quran. NOT ONCE. The
name Israel and references to the Israelites are recorder 42 times in
the Quran.
I can go on and on.
"palestine" has no legitimacy whatsoever.
Cheers
Ariel
Doc Martian
guys were scribes for the chaldeans.... not very good scribes either....
they had to come up with a trumped up excuse 'corrupting the youth' to boot
your ancestor off to sodom.
cheers!
Doc
<ari...@37.com> wrote in message
news:1117665095.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Deborah Sharavi
>>>"Canaanite" is not synonymous with "Arab",
>"Flying Elephant" <monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar>wrote:
>>Again, cannanites and arabs come from the same environnement: they
>>were all nomade tribes wandering in the arabic desert,
AnonMoos wrote:
>It's possible that the Canaanites came from Arabia some time before
>2500 B.C., if Arabia was the original Semitic homeland (something
>which is by no means certain).
It might be possible that some so-called "Canaanites" came from
Arabia, if it could be determined who, exactly, the Canaanites
were--beyond the pop designation for the most recent of the
pre-Israelite populations of Israel or any aspect of their culture.
Nothing in the record indicates this, however, and the main elements in
that population were Amorites and Hittites. In fact, the actual
"Canaanites" were the Phoenicians to the north.
At the end of the 4th mil. BCE, many of the Chalcolthic villages in
Israel had been abandoned. They were later replaced by a smaller number
of fortified settlements on the major trade routes between Egypt and
Mesopotamia. The technical achievements of the earlier Chalcolithic
period were not maintained, and the local arts and crafts of this
period remained at a low level compared to contemporary sites in Egypt
and Mesopotamia. The fortified sites and the destruction and
abandonment of other sites indicates this was not a peaceful period. It
correlates with internal difficulties in Egypt, and the withdrawal of
Egyptian influence, which had a disastrous effect: town walls and
public buildings were destroyed or abandoned, and not rebuilt for
centuries.
After a period of recovery came another period of destruction beginning
c 2350 BCE. Archaeological discontinuity and transition to a
semi-nomadic pastoralism is correlated to the invasions of the
Amorites; the recovery of c2100-1900 BCE is also correlated to the
stabilizing influence of the Amoritic incursions. (Sites in mainland
Greece were also destroyed c2300-2000 BCE, with recovery beginning
during the Middle Bronze Age c2100-1600).
In Egyptian and cuneiform sources, the Amorites are an early population
group in the west and north, and politically dominant in Mesopotamia by
the early 2nd mil BCE. The territory of Amurru was in western Syria,
and there was a specific kingdom of Amurru c 1600-1500 BCE. In any
case, the Amorites were a settled population in Syro-Palestine by c1900
BCE.
The language used in the Amarna correspondence is an Amoritic dialect
written in (non-Semitic) Hittite cuneiform. No evidence indicates that
Amorites originated in the Arabian peninsula, and certainly the
Hittites did not. The Amarna texts indicate that the "Canaan" of
this period was dominated by small city states subject to the local
overload and his band of military retainers, supported by a large
unfree population who worked the land and served as infantry during
their numerous squabbles. There was little, if any, cohension, and in
the bible, the "Canaanites" are subdivided into any number of
discrete subgroups.
The borders of "Canaan" are as vague and problematical as the
designation of the inhabitants. In Tyre, Ugarit is considered a
"Canaanite" city, but in Ugarit, Canaan lies to the south, and
inhabitants of Ugarit are separate from, and not to be confused with,
"sons of Canaan", while Rib-Addi of Byblos sites Byblos in
"Canaan" (or Retenu). Patterns of population shifts are complex,
and in the late 12thC BCE, the Sea Peoples arrived to ravage the Levant
and stir things up further.
Arabia may have been the original "Semitic" homeland, but nothing
in the record indicates this. The earliest Semitic-speaking cultures on
record are those of Ebla and, later, of Akkad, both north of, and later
than, the (non-Semitic) Sumerians, from whom they derived their written
texts.
(On the texts: earliest Sumerian pictographs from Uruk developed
c3200-2900 into Sumerian cuneiform. In Ebla, Sumerian cuneiform was
used c2500-2300 and adapted to Semitic Eblaite, in which appears first
use of the term "Canaanite"; it may have referred to a merchant of
sorts. The Semitic dynasty of Akkad used Sumerian cuneiform c2400-2250
for its two dialects, Babylonian and Assyrian, which eventually
replaced Sumerian; after c2000, cuneiform Akkadian was in general use.
The script was later adopted by Elamites c2250, Hurrians c2200-1300,
and Hittites c1650-1200.)
The original "Semitic homeland", if such a thing ever existed, is
unknown and probably unknowable.
>However, the Canaanites of the second millennium B.C. did not call
>themselves Arabs, were not called Arabs by others, and did not speak
>an Arabic language, so they cannot be considered "Arabs" by any valid
>criterion.
Ergo, so-called "Canaanites" and Arabs did not have the same
origins; they were not "all nomad tribes wandering the Arabic
desert", and "Arab" is not synonymous with "Canaanite" by any
stretch of the imagination.
>P.S. I would have replied to your message
>URL:<news:1117556206.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>if
>you hadn't been so dishonest in carefully snipping away everything
>relevant that I had written in message URL:<news:429C82EB...@io.com>
>, while leaving in some irrelevant material. Care to try again?
Of course he doesn't. Anon had to ask?
Deborah
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On 31 May 2005 12:47:56 -0700, <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Flying Elephant" <monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote
>
>>>> Let's say we want a country by the name BlaBla for the people that
>>>> were living on the lands of actual israel for hundreds of years;
>>>> that way we dismiss your irrelevant arguments about names and
>>>> labels.
>
>>> If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have gone
>>> to such pains to make them.
>
>> The fact that these arguments are irrelevant to Palestinian Nationalism
>
> On the contrary, lies about so-called "Historic Palestine"[sic] seem
> to be highly essential to Palestinian nationalism -- or PLO spokesmen
> and propagandists wouldn't intone them with such mechanical rote
> regularity!
I don't know what kind of "lies" you are talking about, thus I can't infer
the valiidity of that claim.
What is clear to me is that Palestinian Nationalism, as many other
Nationalist movements worldwide, was formed during the 19th century, and
it was already very evident on the deceny before WWI, as anyone can see by
looking at articles on Palestinian newspapers of the time, such as
"Filastin" and "Al Karmel".
I have mentioned many examples of this on previous posts.
Palestinians - or whatever you want to call them - adopted the word
"Filastin" to rally people around the Nationalistic ideology, not because
it was used in the West as is claimed by Zionist revisionists, but because
it had a tradition in the region, either in some oral tradition and in
literature, and it was the word that best described the regional entity
that we also knew as Palestine in the West.
Unless you are a fanatic revisionist, you can't deny the existence of an
"Historic Palestine", as you seem to do, as much as you can't deny the
existence of an "Historic Israel". That designation was held on the region
since the times of the Romans, and used since then in Jurist and
Historical writings, as well as in Q'ran commentaries and exegesis of
Hadith sayings, even when the designation was not reflected in an
administrative division, as happened under the Ottomans and apparently
also under the Ayyubid and the Mamluk.
The fact that the word refer to some ancient people whose connection with
the actual Arab dwellers of the land has as much importance as "Jerusalem"
having derived from the Jebusites, or "Portugal" from the elusive Calaics.
>> does not mean that you can distort history has you have been doing
>> recklessly: denying the existence of the Jund Filastin; denying the
>> regular use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to
>> describe the region; denying the existence of the concept of a
>> Palestinian Nation before WWI; and other similar imbecilities.
>
> I don't agree with everything Sharavi wrote, but your paragraph above
> contains a number of historical "imbecilities".
Let's see, then, what they are:
> Jund Filastin
> literally meant "the army or military district of Palestine", and its
> capital was first at Lod then at Ramle (never Jerusalem!), and it had
> completely different borders from the later 1923-1947 British mandate
> territory. This internal administrative subdivision called Filastin
> existed as a small backwater province during the early Arab Caliphate
> period from the 7th century AD to the 11th century AD, but it was
> pretty much wiped off the map by the Turkish invasion of 1071 and the
> Crusades which followed soon after.
Here you confirm my first statement, "the existence of the Jund Filastin".
> The name Palestine was NOT used
> for any official internal administrative subdivision during the
> Ottoman period (the 400 years preceding 1917), and during the
> nineteenth century the word "Palestine" was in fact more frequently
> used by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area.
And here you support my second statement, "the regular use of "Filastin"
all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to describe the region", though
noting that it's use was more frequent in the West than among local
populations, which I don't deny.
> Furthermore the idea of a "Palestinian nation" would have then seemed
> ludicrous -- the term "Palestine" was in fact a semi-obsolescent
> toponym in the Arabic language at the time (a terminological relic of
> the early Caliphate period), and the inhabitants of the geographical
> region formerly known as "Palestine" didn't then consider themselves
> to belong to a "Palestinian nation" any more than inhabitants of Iowa
> today consider themselves to belong to an "Iowan nation".
>
> The old tendency was to consider themselves as part of the Islamic
> "nation" (umma) or Ottoman nation, while the rising new intellectual
> tendency was to consider themselves as part of the pan-Arab "nation"
> (qawm). Local separatist nationalism was not then greatly in fashion,
> except perhaps in a few countries which had already achieved some
> degree of independence and separate national identity (such as Egypt).
It seems that the only "historical imbecility" that you found on my
statements was "the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
before WWI". This is, however, an historical fact, as I've demonstrated on
previous posts using the work of two recognized scholars on this area,
Yehoshua Porath and Rashid Khalidi, and will repeat again here after two
short comments about your statements above on this specific point.
You have some point, when comparing Palestine on the timeframe that goes
from the Romans to the Ottomans, with an American state, but note that
American States are entities with 3 centuries of history, while people
have been establishing on the land of Palestine for many thousand years.
On this situation, it is inevitable that a strong identity would arise and
take form, even if it seldom took the form of a politicaly independent
identity, especially on later times. This can be seen on local traditions,
folklore, ethnography, local idiomas, etc. that have been covered by many
scholars, including, of course, Israelis.
You are also correct on saying that Palestinians "consider[ed] themselves
as part of the Islamic "nation" (umma) or Ottoman nation". However, you
can't see this as the only "national" concept on existence among local
populations: There were many others, as the Islamic nation, the Syrian
nation, the "local village" nation, and they all coexisted peacefully not
competing with each other, but rather being adopted as the times would
demand. This is why, for instance, you assist to a shift for national call
for Greater Syria in 1919-20, when previously it has been for Palestine;
and in 1921 Greater Syria is forgoten and Palestine is again everywhere.
This does not mean that Palestine was forgoten, it was only less visible,
and sometimes both expressions "Palestine" and "Southern Syria" were used
on the same newspaper to define the same region, without any conflicting
logic when you look at the context.
If you have an interest on this, I recommend the chapter by Rashid Khalidi
on the book I mention below.
Follows the refutation of the single "historical imbecility" you could
find on my statements.
According to Yehoshua Porath, Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
"the administrative experiments and facts mentioned here, especially the
elevated position of the sanjaq of Jerusalem (which lasted for almost half
a century), doubtless contributed to the emergence of the concept of
Palestine as an administrative entity."
"at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already
widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of
Palestine or the Jerusalem sanjaq alone."
Yehoshua Porath, 1918-1929: 'Abd al-Wahhab Kayyali, Ta'rikh Filastin
al-Hadith, (Beirut, 1970)
(trans. as Palestine: A Modern History, London, 1978);
Quoted by Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The
Critical Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle
East", Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University
Press, New York 1997
The above mentioned article by Rashid Khalidi also mentions "Filastin", a
newspaper established in Jaffa in 1911 by the cousins 'Isa and Yusuf
al-'Isa, which is "indicative of the local patriotism that inspired their
establishment", as well as the broadly accepted concept of Palestine as a
region with a proper identity under the Ottomans.
Quoting from Khalidi:
"One of the clearest and earliest prewar examples of this conception of
Palestine as a land under threat from the Zionist movement, and of the
Palestinians as an entity, can be seen from the opening words of a special
issue of the Jaffa newspaper Filastin entitled "An Open Letter to
Subscribers." In it, the editors commented sarcastically on a failed
attempt by the Ottoman authorities to close down the newspaper in May 1914
in response to their published attacks on the Zionist movement: "Dear
readers, it seems we have done something serious in the view of the
central government in warning the Palestinian nation [al-umma
al-filastiniyya] [my italics] of the danger which threatens it from the
Zionist current." [21] As significant as the sentiment that Palestine
was endangered by Zionism, was the use of the term "Palestinian nation" in
this context. Perhaps equally significant, Yusuf and 'Isa al-'Isa fought
the government closure in local court, won, and were carried from the
courtroom on the shoulders of a delirious throng of well-wishers. [22]"
Note 21: Filastin special issue (described on the masthead as closed by
order of the Ministry of the Interior, an order that this issue was
presumably defying), 7 Nisan 1330/May 1914, 1. For details of this affair,
see Khalidi, British Policy, 356-357.
Note 22: Ibid.; a French consular official, commenting on this incident,
remarked that it indicated widespread opposition to Zionism among the
urban population of Palestine.
It is more than clear that Palestine was, indeed, a deeply rooted and well
understood concept under the Ottomans, and it was often refered by the
name "Filastin", either by local populations and the Ottoman rulers.
dsha...@hotmail.com
>>>Let's say we want a
>>>country by the name BlaBla for the people that were living on the lands
>>>of actual israel for hundreds of years; that way we dismiss your
>>>irrelevant arguments about names and labels.
>>If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have gone to
>>such pains to make them.
Paulo Gomes Jardim wrote:
>The fact that these arguments are irrelevant to Palestinian Nationalism
Your sidedodge into so-called "Palestinian Nationalism" is the
irrelevaniy here, sonny. The point of the post - which, naturally, like
the incompetent coward you are, you snipped was:
"So-called "Canaanites" (pre-Israelite inhabitants of Israel)
were a mixed bag of Indo-European invaders from Anatolia, who
overwhelmed the earlier Chalcolithic peoples and whose subsequent
civilization, such as it may have been, was in turn subsumed by
Hurrians (non-Semitic, non-Indo-European), Hittites (non-Semitic,
Indo-European), Amorites (Semitic speakers), and Egyptians. At the time
of the Israelite invasion, they were ruled by Egypt."
Can't address that, can you? Big unsurprise.
>does not mean that you can distort history has you have been doing
>recklessly:
Post your proof I have been "distorting history" recklessly or
otherwise. You can start by correcting the above paragraph.
>denying the existence of the Jund Filastin;
Post your proof I denied "the existence of the Jund Filastin: nice to
see you finally corrected your spelling from "Jung Filastin".
>deying the regular use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period
Post your proof I denied any "regular use of 'Filastin' all over the
Mamluk and Ottoman period". Then post your proof that the Mameluks used
Filastin with any regularity. Ditto the Ottomans.
>denying the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
>before WWI;
I never denied any "concept of a Palestinian Nation" prior to the first
world war. It didn't exist.
>claiming that Jordan is Palestine;
Jordan is appx 77% of the original Palestine Mandate. In fact, both
King Abdullah and King Hussein stated that Jordan was Palestine.
>and other similar imbecilities.
The only imbecilities here are your posts, moron.
>Fact is that you and your Zionist ilk, you are the ones that imply that
>the name is something of an utter importance, when you use it as part of
>your argument for the well known Golda Meir style revisionism about the
>alleged non existance of Palestinians.
Wrong again: Golda never denied the existence of Palestinians; your
regurgitation of stale Palliebull shows the source of your
imbecilities.
>This is a fight that you have lost from its very start, and I should
>perhaps be ashamed of spanking the dumby, but since some people seem to
>actually believe your nonsense, I believe it is worth it.
Funny how ignorant antisemites like Pancho here always adopt the
adversarial verbiage of some kind of "fight", then claim that their
imaginary "fight" is one the person they are attempting to contradict
has lost, and they have won. Sounds more like a denial of impotence,
mental or otherwise.
Deborah
dsha...@hotmail.com
>>>>>Let's say we want a country by the name BlaBla for the people that
>>>>>were living on the lands of actual israel for hundreds of years;
>>>>>that way we dismiss your irrelevant arguments about names and
>>>>>labels.
>>>>If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have gone
>>>>to such pains to make them.
>>"Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net>wrote:
>>>The fact that these arguments are irrelevant to Palestinian Nationalism
>On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com>wrote:
>>On the contrary, lies about so-called "Historic Palestine"[sic] seem
>>to be highly essential to Palestinian nationalism -- or PLO spokesmen
>>and propagandists wouldn't intone them with such mechanical rote
>>regularity!
Paulo Gomes Jardim wrote:
>I don't know what kind of "lies" you are talking about, thus I can't infer
>the valiidity of that claim.
You ought to know the lies Anon is talking about; you repeat them
regularly.
>What is clear to me is that Palestinian Nationalism, as many other
>Nationalist movements worldwide, was formed during the 19th century,
>and it was already very evident on the deceny before WWI,
That is only "clear" to you because you haven't a clue what
you're talking about. There was no "Palestinian Nationalist"
movement during the 19thC, and it most certainly was not "very
evident" before WWI. And what, exactly, is a "deceny"?
>as anyone can see by
>looking at articles on Palestinian newspapers of the time, such as
>"Filastin" and "Al Karmel".
And you have looked at these so-called "Palestinian newspapers of the
time"? Do give your source.
These papers were founded less as expressions of any so-called
"Palestinian nationalism", and much more as expressions of Arab
opposition to Jewish land purchases.
"Al-Karmil" was founded in Haifa in 1908 for the purpose of opposing
Zionism.
In 1910, al-Karmil, along with Arab papers in Beirut and Damascus, were
expressing opposition to Zionist land purchases in Palestine.
"Filastin" was cofounded in 1911 in Jaffa by Yusuf and Al-Isa Daoud
(1878-1950), also in strong opposition to the Zionist movement, and
Jewish land purchases in Palestine, which it portrayed as a threat to
the Umma al-Falastin. "Umma" here does NOT mean any "Nation of
Palestine", as Palliebull sources translate.
Rashid Khalidi makes reference to a May 1914 Filastin editorial in
Palestinian Identity (1997) in which the editors attack the Ottoman
government for its "attempts" to shut down the paper , allegedly
for its opposition to Zionism and Jewish land purchases.
In 1927, Filastin called on Arab workers to quit Jewish unions and form
their own Arab labor organizations.
"Filastin" was also the name of a Jordanian paper, which commented
in an editorial of 19th February 1949: "The Arab States encouraged the
Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of
the way of the Arab invasion armies."
"Filastin al-Thawra" was also the name of one of the PLO's
mouthpieces.
>I have mentioned many examples of this on previous posts.
Your unsourced "examples" are your unqualified opinions.
>Palestinians - or whatever you want to call them - adopted the word
>"Filastin" to rally people around the Nationalistic ideology, not because
>it was used in the West as is claimed by Zionist revisionists, but because
>it had a tradition in the region, either in some oral tradition and in
>literature, and it was the word that best described the regional entity
>that we also knew as Palestine in the West.
Not in the 19thC they didn't. In 1937, attorney Auni Bey al-Hadi of
the Arab Higher Committee told the Peel commission, "There is no such
country. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no
Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
>Unless you are a fanatic revisionist, you can't deny the existence of an
>"Historic Palestine",
One can certainly deny the existence of the distorted Palliebull
"Historic Palestine". No such entity as Pallies falsely claim ever
existed.
>when the designation was not reflected in an
>administrative division, as happened under the Ottomans
No such administrative division existed under the Ottoman empire.
>and apparently also under the Ayyubid and the Mamluk.
Anon gave you the proper designation under the Ayyubids. You have no
evidence for any such designation under the Mameluks, who arrived long
after the Ayyubids had been conquered by the Seljuks, and the Seljuks
conquered by Europeans. Apparently you snipped Anon's facts before
you could absorb them, if you are capable of absorbing facts. Here is
Anon again:
AnonMoos <anon...@io.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500
Subject: Re: hmmm. israel from 1250 bc to 135 ad. vs palestinians in
palestine from 135 til' 1947.
>The fact that the word refer to some ancient people whose connection with
>the actual Arab dwellers of the land has as much importance as "Jerusalem"
>having derived from the Jebusites, or "Portugal" from the elusive Calaics.
Wrong again. Jerusalem does not derive from the biblical
"Jebusites". Jerusalem is Rushalimum, Rushlamem, and Rushramem in
the Egyptian Execration Texts, Urusalim and Ershalem in the Amarna
correspondence, and Yerushalayim in the bible. "Jebusites" (Yevusi)
do not exist outside the bible, nor does the biblical designation
"Jebus"(Yevus) indicate Jerusalem. The misidentification of
Jerusalem with Jebus is due to the lack of clarity in the biblical
texts. What was actually meant by meant by the "shoulder of the Yevusi"
[Josh 14.8]is probably the ridge north of Shafat.
>>>does not mean that you can distort history has you have been doing
>>>recklessly: denying the existence of the Jund Filastin; denying the
>>>regular use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to
>>>describe the region; denying the existence of the concept of a
>>>Palestinian Nation before WWI; and other similar imbecilities.
>>I don't agree with everything Sharavi wrote, but your paragraph above
>>contains a number of historical "imbecilities".
>Let's see, then, what they are:
>>Jund Filastin
>>literally meant "the army or military district of Palestine", and its
>>capital was first at Lod then at Ramle (never Jerusalem!), and it had
>>completely different borders from the later 1923-1947 British mandate
>>territory. This internal administrative subdivision called Filastin
>>existed as a small backwater province during the early Arab Caliphate
>>period from the 7th century AD to the 11th century AD, but it was
>>pretty much wiped off the map by the Turkish invasion of 1071 and the
>>Crusades which followed soon after.
>Here you confirm my first statement, "the existence of the Jund Filastin".
Rubbish. Anon puts your "Jund Filastin" - which you mistakenly
called the Jung Filastin several times - in its proper designation.
It does not relate to anything you claimed for your "Jung
Filastin", and gives the lie to your claim that it was used in
Mameluk times.
>>The name Palestine was NOT used
>>for any official internal administrative subdivision during the
>>Ottoman period (the 400 years preceding 1917), and during the
>>nineteenth century the word "Palestine" was in fact more frequently
>>used by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area.
>And here you support my second statement, "the regular use of "Filastin"
>all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to describe the region", though
>noting that it's use was more frequent in the West than among local
>populations, which I don't deny.
Wrong again. If you weren't as stupid as you are, you might have seen
that Anon does NOT support your bullshit about any "regular use"
for your "Jung Filastin". He states clearly above that it was
"pretty much wiped off the map by the Turkish invasion of 1071 and
the Crusades which followed soon after", ergo, it was not, as you
claim, in any "regular use" "all over the Mamluk and Ottoman
periods."
You DO know when the "Mameluk period" was, don't you? Your posts
indicate otherwise.
>>Furthermore the idea of a "Palestinian nation" would have then seemed
>>ludicrous -- the term "Palestine" was in fact a semi-obsolescent
>>toponym in the Arabic language at the time (a terminological relic of
>>the early Caliphate period), and the inhabitants of the geographical
>>region formerly known as "Palestine" didn't then consider themselves
>>to belong to a "Palestinian nation" any more than inhabitants of Iowa
>>today consider themselves to belong to an "Iowan nation".
>>The old tendency was to consider themselves as part of the Islamic
>>"nation" (umma) or Ottoman nation, while the rising new intellectual
>>tendency was to consider themselves as part of the pan-Arab "nation"
>>(qawm). Local separatist nationalism was not then greatly in fashion,
>>except perhaps in a few countries which had already achieved some
>>degree of independence and separate national identity (such as Egypt).
>It seems that the only "historical imbecility" that you found on my
>statements was "the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
>before WWI". This is, however, an historical fact, as I've demonstrated on
>previous posts using the work of two recognized scholars on this area,
>Yehoshua Porath and Rashid Khalidi,
You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort, and your claim that
you used Porath is another of your lies, as is your claim that Khalidi
is some kind of "recognized scholars". He's a propagandist, from
the Arab family which brought you Hussein Khalidi of the Deir Yassin
fabricated atrocity stories and Walid Khalidi of the numerous
fabrications on various Palliebull sites. At least we now know the
source of your claim that some kind of "Palestinian Nationalism"
emerged prior to WWI, since you were too dishonest to post your source.
You fail to note that Khalidi makes his bogus claim based upon Arab
opposition to sale of land to Jews by absentee Arab landlords-the
sole basis for the establishment of the two Arab papers which you
stupidly claimed evidence Khalidi's pre-WWI "Palestinian
Nationalism". They didn't, and it didn't. It emerged later as a
response to "Jewish Nationalism" as evidenced by Zionism.
>and will repeat again here after two
>short comments about your statements above on this specific point.
>You have some point, when comparing Palestine on the timeframe that goes
> from the Romans to the Ottomans, with an American state, but note that
>American States are entities with 3 centuries of history, while people
>have been establishing on the land of Palestine for many thousand years.
>On this situation, it is inevitable that a strong identity would arise and
>take form, even if it seldom took the form of a politicaly independent
>identity, especially on later times. This can be seen on local traditions,
>folklore, ethnography, local idiomas, etc. that have been covered by many
>scholars, including, of course, Israelis.
What a load of crap.
[flush]
>According to Yehoshua Porath, Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at
>the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
>"the administrative experiments and facts mentioned here, especially the
>elevated position of the sanjaq of Jerusalem (which lasted for almost half
>a century), doubtless contributed to the emergence of the concept of
>Palestine as an administrative entity."
>"at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already
>widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of
>Palestine or the Jerusalem sanjaq alone."
>Yehoshua Porath, 1918-1929: 'Abd al-Wahhab Kayyali, Ta'rikh Filastin
>al-Hadith, (Beirut, 1970)
>(trans. as Palestine: A Modern History, London, 1978);
>Quoted by Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The
>Critical Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle
>East", Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University
>Press, New York 1997
IOW, Porath was NOT one of your sources; a reworked quote of his via
Khalidi was. Good to see you admit one of your lies.
>The above mentioned article by Rashid Khalidi also mentions "Filastin", a
>newspaper established in Jaffa in 1911 by the cousins 'Isa and Yusuf
>al-'Isa, which is "indicative of the local patriotism that inspired their
>establishment", as well as the broadly accepted concept of Palestine as a
>region with a proper identity under the Ottomans.
See above. Al-Filastin was cofounded by Yusuf and Isa Daoud for the
same reasons Al Karmil was founded: opposition to Jewish land purchases
>Quoting from Khalidi:
>"One of the clearest and earliest prewar examples of this conception of
>Palestine as a land under threat from the Zionist movement, and of the
>Palestinians as an entity, can be seen from the opening words of a special
>issue of the Jaffa newspaper Filastin entitled "An Open Letter to
>Subscribers." In it, the editors commented sarcastically on a failed
>attempt by the Ottoman authorities to close down the newspaper in May 1914
>in response to their published attacks on the Zionist movement: "Dear
>readers, it seems we have done something serious in the view of the
>central government in warning the Palestinian nation [al-umma
>al-filastiniyya] [my italics] of the danger which threatens it from the
>Zionist current." [21] As significant as the sentiment that Palestine
>was endangered by Zionism, was the use of the term "Palestinian nation" in
>this context. Perhaps equally significant, Yusuf and 'Isa al-'Isa
Yusuf and Isa Daoud. Typical Khalidi bullshit spin; the basis of the
editors' attacks was Jewish land purchases from Arab landowners.
How great a circulation these Arab papers may have had is unknown,
since the Muslim Arab inhabitants of Palestine were largely illiterate.
>It is more than clear that Palestine was, indeed, a deeply rooted and well
>understood concept under the Ottomans, and it was often refered by the
>name "Filastin", either by local populations and the Ottoman rulers.
That is not clear at all, except to an ignorant liar like Pancho here,
who is too cowardly to admit he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Another clown sorely in need of taking to heart the advice: 'Ne petez
pas plus haute que votre cul'.
Deborah
Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
> That is only "clear" to you because you haven't a clue what
> you're talking about. There was no "Palestinian Nationalist"
> movement during the 19thC, and it most certainly was not "very
> evident" before WWI.
I've presented sound evidence that there was indeed a vibrant Palestinian
National movement before WWI, whose formation had begun during the WWI.
I further direct you to the works of Yehoshua Porath on "The Palestinian
National Movement".
> And what, exactly, is a "deceny"?
It's the Portenglish for "decade".
>> as anyone can see by
>> looking at articles on Palestinian newspapers of the time, such as
>> "Filastin" and "Al Karmel".
>
> And you have looked at these so-called "Palestinian newspapers of the
> time"? Do give your source.
My source is the mentioned chapter by Rashid Khalidi, as perfectly stated:
Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The Critical
Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle East",
Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University Press, New
York 1997
Have you any sort of problem with reading, Debbie?
> These papers were founded less as expressions of any so-called
> "Palestinian nationalism", and much more as expressions of Arab
> opposition to Jewish land purchases.
> "Al-Karmil" was founded in Haifa in 1908 for the purpose of opposing
> Zionism.
>
> In 1910, al-Karmil, along with Arab papers in Beirut and Damascus, were
> expressing opposition to Zionist land purchases in Palestine.
Zionism certainly was the main catalyzer for the pre-existing Palestinian
Nationalism, thus your claim that they were more one thing than another is
nonsense.
They were both at the same time.
> "Filastin" was cofounded in 1911 in Jaffa by Yusuf and Al-Isa Daoud
> (1878-1950), also in strong opposition to the Zionist movement, and
> Jewish land purchases in Palestine, which it portrayed as a threat to
> the Umma al-Falastin. "Umma" here does NOT mean any "Nation of
> Palestine", as Palliebull sources translate.
You claim that Rashid Khalidi, a well known authority on the Near East and
Palestinian Nationalism, is "Palliebull".
But who are you, Deborah?
You are no one.
> Rashid Khalidi makes reference to a May 1914 Filastin editorial in
> Palestinian Identity (1997) in which the editors attack the Ottoman
> government for its "attempts" to shut down the paper , allegedly
> for its opposition to Zionism and Jewish land purchases.
So...?
> In 1927, Filastin called on Arab workers to quit Jewish unions and form
> their own Arab labor organizations.
So...?
[snipped irrelevant stuff about Jordanian and PLO newspapers]
>> I have mentioned many examples of this on previous posts.
>
> Your unsourced "examples" are your unqualified opinions.
What are you talking about?
>> Palestinians - or whatever you want to call them - adopted the word
>> "Filastin" to rally people around the Nationalistic ideology, not
>> because
>> it was used in the West as is claimed by Zionist revisionists, but
>> because
>> it had a tradition in the region, either in some oral tradition and in
>> literature, and it was the word that best described the regional entity
>> that we also knew as Palestine in the West.
>
> Not in the 19thC they didn't. In 1937, attorney Auni Bey al-Hadi of
> the Arab Higher Committee told the Peel commission, "There is no such
> country. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no
> Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
Who cares about what Auni Bey al-Hadi, who BTW had a clear pro-Syria
agenda, has said.
His statement is clearly false on face of the evidence I've presented.
>> Unless you are a fanatic revisionist, you can't deny the existence of an
>> "Historic Palestine",
>
> One can certainly deny the existence of the distorted Palliebull
> "Historic Palestine". No such entity as Pallies falsely claim ever
> existed.
I never said you were not a fanatic revisionist, Debbie.
You just proved my statement above. :)
>> when the designation was not reflected in an
>> administrative division, as happened under the Ottomans
>
> No such administrative division existed under the Ottoman empire.
Why are you repeating what I wrote?
>> and apparently also under the Ayyubid and the Mamluk.
>
> Anon gave you the proper designation under the Ayyubids. You have no
No, he didn't.
He not even mentioned the Ayyubid on his post.
> evidence for any such designation under the Mameluks, who arrived long
> after the Ayyubids had been conquered by the Seljuks, and the Seljuks
> conquered by Europeans. Apparently you snipped Anon's facts before
I have not snipped any part of Anon post.
Anyone can go back and see.
> you could absorb them, if you are capable of absorbing facts. Here is
> Anon again:
Read for yourself, cretin Debbie, and tell me where Anon makes any
reference to the Ayyubid.
Nor he had to make one, in order to pass his point.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
>>> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net>wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com>wrote:
>
>> The fact that the word refer to some ancient people whose connection
>> with
>> the actual Arab dwellers of the land has as much importance as
>> "Jerusalem"
>> having derived from the Jebusites, or "Portugal" from the elusive
>> Calaics.
>
> Wrong again. Jerusalem does not derive from the biblical
What is wrong? For all that is known, it may as well be Jebus.
Furthermore, recent archaelogic findings have nothing to do with the fact
that Jerusalem is for long associated with Jebus, the city of the
Jebusites, and the Jews had no problem with that.
If indeed "Rushalimum" refers to the city we now know as Jerusalem, and if
it indeed means "the City of Shalem", being Shalen a Pagan deity, the case
is even worst. How can Jews argue against the choice of "Palestine" as a
name, when their capital city is named after a Pagan god?
> "Jebusites". Jerusalem is Rushalimum, Rushlamem, and Rushramem in
> the Egyptian Execration Texts, Urusalim and Ershalem in the Amarna
> correspondence, and Yerushalayim in the bible. "Jebusites" (Yevusi)
> do not exist outside the bible, nor does the biblical designation
> "Jebus"(Yevus) indicate Jerusalem. The misidentification of
> Jerusalem with Jebus is due to the lack of clarity in the biblical
> texts. What was actually meant by meant by the "shoulder of the Yevusi"
> [Josh 14.8]is probably the ridge north of Shafat.
--
Paulo Gomes Jardim
>>> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net>wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com>wrote:
[..]
>>>> does not mean that you can distort history has you have been doing
>>>> recklessly: denying the existence of the Jund Filastin; denying the
>>>> regular use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to
>>>> describe the region; denying the existence of the concept of a
>>>> Palestinian Nation before WWI; and other similar imbecilities.
>
>>> I don't agree with everything Sharavi wrote, but your paragraph above
>>> contains a number of historical "imbecilities".
>
>> Let's see, then, what they are:
>
>>> Jund Filastin
>>> literally meant "the army or military district of Palestine", and its
>>> capital was first at Lod then at Ramle (never Jerusalem!), and it had
>>> completely different borders from the later 1923-1947 British mandate
>>> territory. This internal administrative subdivision called Filastin
>>> existed as a small backwater province during the early Arab Caliphate
>>> period from the 7th century AD to the 11th century AD, but it was
>>> pretty much wiped off the map by the Turkish invasion of 1071 and the
>>> Crusades which followed soon after.
>
>> Here you confirm my first statement, "the existence of the Jund
>> Filastin".
>
> Rubbish. Anon puts your "Jund Filastin" - which you mistakenly
> called the Jung Filastin several times - in its proper designation.
> It does not relate to anything you claimed for your "Jung
> Filastin", and gives the lie to your claim that it was used in
> Mameluk times.
As I said I asked for an informed opinion on the subject, and it seems
that while the Mamluks apparently didn't used "Filastin" to name any
district, the term was indeed in usage to describe the region, namely on
Juridic, Historical and Q'ranic literature.
This it can be argued that the Ottomans anexed the "Land of Filastin" when
they defeated the Mamluks, as it can be argued that they anexed the "Land
of Israel".
>>> The name Palestine was NOT used
>>> for any official internal administrative subdivision during the
>>> Ottoman period (the 400 years preceding 1917), and during the
>>> nineteenth century the word "Palestine" was in fact more frequently
>>> used by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area.
>
>> And here you support my second statement, "the regular use of "Filastin"
>> all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to describe the region", though
>> noting that it's use was more frequent in the West than among local
>> populations, which I don't deny.
>
> Wrong again. If you weren't as stupid as you are, you might have seen
> that Anon does NOT support your bullshit about any "regular use"
> for your "Jung Filastin". He states clearly above that it was
> "pretty much wiped off the map by the Turkish invasion of 1071 and
> the Crusades which followed soon after", ergo, it was not, as you
> claim, in any "regular use" "all over the Mamluk and Ottoman
> periods."
Your problem seems to be with the "regular" bit.
> You DO know when the "Mameluk period" was, don't you? Your posts
> indicate otherwise.
I wonder why do you have this impression.
The Mamluk period is perhaps the most obscure in the History of Palestine
since the Romans, and few is known about the way they administrated the
region, apart from the fact that changes and redrawings of the districts
had often took place.
It is natural that disparaging opinions can exist relating to the
distribution and designations of these districts. On the answers I have
received from Israeli scholars about this subject I've seen 2 different
versions of the Mamluk administration, and apparently some more may exist.
It is clear, however, from your former answers, that you usually make a
huge confusion with everything that occured between the Abassids and the
Ottomans. This is evident from your comments about the Crusader rule,
which is a well known and documented period. You have no excuse to make
such lame claims about Crusader "districts", or join the two Latin
Kingdoms of Jerusalem into one as you have done.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
>>> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net>wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com>wrote:
[..]
>>> Furthermore the idea of a "Palestinian nation" would have then seemed
>>> ludicrous -- the term "Palestine" was in fact a semi-obsolescent
>>> toponym in the Arabic language at the time (a terminological relic of
>>> the early Caliphate period), and the inhabitants of the geographical
>>> region formerly known as "Palestine" didn't then consider themselves
>>> to belong to a "Palestinian nation" any more than inhabitants of Iowa
>>> today consider themselves to belong to an "Iowan nation".
>
>>> The old tendency was to consider themselves as part of the Islamic
>>> "nation" (umma) or Ottoman nation, while the rising new intellectual
>>> tendency was to consider themselves as part of the pan-Arab "nation"
>>> (qawm). Local separatist nationalism was not then greatly in fashion,
>>> except perhaps in a few countries which had already achieved some
>>> degree of independence and separate national identity (such as Egypt).
>
>> It seems that the only "historical imbecility" that you found on my
>> statements was "the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
>> before WWI". This is, however, an historical fact, as I've demonstrated
>> on
>> previous posts using the work of two recognized scholars on this area,
>> Yehoshua Porath and Rashid Khalidi,
>
> You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort, and your claim that
> you used Porath is another of your lies, as is your claim that Khalidi
Here is the quote:
"This bears out Schölch's statement that "the administrative experiments
and facts mentioned here, especially the elevated position of the sanjaq
of Jerusalem (which lasted for almost half a century), doubtless
contributed to the emergence of the concept of Palestine as an
administrative entity." [13] Porath goes further: "at the end of the
Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already widespread among the
educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of Palestine or the
Jerusalem sanjaq alone." [14] This resulting local consciousness of
Palestine as a discrete entity, based on religious tradition and
long-standing administrative practice, was only enhanced by the fact that
foreigners also saw it as such."
Note 13: In his [Schölch] posthumous work, translated into English as
Palestine in Transformation, 1856-1882: Studies in Social, Economic, and
Political Development (Washington, D.C., 1993), 15.
Note 14: Porath, 1918-1929: 'Abd al-Wahhab Kayyali, Ta'rikh Filastin
al-Hadith, (Beirut, 1970)
(trans. as Palestine: A Modern History, London, 1978), pag. 8-9
From:
Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The Critical
Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle East",
Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University Press, New
York 1997
Upon reviewing the source, I noted that the first statement was not from
Porath, but from Alexander Schölch, a professor of contemporary Middle
Eastern history at the University of Erlange, Germany. While apologizing
for the mistake, I note that now you have an aditional source to refute.
> is some kind of "recognized scholars". He's a propagandist, from
> the Arab family which brought you Hussein Khalidi of the Deir Yassin
> fabricated atrocity stories and Walid Khalidi of the numerous
> fabrications on various Palliebull sites.
I'm well aware of the witch hunt that has been moved against Rashit
Khalidi and other academic scholars working in the Middle East area by
various Zionist and pro-Zionist US organizations.
However, anyone can read Khalidi's work and find for himself.
But you, Deborah, you are no one.
Of course you can have your opinion, but it doesn't matter the least.
> At least we now know the
> source of your claim that some kind of "Palestinian Nationalism"
> emerged prior to WWI, since you were too dishonest to post your source.
I've posted it.
Anyone can go back and see for himself.
> You fail to note that Khalidi makes his bogus claim based upon Arab
> opposition to sale of land to Jews by absentee Arab landlords-the
No, he makes his claim based on quotes from these newspapers.
> sole basis for the establishment of the two Arab papers which you
This is just your opinion, and since you are no authority on this area, I
don't accept it more than you would accept Chris Carpenter opinions about
the Holocaust.
> stupidly claimed evidence Khalidi's pre-WWI "Palestinian
> Nationalism". They didn't, and it didn't. It emerged later as a
> response to "Jewish Nationalism" as evidenced by Zionism.
According to Khalidi it existed well before Zionism.
He states, as "elements that caused the Arab population of the country to
identify with Palestine before World War I":
- "...a religious attachment to Palestine as a holy land on the part of
Muslims and Christians;...";
- The increased autonomy and importance of the sanjak of Jerusalem, and
the old tradition of Filastin as an administrative district under the Arab
rule;
- The pressures of European Imperialism on the region;
- "strong tradition of what might be called urban patriotism in the cities
of Palestine".
Therefore, "the reaction of the Palestinian Arabs to modern political
Zionism drew upon all these preexisting elements: religious attachment to
what both Muslim and Christians believed was a holy land, the conception
of Palestine as an administrative entity, the fear of external
encroachment, and local patriotism.".
[..]
>> According to Yehoshua Porath, Professor Emeritus of Middle East History
>> at
>> the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
>> "the administrative experiments and facts mentioned here, especially the
>> elevated position of the sanjaq of Jerusalem (which lasted for almost
>> half
>> a century), doubtless contributed to the emergence of the concept of
>> Palestine as an administrative entity."
>> "at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already
>> widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of
>> Palestine or the Jerusalem sanjaq alone."
>> Yehoshua Porath, 1918-1929: 'Abd al-Wahhab Kayyali, Ta'rikh Filastin
>> al-Hadith, (Beirut, 1970)
>> (trans. as Palestine: A Modern History, London, 1978);
>> Quoted by Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The
>> Critical Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab
>> Middle
>> East", Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University
>> Press, New York 1997
>
> IOW, Porath was NOT one of your sources; a reworked quote of his via
> Khalidi was. Good to see you admit one of your lies.
Then I am lying AND telling the truth at the same time?
You are stupid or what, Deborah?
It is evident from what is writen above that it was "quoted by Rashid
Khalidi".
You definitively have a comprehension problem.
>> The above mentioned article by Rashid Khalidi also mentions "Filastin",
>> a
>> newspaper established in Jaffa in 1911 by the cousins 'Isa and Yusuf
>> al-'Isa, which is "indicative of the local patriotism that inspired
>> their
>> establishment", as well as the broadly accepted concept of Palestine as
>> a
>> region with a proper identity under the Ottomans.
>
> See above. Al-Filastin was cofounded by Yusuf and Isa Daoud for the
> same reasons Al Karmil was founded: opposition to Jewish land purchases
Amazingly, however, they have chosen the name "Filastin" for the newspaper!
Can you imagine what they have used it, Deborah?
Could it be, perhaps, because Palestinian Nationalism already existed?
>> Quoting from Khalidi:
>> "One of the clearest and earliest prewar examples of this conception of
>> Palestine as a land under threat from the Zionist movement, and of the
>> Palestinians as an entity, can be seen from the opening words of a
>> special
>> issue of the Jaffa newspaper Filastin entitled "An Open Letter to
>> Subscribers." In it, the editors commented sarcastically on a failed
>> attempt by the Ottoman authorities to close down the newspaper in May
>> 1914
>> in response to their published attacks on the Zionist movement: "Dear
>> readers, it seems we have done something serious in the view of the
>> central government in warning the Palestinian nation [al-umma
>> al-filastiniyya] [my italics] of the danger which threatens it from the
>> Zionist current." [21] As significant as the sentiment that Palestine
>> was endangered by Zionism, was the use of the term "Palestinian nation"
>> in
>> this context. Perhaps equally significant, Yusuf and 'Isa al-'Isa
>
> Yusuf and Isa Daoud. Typical Khalidi bullshit spin; the basis of the
> editors' attacks was Jewish land purchases from Arab landowners.
That's not the point.
They use "al-umma al-filastiniyya" to refer to their land.
Spin it as you want, the result will still be the same.
> How great a circulation these Arab papers may have had is unknown,
> since the Muslim Arab inhabitants of Palestine were largely illiterate.
As Deborah lost teh "newspaper" argument, now she attempts to diminish it
by casting doubts on its impact. The answer to this is on the above quote,
indeed: It was important enough for the Ottomans to attempt to close it
down, which they finally achieved later in the year.
>> It is more than clear that Palestine was, indeed, a deeply rooted and
>> well
>> understood concept under the Ottomans, and it was often refered by the
>> name "Filastin", either by local populations and the Ottoman rulers.
>
> That is not clear at all, except to an ignorant liar like Pancho here,
> who is too cowardly to admit he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> Another clown sorely in need of taking to heart the advice: 'Ne petez
> pas plus haute que votre cul'.
Anyone can check my sources and confirm what I say.
However, so far, on this issue, you've presented nothing more than your
sorry opinion.
That doesn't count nothing, Deborah.
AnonMoos
>On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>>"Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>On 31 May 2005 12:47:56 -0700, <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Flying Elephant" <monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote
>>>>> Let's say we want a country by the name BlaBla for the people
>>>>> that were living on the lands of actual israel for hundreds of
>>>>> years; that way we dismiss your irrelevant arguments about names
>>>>> and labels.
>>>> If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have
>>>> gone to such pains to make them.
>>> The fact that these arguments are irrelevant to Palestinian
>>> Nationalism
>> On the contrary, lies about so-called "Historic Palestine"[sic]
>> seem to be highly essential to Palestinian nationalism -- or PLO
>> spokesmen and propagandists wouldn't intone them with such
>> mechanical rote regularity!
> I don't know what kind of "lies" you are talking about,
Lies about how the post-WW1 British Mandate territory -- whose
boundaries were arbitrarily drawn on the map by British colonialists
after consulting with the French (not with the Arabs!), and whose name
"Palestine" was basically imported from Europe -- supposedly has some
substantial historical continuity or directly relevant connection with
pre-Ottoman Arab caliphal province of Palestine (Filastin).
> What is clear to me is that Palestinian Nationalism, as many other
> Nationalist movements worldwide, was formed during the 19th century,
Unfortunately, "that happens not to be the case" (as Lord Blaine
advised Kevin Renner to say...) -- during the 19th century, most of
the inhabitants of the area would have thought of themselves as being
Muslims or Christians first, and then probably as Ottoman subjects,
Arabs, and/or "Greater Syrians" (with local district or village
loyalties also somewhere in the mix). Extremely few of those living
there (except for a relatively small number of Christians influenced
by European concepts) would have thought of a "Palestinian" identity
as being of any particular importance.
So in the realm of ideology during the late 19th century, old-style
Muslim "ummah" nationalism and Ottoman state loyalism competed with
the new-fangled intellectual trend of pan-Arab nationalism, while some
relatively practical souls who didn't like the Egyptian royal family
and wanted the Levantines to free themselves from Turkish rule by
their own efforts favored action based on a "Greater Syrian" or
pan-Mashriq-except-Egypt ideology. Palestinian nationalism (in the
sense of the word "nationalism" which you have in mind) wasn't even a
contender at that time (see further below).
> and it was already very evident on the deceny
??
> before WWI, as anyone can see by looking at articles on Palestinian
> newspapers of the time, such as "Filastin" and "Al Karmel".
Yes, the founding of the newspaper Filastin (just a few years before
WW1) was one symptom that some Arabs living in the region were then
taking up the name Filastin from its former use mainly by Europeans
and a small minority of European-influenced Arab Christians, and were
sometimes even advocating a form of Palestinian "waTaniyyah".
Unfortunately, though the Arabic word waTan is often translated into
English as "nation", and waTani as "nationalist", these Arabic words
originally and primarily referred to one's birth region or home
region, without particular implications of sovereignty, independence,
or separate statehood. That's why the word waTani is translated in my
Arabic dictionary as "home, native, indigenous, domestic" as well as
"national, nationalistic, patriotic".
So if you are born in Vermont, you can be a proud Vermonter and
booster and advocate of all things in, of, and from Vermont, without
particularly wishing Vermont to secede from the United States.
Similarly, in the period before WW1, advocacy of a Palestinian "waTan"
could be a form of local district patriotism which thought of itself
as part of a larger movement against Ottoman Turkish rule -- and
wasn't particularly incompatible with wishing to be part of a
pan-Islamic state, wishing to be part of a pan-Arab state, or wishing
to be part of a Greater Syrian state.
>>> denying the existence of the Jund Filastin; denying the regular
>>> use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to
>>> describe the region; denying the existence of the concept of a
>>> Palestinian Nation before WWI; and other similar imbecilities.
>> Jund Filastin literally meant "the army or military district of
>> Palestine", and its capital was first at Lod then at Ramle (never
>> Jerusalem!), and it had completely different borders from the later
>> 1923-1947 British mandate territory. This internal administrative
>> subdivision called Filastin existed as a small backwater province
>> during the early Arab Caliphate period from the 7th century AD to
>> the 11th century AD, but it was pretty much wiped off the map by
>> the Turkish invasion of 1071 and the Crusades which followed soon
>> after.
> Here you confirm my first statement, "the existence of the Jund
> Filastin".
Yes, it existed as a small (and mostly not very significant) province
within the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Fatimid caliphal empires -- but
whether it has any substantial connection in Arab history with the
post-1917 British Mandate territory is quite another question!
Certainly Jund Filastin had completely different borders than the
British Mandate territory, as I mentioned above.
>> The name Palestine was NOT used for any official internal
>> administrative subdivision during the Ottoman period (the 400 years
>> preceding 1917), and during the nineteenth century the word
>> "Palestine" was in fact more frequently used by Europeans than by
>> the actual inhabitants of the area.
> And here you support my second statement, "the regular use of
> "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to describe the
> region",
Don't know about "all over"... As far as I can tell, the word Filastin
was used fitfully and sporadically in official terminology during the
Mamluk period, but was not part of official terminology at all during
the Ottoman period -- when it was in fact mostly a rather archaic
toponym, like "Gaul" for France, "Lusitania" for Portugal, "Illyria"
for southern coastal Yugoslavia, etc. etc. It presumably would have
remained in this state of semi-obsolescence (along with 'Iliya for
Jerusalem and a number of similarly-outdated Arabic names) if it hadn't
been for the fact that "Palestine" remained in use as a word in various
European languages.
> though noting that it's use was more frequent in the West than among
> local populations, which I don't deny.
Must be a funny kind of "nationalism" when the name of the nation is
used more frequently by foreigners than in the "nation" itself!
>> the idea of a "Palestinian nation" would have then [in the 19th
>> century] seemed ludicrous -- the term "Palestine" was in fact a
>> semi-obsolescent toponym in the Arabic language at the time (a
>> terminological relic of the early Caliphate period), and the
>> inhabitants of the geographical region formerly known as "Palestine"
>> didn't then consider themselves to belong to a "Palestinian nation"
>> any more than inhabitants of Iowa today consider themselves to
>> belong to an "Iowan nation". The old tendency was to consider
>> themselves as part of the Islamic "nation" (umma) or Ottoman nation,
>> while the rising new intellectual tendency was to consider
>> themselves as part of the pan-Arab "nation" (qawm).
> It seems that the only "historical imbecility" that you found on my
> statements was "the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
> before WWI". This is, however, an historical fact,
The idea of a Palestinian waTan was starting to gain currency in the
years immediately preceding WW1, but this was not really "nationalism"
in the commonly-understood Western sense of 19th-century "romantic"
nationalism, or of a movement seeking separatist independent sovereign
statehood as its exclusive and uncompromising goal. Any attempt to
retroject a Palestinian nationalism of that particular type into the
pre-WW1 period would simply be anachronistic -- such exclusively
separatist nationalism didn't really start to gain the majority support
of the Palestinian Arabs themselves until after 1964, as I've said
before.
> people have been establishing on the land of Palestine for many
> thousand years.
And there has never been an independent sovereign nation under the name
of "Palestine" at any period of history, nor has there been any
significant interval of history in which there was an independent
sovereign Arab or Muslim state based primarily in the geographical area
of Palestine/Israel (before the European conquest of 1917, this area
had been almost always ruled from Egypt or Syria during the whole of
history since the Arab conqest).
> On this situation, it is inevitable that a strong identity would
> arise and take form,
Nope, if the area changes languages from Canaanite to Aramaic to
Arabic, and is ruled over by numerous foreign empires -- Egyptian,
Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greco-Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine,
Arab, and Turkish -- and rarely forms any independent local power
center, then it's by no means certain that a strong particularistic
separatist local identity will form (regardless of how long the region
has been settled).
> even if it seldom took the form of a politicaly independent identity,
> especially on later times. This can be seen on local traditions,
> folklore, ethnography, local idiomas, etc.
Yes, all that is waTani stuff in the original sense of the word
"waTani", but it actually has little to do with a separatist nationalist
movement seeking independent sovereign statehood as its exclusive and
uncompromising goal (something which in fact didn't exist until a rather
late date...).
> You are also correct on saying that Palestinians "consider[ed]
> themselves as part of the Islamic "nation" (umma) or Ottoman
> nation". However, you can't see this as the only "national" concept
> on existence among local populations: There were many others, as the
> Islamic nation, the Syrian nation, the "local village" nation, and
> they all coexisted peacefully not competing with each other, but
> rather being adopted as the times would demand. This is why, for
> instance, you assist to a shift for national call for Greater Syria
> in 1919-20, when previously it has been for Palestine; and in 1921
> Greater Syria is forgoten and Palestine is again everywhere.
Dude, you're perfectly agreeing with what I've said above and
previously in this thread! Advocacy of a waTan of Filastin simply did
NOT mean a separatist nationalist movement seeking independent
sovereign statehood for Palestine as its exclusive and uncompromising
goal -- and the use of the English word "nationalism" to imply that
such separatist independentist exclusivistic nationalism was of any
importance at that time is rather disingenuous...
> This does not mean that Palestine was forgoten, it was only less
> visible,
It was pretty close to being forgotten during most of the Ottoman
period (or more precisely, almost restricted to being an archaic
elegant literary synonym for the southern Levant region), if it hadn't
been for European influences.
> and sometimes both expressions "Palestine" and "Southern Syria" were
> used on the same newspaper to define the same region, without any
> conflicting logic when you look at the context.
Yes, and this a symptom of the general fact that a strong exclusivistic
separatist "Palestinian" self-identity didn't really yet exist at that
period of history...
> According to Yehoshua Porath, Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at
> the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
> "the administrative experiments and facts mentioned here, especially
> the elevated position of the sanjaq of Jerusalem (which lasted for
> almost half a century), doubtless contributed to the emergence of the
> concept of Palestine as an administrative entity."
The Sanjaq of Jerusalem didn't have remotely the same borders as the
later British Mandate territory, as you can see on the map located at
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/#ottom-map (or if you don't trust my
site, go to
http://www.arij.org/atlas/maps/The%20Administrative%20Borders%20of%20Syria%20and%20Palestine%20under%20Turkish%20Rule%20%20(The%20Second%20Half%20of%20the%2019th%20Century).gif
linked as "The Administrative Borders of Syria and Palestine under
Turkish Rule (The Second Half of the 19th Century)" map from the
Palestinian site http://www.arij.org/atlas/table.htm ).
Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
> And the fact remains that the idea of a separatist distinct
> Palestinian Arab "nation" only began to take hold about 40 years ago --
Then explain this:
"Dear readers, it seems we have done something serious in the view of the
central government in warning the Palestinian nation [al-umma
al-filastiniyya] of the danger which threatens it from the Zionist
current."
In: "An Open Letter to Subscribers." by the editors
Filastin [Jaffa newspaper] special issue (described on the masthead as
closed by order of the Ministry of the Interior, an order that this issue
was presumably defying), 7 Nisan 1330/May 1914
Quoted by Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The
Critical Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle
East", Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University
Press, New York 1997
"We hoped that they would rid us of Zionist threats and dangers. We
comprised a group of people who had hoped the
best for their leaders. This team possessed tremendous power; not to
ignore that Palestine, their country, was part
of the Ottoman Empire."
- al-Kamel, Palestinian newspaper, 25 July 1913, quoted in "Arab
Nationalism and The Palestinians 1850-1939, (Passia
Publ.), Ch. 2 - THE ARAB MOVEMENT AND THE PALESTINIAN RESISTANCE
"Palestine, oh stage of the Prophets and source of great men; Palestine,
oh sister of the gardens of paradise; Palestine, oh Ka'ba of hopes and
source of fulfil ment; Palestine, oh beloved of millions of people;
Palestine, oh lord of lands and pride of worshippers; Palestine, oh source
of happiness and spring of purity; Palestine, my country and the country
of my forefathers and ancestors; Palestine, only in you do I have pride,
and only for you am I ashamed; Palestine, oh maiden of nations and desired
of peoples; Palestine, my honor, my glory, my life and my pride."
In: "Manajat Filastin" by "Ibn al-Jazira," [a pseudonym perhaps for 'Arif
al-'Arif]
Suriyya al-Janubiyya, no. 32, January 23 1920
Quoted by Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The
Critical Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle
East", Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University
Press, New York 1997
"Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete
change in our plans here. Southern Syria no
longer exists. We must defend Palestine"
- Musa Qasim Pasha al-Husayni, Mayor of Jerusalem, 1920, quoted in The
Palestinians: Making
of a People (New York: Free Press, 1993), p.81
These 4 quotes constitute historical evidence that the concept of a
Palestinian Nation was completely formed already before WWI, and in full
wind by 1920, after the fugacious objective of Palestine as part of a
Greater Syria had been scattered by the fall of King Faysal.
Your claim that Palestinian Arab Nationalism is only 40 year old has been
proved to be wrong.
> anything before that is in fact NOT any kind of so-called "historic
> Palestine" in the particular sense in which the PLO propagandists use
> the phrase "historic Palestine".
Why do you mix propaganda here?
Why do you not keep this discussion serious?
The PLO abusing the concept of an "historical Palestine", for
propagandistic purposes as a rally for romantic nationalism does not
denies the that there is indeed an "historical Palestine".
> As I've said before, if the Palestinians would just admit that their
> separatist nationalism is relatively recent (like that of a number of
> new countries which gained independence in the 1960's or later), then
> I would be much more supportive -- but when they start telling their
This concept of yours is clearly wrong, as shown above.
> lies about supposed "Historic Palestine" [sic], then that has the
> effect of alienating sympathies I might otherwise feel...
Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
> That's nonsense -- Canaanite claims could theoretically go back before
> Israelite claims, but there is no modern group which has preserved a
> traditional "Canaanite" self-identity that has been continuously
> handed down from generation to generation since ancient times.
There is no modern group that has preserved the traditional "Lusitan",
"Iberian", "Calaic", "Visigothic", and "Moor" in Portugal, but all these
peoples are an undeniable part of our identity.
There are no historical records that would allow me to trace with
certainity my genealogy to any of these peoples, but it is fair to assume
that I have their blood.
> As for
> Arabs, there was no large number of Arabs in the Judea/Samaria/Galilee
> area (as opposed to on the fringes of the desert in Nabatea) until the
> 7th century AD.
This you don't know.
The archaeological evidence of the presence of Arabs on Nabatea already on
the 2nd century AD only recently has been found.
All you can say is that there is no known evidence of "large number of
Arabs in the Judea/Samaria/Galilee area".
[..]
> As I said, the British basically imported the name
> "Palestine" from Europe after WW1
Whatever was the reason for the British choice of "Palestine" to name
their mandate, it is clear from the evidence I already presented that the
concept of Palestine as a Nation was already in place, at least for more
than a decade before their mandate came into existence.
> , and the idea of a separatist
> specifically-Palestinian Arab nationalist ideology didn't begin to
> gain mass support and allegiance until after 1964.
In any case, the Palestinian Arab Nationalism was already a mass movement
in the 30's, as is evident in the Great Intinfada of 1936-38.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
> Anyway, you're ignoring the main fact, that there was no
> particular separate "Palestinian nation" (in terms of self-perception)
> before the 1960's,
Then explain this:
> while a distinctive Israelite national consciousness
> started to exist even before 1000 B.C.
Why do you pretend that today Israelis are the same people as 3000 years
ago, when almost everyone of them came from a 2000 thousand year old
Diaspora with a lot of mixing, or from converts, while going to great
lenghts to prove that today Palestinian Arabs, which derive in a
significant part from a population with a continuous presence on the land
(Hebrews included), are not "Canaanites"?
This is plainly stupid.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> All you're doing is displaying your pathetic ignorance of history,
> Indigoonie!
>
> There was a Kingdom of Israel more-or-less uninterruptedly from
> ca. 1000 BC to 721 BC, and a kingdom of Judah or a province of
> Judah/Yehud/Judea within a larger empire more-or-less uninterruptedly
> from ca. 920 BC to 135 AD.
Who cares?
We also had in Portugal a Visigothic Kingdom, and a 500 year Moorish
Caliphate and Emirate, and this does not entitle anyone who claims to be a
descendant of those peoples to come here and occupy our land.
> There was a province of Palaestina or Filastin within the
> Roman/Byzantine empire and the early Arab caliphate more-or-less
> uninterruptedly from about 135 AD to 1070 AD. But when the British
> chose to arbitrarily name their new Mandate territory "Palestine"
> after WW1, they were importing a name from Europe that hadn't been
> much used by Turks and Arabs during the 19th century.
Who cares?
I've already demonstrated that the concept of a Palestinian Nation
predated the British Mandate, and "Palestine" as a word to rally Arabs
around Palestinian Nationalism was on the local newspapers since 1911. The
main Palestinian newspaper at the time was even called, well, "Palestine".
> And most importantly of all, there has never been an independent
> sovereign nation-state under the name "Palestine" at any time in
> history,
Who cares?
There has never been an independent sovereign nation-state under the name
"Portugal" at any time in history until we created our own. Fact is that
Nationalism does not need any such thing, it rather derives from the
reality on the ground at a given time in History.
> and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and allegiance
> until after 1964.
The AnonMoos trick here is that he glues the "separatist" bit to his
sentence, which turns it into an absolutely meaningless truism. There was
no "specifically-Palestinian Arab nationalist ideology" until teh 60's
simply because until then the Arab objective was towards a Palestinian
nation without Israel.
palestinian Nationalism was already well defined before WWI, and was a
mass movement already on the early 30's.
> Before that time, people had self-identities as
> Muslims, Arabs, Mashriqis, Greater Syrians, and/or inhabitants of a
*AND* Palestinians.
> local district that were as important (often more important) than any
> "Palestinian" self-identity -- and most Palestinians assumed that
> Israel/Palestine would relatively soon be swallowed up by some
> neighboring Arab state, and they generally saw no great problem with
> this...
And probably they wouldn't see a great problem with this again, if the
circunstances favour such an Arab Nation. You probably know and
understand this very well, you just pretend you don't because that way it
fits in your ideology.
AnonMoos
>> That's nonsense -- Canaanite claims could theoretically go back
>> before Israelite claims, but there is no modern group which has
>> preserved a traditional "Canaanite" self-identity that has been
>> continuously handed down from generation to generation since ancient
>> times.
> There is no modern group that has preserved the traditional
> "Lusitan", "Iberian", "Calaic", "Visigothic", and "Moor" in Portugal,
> but all these peoples are an undeniable part of our identity. There
> are no historical records that would allow me to trace with
> certainity my genealogy to any of these peoples, but it is fair to
> assume that I have their blood.
And modern revivals of specifically "Lusitanian" nationalism have
played no significant role in the political history of modern Portugal --
right? By the way, the terms Iberian, Visigoth, and Moor could apply to
Spain as well as Portugal.
>> As for Arabs, there was no large number of Arabs in the
>> Judea/Samaria/Galilee area (as opposed to on the fringes of the
>> desert in Nabatea) until the 7th century AD.
> This you don't know. The archaeological evidence of the presence of
> Arabs on Nabatea already on the 2nd century AD only recently has been
> found.
Yes, and Nabatea is not Judea, Samaria, or Galilee!!! Nabatea was
south and/or east of the Dead Sea, while Persian/Ptolemaic/Seleucid
Judea didn't even extend as far south as Hebron, and
Maccabean/Herodian/Roman Judea didn't extend significantly south of
Beersheba.
So how does what you wrote contradict anything I wrote?
>> As I said, the British basically imported the name "Palestine" from
>> Europe after WW1
> Whatever was the reason for the British choice of "Palestine" to name
> their mandate, it is clear from the evidence I already presented that
> the concept of Palestine as a Nation was already in place, at least
> for more than a decade before their mandate came into existence.
The concept of Palestine as a waTan was beginning to come into place in
the years immediately preceding WW1, but this was not particularly
"nationalism" in the specific sense that you seem to want to imply, for
reasons that I explained in detail over in message
URL:<news:42A0790C...@io.com>
>> and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
>> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and
>> allegiance until after 1964.
> In any case, the Palestinian Arab Nationalism was already a mass
> movement in the 30's, as is evident in the Great Intinfada of
> 1936-38.
Hatred of the British and the Jews was a mass movement during the riots
and rebellions of those years, but as I said near the beginning of this
thread, most Palestinian Arabs assumed that Israel/Palestine would
relatively soon be swallowed up by some neighboring Arab state, and
they generally saw no great problem with this...
P.S. You stuck too many "n"'s in -- it's a feminine form of the masdar
of the Stem V verb form (yafta`ilu derivation) of root fa-nun-dad.
--
Hamas motto: لا إله لهم
إلا الموت،
«حماس» رسول
الموت (The death-worshipping cult)
Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Paulo Gomes Jardim
>> [..]
>>>> Let's say we want a
>>>> country by the name BlaBla for the people that were living on the
>>>> lands
>>>> of actual israel for hundreds of years; that way we dismiss your
>>>> irrelevant arguments about names and labels.
>
>>> If the arguments were irrelevant, Pallie Arabs would not have gone to
>>> such pains to make them.
>
> Paulo Gomes Jardim wrote:
>> The fact that these arguments are irrelevant to Palestinian Nationalism
>
> Your sidedodge into so-called "Palestinian Nationalism" is the
> irrelevaniy here, sonny. The point of the post - which, naturally, like
> the incompetent coward you are, you snipped was:
> "So-called "Canaanites" (pre-Israelite inhabitants of Israel)
> were a mixed bag of Indo-European invaders from Anatolia, who
> overwhelmed the earlier Chalcolithic peoples and whose subsequent
> civilization, such as it may have been, was in turn subsumed by
> Hurrians (non-Semitic, non-Indo-European), Hittites (non-Semitic,
> Indo-European), Amorites (Semitic speakers), and Egyptians. At the time
>
> of the Israelite invasion, they were ruled by Egypt."
>
> Can't address that, can you? Big unsurprise.
I snipped it precisely because my comments where not about it, but about
the sentence I left.
Go wage your petty wars between who has the greater prick, if the Hebrews
or the Canaanites, somewhere else. I'm not interested in them.
>> does not mean that you can distort history has you have been doing
>> recklessly:
>
> Post your proof I have been "distorting history" recklessly or
> otherwise. You can start by correcting the above paragraph.
How idiot can you be?
You attempted to refute the very proof you are asking for on the
paragraphs before!
>> denying the existence of the Jund Filastin;
>
> Post your proof I denied "the existence of the Jund Filastin: nice to
> see you finally corrected your spelling from "Jung Filastin".
On message <1115936687.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Deborah
Sharavi wrote:
"Horseshi'ite. Arab invaders called it Al-'ArD al-Muqaddasah, and the
region Suriyah. Filistin was not used until the late 19th century,
courtesy European and American usage, and it was derived from the Roman
designation "Palaestina", from the great enemies of the Jews, which
replaced the earlier Iudaea."
...
""Filistin" could not disappear as the name of an administrative
district, because it never was the name of an administrative district."
>> deying the regular use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman
>> period
>
> Post your proof I denied any "regular use of 'Filastin' all over the
> Mamluk and Ottoman period".
On message <1115935377.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Deborah
Sharavi wrote:
"The Ottomans never called it Palestine. Even T.E. Lawrence referred to
it as Syria."
On message <1115936687.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Deborah
Sharavi wrote:
"Horseshi'ite. Arab invaders called it Al-'ArD al-Muqaddasah, and the
region Suriyah. Filistin was not used until the late 19th century,
courtesy European and American usage, and it was derived from the Roman
designation "Palaestina", from the great enemies of the Jews, which
replaced the earlier Iudaea.""
> Then post your proof that the Mameluks used
> Filastin with any regularity.
Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice, "La Syrie a l'epoque des Mamelouks d'apres
des
auteurs arabes / description geographique, economique et Administrative"
(Paris:
P. Geuthner, 1923)
> Ditto the Ottomans.
Mandel, Neville, "The Arabs and Zionism before World War I", University of
Califormia Press, 1976
>> denying the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
>> before WWI;
>
> I never denied any "concept of a Palestinian Nation" prior to the first
> world war. It didn't exist.
You keep denying it, though I've presented historical evidence that it
indeed existed.
Readers will decide for themselves.
>> claiming that Jordan is Palestine;
>
> Jordan is appx 77% of the original Palestine Mandate. In fact, both
If you are claiming that Jordan was nominally part of British Palestine
from 1922 to 1948 I have no problem with that. In any case, Jordan is not
part of Palestine except on this kind of colonial constructions, and even
so only nominally. What this means is, your argument is irrelevant.
> King Abdullah and King Hussein stated that Jordan was Palestine.
King Phillip I also stated that Portugal was Spain.
It doesn't make it a fact, however.
[..]
>> Fact is that you and your Zionist ilk, you are the ones that imply that
>> the name is something of an utter importance, when you use it as part of
>> your argument for the well known Golda Meir style revisionism about the
>> alleged non existance of Palestinians.
>
> Wrong again: Golda never denied the existence of Palestinians; your
> regurgitation of stale Palliebull shows the source of your
> imbecilities.
Are you calling yourself an imbecile, Debbie? ;)
On <4af03591.02071...@posting.google.com> Deborah Sharavi wrote:
"What Golda really said on the subject of Pallies was during
a June 15, 1969 interview with Frank Giles of the Times of
London, as follows:
...
"It was not
as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering
itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and
took their country away from them. They did not exist.""
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 10:29:47 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's nonsense -- Canaanite claims could theoretically go back
>>> before Israelite claims, but there is no modern group which has
>>> preserved a traditional "Canaanite" self-identity that has been
>>> continuously handed down from generation to generation since ancient
>>> times.
>
>> There is no modern group that has preserved the traditional
>> "Lusitan", "Iberian", "Calaic", "Visigothic", and "Moor" in Portugal,
>> but all these peoples are an undeniable part of our identity. There
>> are no historical records that would allow me to trace with
>> certainity my genealogy to any of these peoples, but it is fair to
>> assume that I have their blood.
>
> And modern revivals of specifically "Lusitanian" nationalism have
> played no significant role in the political history of modern Portugal --
> right?
But OF COURSE they do!
We are as Lusitans almost as much as we are Portuguese!
The term is often used to mean Portuguese in our literature, especially in
a poetic or nationalistic context.
Why do you think the Portuguese News Agency is called LUSA?
Or the Portuguese company sent to help Franco in the Spanish Civil War was
named Viriatos, after the Lusitan leader?
What do you think the word "Lusophony" means?
And Lusitania is a pure Roman invention, with no connection with the
realities on the ground.
Portugal itself derives from the old Portuguese Portucale, which cames
from the Roman name Portus Cale (or Calem) for nowadays Oporto. Cale or
Calem is nowadays Gaia, probably with the same root as Galicia, which is
thought to be an ancient tribe named "Calaics", whose fate - and its very
existence - nobody knows for sure.
"Spain" comes from "Hispania", which is the name the Romans gave to the
Iberian Peninsula.
"Iberia" itself is how the Greeks called us.
There is no point in diminishing the word Palestinians had chosen to name
the region on their Nationalistic quest just because apparently it's not a
native name (and it could even be, who knows).
> By the way, the terms Iberian, Visigoth, and Moor could apply to
> Spain as well as Portugal.
So?...
>>> As for Arabs, there was no large number of Arabs in the
>>> Judea/Samaria/Galilee area (as opposed to on the fringes of the
>>> desert in Nabatea) until the 7th century AD.
>
>> This you don't know. The archaeological evidence of the presence of
>> Arabs on Nabatea already on the 2nd century AD only recently has been
>> found.
>
> Yes, and Nabatea is not Judea, Samaria, or Galilee!!! Nabatea was
> south and/or east of the Dead Sea, while Persian/Ptolemaic/Seleucid
> Judea didn't even extend as far south as Hebron, and
> Maccabean/Herodian/Roman Judea didn't extend significantly south of
> Beersheba.
> So how does what you wrote contradict anything I wrote?
In the way that you don't know if they don't existed as much as you don't
know if they existed. In the way that you can't state, as if it was well a
known fact, that "there was no large number of Arabs in the
Judea/Samaria/Galilee area". The only thing you know is that evidence for
that has not been found until today.
>>> As I said, the British basically imported the name "Palestine" from
>>> Europe after WW1
>
>> Whatever was the reason for the British choice of "Palestine" to name
>> their mandate, it is clear from the evidence I already presented that
>> the concept of Palestine as a Nation was already in place, at least
>> for more than a decade before their mandate came into existence.
>
> The concept of Palestine as a waTan was beginning to come into place in
> the years immediately preceding WW1, but this was not particularly
It was such a rooted concept already that a newspaper was founded with
that name in 1911, and it soon had become what was probably the most
important newspaper among the Arab population.
> "nationalism" in the specific sense that you seem to want to imply, for
> reasons that I explained in detail over in message
> URL:<news:42A0790C...@io.com>
I'll address this matter there, then.
>>> and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
>>> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and
>>> allegiance until after 1964.
>
>> In any case, the Palestinian Arab Nationalism was already a mass
>> movement in the 30's, as is evident in the Great Intinfada of
>> 1936-38.
>
> Hatred of the British and the Jews was a mass movement during the riots
> and rebellions of those years,
Being that hartred the major catalyzer behind Palestinian Nationalism, it
is impossible to sepparate the two.
> but as I said near the beginning of this
> thread, most Palestinian Arabs assumed that Israel/Palestine would
> relatively soon be swallowed up by some neighboring Arab state, and
> they generally saw no great problem with this...
This perception had a major impact only during 1919 and the following
year, when the rally slogan was "Palestine = Southern Syria".
But not even then Palestine ceased to be referred by that name on
newspapers; there was always the Palestinian Nationalism inside the
Greater Syria Nationalism.
The fact that "they generally saw no problem with this" does not deny the
existence of Palestinian Nationalism.
> P.S. You stuck too many "n"'s in -- it's a feminine form of the masdar
> of the Stem V verb form (yafta`ilu derivation) of root fa-nun-dad.
Yes, I know, it's recurrent error with "intifada" in Portuguese, because
we tend to pronounce it that way.
I think the Spanish also do the same.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
[..]
>>> On the contrary, lies about so-called "Historic Palestine"[sic]
>>> seem to be highly essential to Palestinian nationalism -- or PLO
>>> spokesmen and propagandists wouldn't intone them with such
>>> mechanical rote regularity!
>
>> I don't know what kind of "lies" you are talking about,
>
> Lies about how the post-WW1 British Mandate territory -- whose
> boundaries were arbitrarily drawn on the map by British colonialists
> after consulting with the French (not with the Arabs!), and whose name
> "Palestine" was basically imported from Europe -- supposedly has some
> substantial historical continuity or directly relevant connection with
> pre-Ottoman Arab caliphal province of Palestine (Filastin).
The same "lies" are used by Israelis when they attempt to identify
nowadays Israel with the ancient Kingdom that once bore that name.
Palestine has had many different borders throught History, but you'll have
to recognize that there is an identification with what was meant by
"Palestine" along the times and the territory of the British Mandate. The
same can be probably be said about Israel.
Why do you think the British had chosen Israel and Palestine as the names
for their mandate on the Region?
I don't consider this to be any lie, it's only romantic nationalism at
work.
>> What is clear to me is that Palestinian Nationalism, as many other
>> Nationalist movements worldwide, was formed during the 19th century,
>
> Unfortunately, "that happens not to be the case" (as Lord Blaine
> advised Kevin Renner to say...) -- during the 19th century, most of
> the inhabitants of the area would have thought of themselves as being
> Muslims or Christians first, and then probably as Ottoman subjects,
> Arabs, and/or "Greater Syrians" (with local district or village
> loyalties also somewhere in the mix). Extremely few of those living
> there (except for a relatively small number of Christians influenced
> by European concepts) would have thought of a "Palestinian" identity
> as being of any particular importance.
Do you have any problem with the word "formed"?
If Palestinian Nationalism so evident on the early 20th century, the
concept certainly has been formed on the decades before, this development
not being a result of Zionism.
I'll repeat again Khalidi's quote containing Porath and Schloch statements
on this matter:
"This bears out Schölch's statement that "the administrative experiments
and facts mentioned here, especially the elevated position of the sanjaq
of Jerusalem (which lasted for almost half a century), doubtless
contributed to the emergence of the concept of Palestine as an
administrative entity." [13] Porath goes further: "at the end of the
Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already widespread among the
educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of Palestine or the
Jerusalem sanjaq alone." [14] This resulting local consciousness of
Palestine as a discrete entity, based on religious tradition and
long-standing administrative practice, was only enhanced by the fact that
foreigners also saw it as such."
Note 13: In his [Schölch] posthumous work, translated into English as
Palestine in Transformation, 1856-1882: Studies in Social, Economic, and
Political Development (Washington, D.C., 1993), 15.
Note 14: Porath, 1918-1929: 'Abd al-Wahhab Kayyali, Ta'rikh Filastin
al-Hadith, (Beirut, 1970)
(trans. as Palestine: A Modern History, London, 1978), pag. 8-9
From:
Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The Critical
Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle East",
Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University Press, New
York 1997
Khalidi develops further this issue, and I would counsel you reading the
mentioned work if you have a serious interest on this area.
> So in the realm of ideology during the late 19th century, old-style
> Muslim "ummah" nationalism and Ottoman state loyalism competed with
> the new-fangled intellectual trend of pan-Arab nationalism, while some
> relatively practical souls who didn't like the Egyptian royal family
> and wanted the Levantines to free themselves from Turkish rule by
> their own efforts favored action based on a "Greater Syrian" or
> pan-Mashriq-except-Egypt ideology. Palestinian nationalism (in the
> sense of the word "nationalism" which you have in mind) wasn't even a
> contender at that time (see further below).
Historical examples of a clear and rooted Palestinian nationalism can be
found already in 1914, as the specific reference to "al-umma
al-filastiniyya" in the newspaper "Filastin" at 1914 May 1 I've mentioned
before.
It is obvious that such a concept didn't appeared out of thin air by 1914,
but it was only the expression of sentiment already rooted among local
populations, which had formed on the previous decades.
>> and it was already very evident on the deceny
>
> ??
decennium
>> before WWI, as anyone can see by looking at articles on Palestinian
>> newspapers of the time, such as "Filastin" and "Al Karmel".
>
> Yes, the founding of the newspaper Filastin (just a few years before
> WW1) was one symptom that some Arabs living in the region were then
> taking up the name Filastin from its former use mainly by Europeans
> and a small minority of European-influenced Arab Christians, and were
> sometimes even advocating a form of Palestinian "waTaniyyah".
You really have to be a brain contortionist to believe that the adoption
of "Filastin" as a rally word for a Nationalistic movement wagged against
Europeans is due to European influence.
> Unfortunately, though the Arabic word waTan is often translated into
> English as "nation", and waTani as "nationalist", these Arabic words
> originally and primarily referred to one's birth region or home
> region, without particular implications of sovereignty, independence,
> or separate statehood. That's why the word waTani is translated in my
> Arabic dictionary as "home, native, indigenous, domestic" as well as
> "national, nationalistic, patriotic".
>
> So if you are born in Vermont, you can be a proud Vermonter and
> booster and advocate of all things in, of, and from Vermont, without
> particularly wishing Vermont to secede from the United States.
> Similarly, in the period before WW1, advocacy of a Palestinian "waTan"
> could be a form of local district patriotism which thought of itself
> as part of a larger movement against Ottoman Turkish rule -- and
> wasn't particularly incompatible with wishing to be part of a
> pan-Islamic state, wishing to be part of a pan-Arab state, or wishing
> to be part of a Greater Syrian state.
I really don't know what is this "watan" strawman you have invented.
The evidence I presented was of "al-umma al-filastiniyya", which clearly
means Nation, not for your "watan".
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>>> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>> denying the existence of the Jund Filastin; denying the regular
>>>> use of "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to
>>>> describe the region; denying the existence of the concept of a
>>>> Palestinian Nation before WWI; and other similar imbecilities.
>
>>> Jund Filastin literally meant "the army or military district of
>>> Palestine", and its capital was first at Lod then at Ramle (never
>>> Jerusalem!), and it had completely different borders from the later
>>> 1923-1947 British mandate territory. This internal administrative
>>> subdivision called Filastin existed as a small backwater province
>>> during the early Arab Caliphate period from the 7th century AD to
>>> the 11th century AD, but it was pretty much wiped off the map by
>>> the Turkish invasion of 1071 and the Crusades which followed soon
>>> after.
>
>> Here you confirm my first statement, "the existence of the Jund
>> Filastin".
>
> Yes, it existed as a small (and mostly not very significant) province
> within the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Fatimid caliphal empires -- but
"Not very significant" from an Ummyad or Abassid point of view.
It certainly meant something to who lived there, who had to live with that
word every single day since the Romans decided to call it that way.
> whether it has any substantial connection in Arab history with the
> post-1917 British Mandate territory is quite another question!
> Certainly Jund Filastin had completely different borders than the
> British Mandate territory, as I mentioned above.
What is the connection between historical Israel and the British Mandate?
>>> The name Palestine was NOT used for any official internal
>>> administrative subdivision during the Ottoman period (the 400 years
>>> preceding 1917), and during the nineteenth century the word
>>> "Palestine" was in fact more frequently used by Europeans than by
>>> the actual inhabitants of the area.
>
>> And here you support my second statement, "the regular use of
>> "Filastin" all over the Mamluk and Ottoman period to describe the
>> region",
>
> Don't know about "all over"... As far as I can tell, the word Filastin
> was used fitfully and sporadically in official terminology during the
> Mamluk period, but was not part of official terminology at all during
> the Ottoman period -- when it was in fact mostly a rather archaic
For the use of "Ard-I-Filastin" in official Ottoman documents see Mandel,
Neville "The Arabs and Zionism before World War I" (University of
Califormia Press, 1976).
> toponym, like "Gaul" for France, "Lusitania" for Portugal, "Illyria"
> for southern coastal Yugoslavia, etc. etc. It presumably would have
> remained in this state of semi-obsolescence (along with 'Iliya for
> Jerusalem and a number of similarly-outdated Arabic names) if it hadn't
> been for the fact that "Palestine" remained in use as a word in various
> European languages.
Your analogy is flawed on the sense that while "Gaul", "Lusitania", etc
are used to describe rough entities that once existed, but had lost its
geographical meaning throught the times, "Filastin" defined and continued
to define a very important region: the Holy Land, sacred to the 3 most
important religions of Europe and Middle East at the time. It persisted
during the Mamluks and the Ottomans to define this region on Historical,
Juridical and Religious texts. The only other word that you can find with
an equivalent meaning is precisely "al-ard al-muqaddasa", the Holy Land.
>> though noting that it's use was more frequent in the West than among
>> local populations, which I don't deny.
>
> Must be a funny kind of "nationalism" when the name of the nation is
> used more frequently by foreigners than in the "nation" itself!
What is the problem with this?
The case of Hispania must be really mindblogging to you.
It was a Roman word, then come the Barbars and adopted it to their
Kingdoms, and then, after the Arab invasions in 711, it meant virtually
nothing for ages except to non-Iberian Europeans, until it was
ressurrected by Phillip I as the designation for his unified Iberia, and
as a Nationalistic rally cause for all Iberians on his war against the
rest of Europe.
The fact is that you are trying to put some significance on things that
really have none.
Filastin was the word used by Arabs to define the region, and apparently
this was more than enough for its adoption as a rally cause.
The fact that Europeans until then used it more than local populations is
really irrelevant to the matter.
As a Palestinian Nationalist would say, who cares about the damn Europeans.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>>> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
[..]
>>> the idea of a "Palestinian nation" would have then [in the 19th
>>> century] seemed ludicrous -- the term "Palestine" was in fact a
>>> semi-obsolescent toponym in the Arabic language at the time (a
>>> terminological relic of the early Caliphate period), and the
>>> inhabitants of the geographical region formerly known as "Palestine"
>>> didn't then consider themselves to belong to a "Palestinian nation"
>>> any more than inhabitants of Iowa today consider themselves to
>>> belong to an "Iowan nation". The old tendency was to consider
>>> themselves as part of the Islamic "nation" (umma) or Ottoman nation,
>>> while the rising new intellectual tendency was to consider
>>> themselves as part of the pan-Arab "nation" (qawm).
>
>> It seems that the only "historical imbecility" that you found on my
>> statements was "the existence of the concept of a Palestinian Nation
>> before WWI". This is, however, an historical fact,
>
> The idea of a Palestinian waTan was starting to gain currency in the
> years immediately preceding WW1, but this was not really "nationalism"
> in the commonly-understood Western sense of 19th-century "romantic"
> nationalism, or of a movement seeking separatist independent sovereign
> statehood as its exclusive and uncompromising goal. Any attempt to
> retroject a Palestinian nationalism of that particular type into the
> pre-WW1 period would simply be anachronistic -- such exclusively
> separatist nationalism didn't really start to gain the majority support
> of the Palestinian Arabs themselves until after 1964, as I've said
> before.
I'm confused by your usage of "separatist-nationalism".
Nationalism does not implies separatism.
I'ts also unclear who Palestinians would be separating from during the
British Mandate.
The concept of a Palestinian nation, even on the sense of Western
tradition of romantic nationalism, was evident by 1914, on the "Filastin"
article I've quoted before.
I don't believe such a clear historical evidence is subject to discussion,
unless you can prove that the quote used by Khalidi is a forgery.
>> people have been establishing on the land of Palestine for many
>> thousand years.
>
> And there has never been an independent sovereign nation under the name
> of "Palestine" at any period of history, nor has there been any
There has never been any independent sovereign nation under the name
"Portugal" until we created it.
> significant interval of history in which there was an independent
> sovereign Arab or Muslim state based primarily in the geographical area
> of Palestine/Israel (before the European conquest of 1917, this area
> had been almost always ruled from Egypt or Syria during the whole of
> history since the Arab conqest).
There has never been a Catholic/Hispanic nation based on "Portugal", in
fact the name was used to define a rather recent and small County which
included (and was not even centered in!) the city formerly known by the
Romans as Portus Cale.
However, we used it to name our country, and we like it a lot, thank you
very much.
This proves beyond any doubt the utter irrelevance of your "name" argument
on the cause of Nationalism of a people.
>> On this situation, it is inevitable that a strong identity would
>> arise and take form,
>
> Nope, if the area changes languages from Canaanite to Aramaic to
> Arabic, and is ruled over by numerous foreign empires -- Egyptian,
> Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greco-Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine,
> Arab, and Turkish -- and rarely forms any independent local power
> center, then it's by no means certain that a strong particularistic
> separatist local identity will form (regardless of how long the region
> has been settled).
Ancient Israel was formed by war and conquest of other peoples land,
according to Biblical tradition, and there they have built their nation.
Modern Israel was formed by war and conquest of other peoples land,
according to recent History, and there they have built their nation.
But hey, AnonMoos, this doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes there is
indeed a native nation-building movement, as happened in Portugal,
Ireland, Rome, and many other nations, and as it is happening in Palestine
since the late 19th century.
It's ironic that you have a problem recognizing the legitimacy of the bird
who builds the nest, while accepting without an eye's blink the cuckoo who
steals it.
>> even if it seldom took the form of a politicaly independent identity,
>> especially on later times. This can be seen on local traditions,
>> folklore, ethnography, local idiomas, etc.
>
> Yes, all that is waTani stuff in the original sense of the word
> "waTani", but it actually has little to do with a separatist nationalist
> movement seeking independent sovereign statehood as its exclusive and
> uncompromising goal (something which in fact didn't exist until a rather
> late date...).
As I've said before, unless you can reasonably dismiss the quote I
mentioned from "Filastin" in May 1914, the fact of a "Palestinian Nation"
as a meaningfull concept by 1914 is supported by historical evidence.
As for your little "watani" strawman, you can put it back on the closet.
AnonMoos
> These 4 quotes constitute historical evidence that the concept of a
> Palestinian Nation was completely formed already before WWI,
The idea of a Palestinian "waTan" was BECOMING formed in the years
between the start of the 20th century and the British conquest of 1917
(rembering that those quotes are from "opinion leaders" and advocates,
not random typical individuals) -- but up until the 1960's, you could
be an ardent Palestinian patriot and still see no real contradiction
between such patriotism and Palestine being eventually absorbed into a
pan-Islamic, pan-Arab, or Greater Syrian state.
>> while a distinctive Israelite national consciousness started to
>> exist even before 1000 B.C.
> Why do you pretend that today Israelis are the same people as 3000
> years ago,
I don't -- but modern Jews are the cultural inheritors of an
"Israelite" self-identity and historical memory (embodied in the
narrative books of the Bible) which has been handed down continuously
as a living tradition from generation to generation without
interruption since ancient times. You can say the same for the modern
Greeks.
> going to great lenghts to prove that today Palestinian Arabs, which
> derive in a significant part from a population with a continuous
> presence on the land (Hebrews included), are not "Canaanites"?
I don't have to go to any "great lengths"? I merely ask two questions:
1) Do the Palestinian Arabs have a significant meaningful
"Canaanite" self-identity today?
2) Are modern Palestinian Arabs the specific cultural inheritors of
a "Canaanite" self-identity and historical memory which has been
handed down continuously in a living tradition from generation to
generation without interruption since ancient times?
Since the answer to both questions is "No" (and in fact, the
descendents of the ancient Canaanites pretty much gave up calling
themselves "Canaanites" by Hellenistic times), I conclude that Arabs
are not Canaanites with no further ado.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:26:07 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>>> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
[..]
>> You are also correct on saying that Palestinians "consider[ed]
>> themselves as part of the Islamic "nation" (umma) or Ottoman
>> nation". However, you can't see this as the only "national" concept
>> on existence among local populations: There were many others, as the
>> Islamic nation, the Syrian nation, the "local village" nation, and
>> they all coexisted peacefully not competing with each other, but
>> rather being adopted as the times would demand. This is why, for
>> instance, you assist to a shift for national call for Greater Syria
>> in 1919-20, when previously it has been for Palestine; and in 1921
>> Greater Syria is forgoten and Palestine is again everywhere.
>
> Dude, you're perfectly agreeing with what I've said above and
> previously in this thread! Advocacy of a waTan of Filastin simply did
> NOT mean a separatist nationalist movement seeking independent
> sovereign statehood for Palestine as its exclusive and uncompromising
> goal -- and the use of the English word "nationalism" to imply that
> such separatist independentist exclusivistic nationalism was of any
> importance at that time is rather disingenuous...
There is nothing disingenuous here.
The sanjak of Jerusalem seeked increased independence from Damascus, which
they got in 1874, after what they passed to respond directly to Istambul.
In 1908 a former official of the Jerusalem sanjaq, the Lebanese Najib
'Azuri, published a series of reccomendations for action in the Turkish
and Arabic press, which included expanding the sanjak of Jerusalem and
raising it to the rank of Villayet "since the progress of the land of
Palestine depends on it."[1]
[1] " 'Azuri's article, originally published in the Turkish paper Sabah,
was reprinted in Arabic in Thamarat al-Funun, 23 September, 1908, 7. A
copy of the article was among the papers that Ruhi al-Khalidi, the newly
elected deputy from Jerusalem, was carrying with him to Istanbul from
Marseilles in 1908: Ruhi al-Khalidi papers, Khalidi Library, Jerusalem."
(From: Rashid Khalidi in "The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The
Critical Years, 1917-1923", in "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle
East", Israel Gershoni & James Jankowski, Editors, Columbia University
Press, New York 1997)
>> This does not mean that Palestine was forgoten, it was only less
>> visible,
>
> It was pretty close to being forgotten during most of the Ottoman
> period (or more precisely, almost restricted to being an archaic
> elegant literary synonym for the southern Levant region), if it hadn't
> been for European influences.
If you had red my sentence to the end, you would have understood that I
was refering to 1919 and the year after it, not to Ottoman times. And here
by Palestine I mean it as a nation.
>> and sometimes both expressions "Palestine" and "Southern Syria" were
>> used on the same newspaper to define the same region, without any
>> conflicting logic when you look at the context.
>
> Yes, and this a symptom of the general fact that a strong exclusivistic
> separatist "Palestinian" self-identity didn't really yet exist at that
> period of history...
Why do you pretend to ignore that there can be a Palestinian Nation inside
a Greater Syria Nation?
You having a problem understanding this doesn't mean that it isn't a fact.
It is, and it is has been proven by historical evidence from the
Palestinian newspapers of the time.
>> According to Yehoshua Porath, Professor Emeritus of Middle East History
>> at
>> the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
This must be corrected.
This quote is not from Yehoshua Porath, but by Alexander Schölch,
professor of contemporary Middle Eastern history at the University of
Erlange, Germany, on his posthumous book "Palestine in Transformation,
1856-1882: Studies in Social, Economic, and Political Development".
>> "the administrative experiments and facts mentioned here, especially
>> the elevated position of the sanjaq of Jerusalem (which lasted for
>> almost half a century), doubtless contributed to the emergence of the
>> concept of Palestine as an administrative entity."
What Yehoshua Porath said was:
"at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already
widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of
Palestine or the Jerusalem sanjaq alone.", in "Palestine: A Modern
History".
Both are quoted by Rashid Khalidi on "Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab
Middle East".
> The Sanjaq of Jerusalem didn't have remotely the same borders as the
> later British Mandate territory, as you can see on the map located at
> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/#ottom-map (or if you don't trust my
> site, go to
> http://www.arij.org/atlas/maps/The%20Administrative%20Borders%20of%20Syria%20and%20Palestine%20under%20Turkish%20Rule%20%20(The%20Second%20Half%20of%20the%2019th%20Century).gif
> linked as "The Administrative Borders of Syria and Palestine under
> Turkish Rule (The Second Half of the 19th Century)" map from the
> Palestinian site http://www.arij.org/atlas/table.htm ).
Who cares?
Why do you have this obsession with precise borders?
Why don't you make the same argument with Israel and Zionism?
AnonMoos
>> and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
>> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and
>> allegiance until after 1964.
> The AnonMoos trick here is that he glues the "separatist" bit to his
> sentence, which turns it into an absolutely meaningless truism.
Dude, in the normal way that the word "nationalist" is used in the
English language, if you're an "Xian nationalist", then it means that
you basically support the independent separate sovereign statehood of
entity X in all circumstances. So if you're an Austrian nationalist,
then you oppose anschluss with Germany -- and if you support Germany's
anschluss of Austria, then you're not considered a true Austrian
nationalist.
However, in the case of Palestinian "waTaniyyah", for many years you
could be a "waTanii filasTiinii" or a "waTanii li-filasTiiin" (or
however it would be expressed), and still be IN FAVOR of Palestine's
absorption into a larger pan-Islamic, pan-Arab, and/or Greater Syrian
state -- and see no contradiction in that.
Therefore, your attempt to describe such Palestinian local feelings
prior to the 1960's as "Palestinian nationalism" is disingenuous at
best and intentionally deceptive at worst, since the normal meaning
of the word "nationalism" in the English language would lead to the
presumption that "Palestinian nationalism" should be a movement
seeking separatist independent sovereign statehood for Palestine as
its exclusive and uncompromising goal. What you choose to call
pre-WW1 Palestinian so-called "nationalism" was in fact NOT such a
movement.
>> and most Palestinians assumed that Israel/Palestine would
>> relatively soon be swallowed up by some neighboring Arab state, and
>> they generally saw no great problem with this...
> And probably they wouldn't see a great problem with this again, if
> the circunstances favour such an Arab Nation.
And such feelings aren't very compatible with the ordinary meaning of
a phrase such as "Palestinian nationalism" in the English language --
are they, now?
AnonMoos
>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 17:12:33 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>>"Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 10:29:47 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>>>> That's nonsense -- Canaanite claims could theoretically go back
>>>> before Israelite claims, but there is no modern group which has
>>>> preserved a traditional "Canaanite" self-identity that has been
>>>> continuously handed down from generation to generation since
>>>> ancient times.
>>> There is no modern group that has preserved the traditional
>>> "Lusitan", "Iberian", "Calaic", "Visigothic", and "Moor" in
>>> Portugal, but all these peoples are an undeniable part of our
>>> identity. There are no historical records that would allow me to
>>> trace with certainity my genealogy to any of these peoples, but it
>>> is fair to assume that I have their blood.
>> And modern revivals of specifically "Lusitanian" nationalism have
>> played no significant role in the political history of modern
>> Portugal -- right?
> But OF COURSE they do! We are as Lusitans almost as much as we are
> Portuguese! The term is often used to mean Portuguese in our
> literature, especially in a poetic or nationalistic context. Why do
> you think the Portuguese News Agency is called LUSA? What do you
> think the word "Lusophony" means?
In other words "Lusitania" is an elegant literary and poetic synonynm
for "Portugal" which was plucked out of a Roman history book many
hundreds of years after the fall of the western Roman Empire -- but
there is no particular living tradition of Lusitanian self-identity
which has been handed down from generation to generation
uninterruptedly since ancient times.
> There is no point in diminishing the word Palestinians had chosen to
> name the region on their Nationalistic quest just because apparently
> it's not a native name (and it could even be, who knows).
It was the native name of the Philistine people who lived in the
southern coastal plain area of the land of Canaan/Israel (the
Philistine city-states of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashqelon, and a few others).
The name Palestine or "Philistia" meant only the southern coastal
plain area (and NOT the entire land of Canaan/Israel) -- until the
Roman emperor Hadrian decided rather arbitrarily to rename the Roman
province of "Judaea" as "Palaestina" around 135 A.D., as part of
his brutal and vicious program of anti-Jewish measures connected with
the suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt -- something which some
Jews don't forget.
There's no continuous historical tradition of cultural self-identity
connecting ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians, since the
ancient Philistines lost their distinctive language and separate
identity -- and became absorbed into the general mass of
Aramaic-speaking superfically-Hellenized "Syrians" -- even before the
Roman period.
>> P.S. You stuck too many "n"'s in -- it's a feminine form of the
>> masdar of the Stem V verb form (yafta`ilu derivation) of root
>> fa-nun-dad.
> Yes, I know, it's recurrent error with "intifada" in Portuguese,
> because we tend to pronounce it that way. I think the Spanish also
> do the same.
Well, I made a mistake too -- I meant nun-fa-dad, of course! ;-)
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:36:04 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> These 4 quotes constitute historical evidence that the concept of a
>> Palestinian Nation was completely formed already before WWI,
>
> The idea of a Palestinian "waTan" was BECOMING formed in the years
> between the start of the 20th century and the British conquest of 1917
> (rembering that those quotes are from "opinion leaders" and advocates,
> not random typical individuals) -- but up until the 1960's, you could
> be an ardent Palestinian patriot and still see no real contradiction
> between such patriotism and Palestine being eventually absorbed into a
> pan-Islamic, pan-Arab, or Greater Syrian state.
I'll even go further than you did, and say that probably Palestinains will
rally around some Greater Arab nation again, if the circumstances favour
such a Nationalism.
This doesn't diminishes in any way Palestinian nationalism, which
continued intact during the 2 years of rallies for "Palestine is Southern
Syria".
You attempt to spin my claim that the concept of a Palestinian Nation was
completely formed already before WWI, by saying that it is present only in
opinion leaders.
What matter is that it already existed as an "Umma", and was already being
printed out as such in the major newspaper in circulation among
Palestinian Arabs (with the rather blatant name of "Filastin") by 1914.
>>> while a distinctive Israelite national consciousness started to
>>> exist even before 1000 B.C.
>
>> Why do you pretend that today Israelis are the same people as 3000
>> years ago,
>
> I don't -- but modern Jews are the cultural inheritors of an
> "Israelite" self-identity and historical memory (embodied in the
> narrative books of the Bible) which has been handed down continuously
> as a living tradition from generation to generation without
> interruption since ancient times. You can say the same for the modern
> Greeks.
First you claim that there is a "distinctive Israelite national
consciousness" since 1000 BC, then you say that this does not refers to a
people, but a Religion.
Then, my dear AnonMoos, this can be anything, but it certainly is not
Nationalism as it is usually understood.
This is pure Religious fanaticism disguised as "Nationalism", not much
different from Bin Laden babbling about the Caliphate of Cordoba and the
Muslim land of Al Andaluz.
And if it existed before the middle 19th century, it was certainly
residual and insignificant.
This can be seen, for instance, on the Diaspora of the Sephardis from
Portugal and Spain, when our Kings attempted to expell them. Many actually
went to the Ottoman Empire, but with very few exceptions they all settled
on Istambul rather than returning to the "promised land" and started
rebuilding the nation you claim that have existed all time long.
I understand that over the times Jews saw themselves as a Nation, as many
Muslims and Catholics also see themselves as Nations too, as the context
of the calls for "Holy War" on both sides often demonstrate.
But trying to bring a true nationalistic meaning out of this, is really,
really farfetched.
>> going to great lenghts to prove that today Palestinian Arabs, which
>> derive in a significant part from a population with a continuous
>> presence on the land (Hebrews included), are not "Canaanites"?
>
> I don't have to go to any "great lengths"? I merely ask two questions:
>
> 1) Do the Palestinian Arabs have a significant meaningful
> "Canaanite" self-identity today?
YES!!!
Of course they have!
If they have not such a self-identity, why would they try to prove all the
time that they are really Cannanites, often with blatant lies?
You don't have to dress as a Canaanite or speak like one to feel like a
Cannanite.
We the Portuguese strongly self-identify ourselves with the "Lusitanians",
and I can tell you that there is no evidence that such people have EVER
existed, contrary to the Canaanites!
It rather seem to have been the term that the Romans used to call everyone
living here, whatever their tribe or ethny.
> 2) Are modern Palestinian Arabs the specific cultural inheritors of
> a "Canaanite" self-identity and historical memory which has been
> handed down continuously in a living tradition from generation to
> generation without interruption since ancient times?
I don't know, and I really doubt they are, though it may be possible that
some traditions have persisted throught the times.
It doesn't matter if they really are the inheritors of "Cannanite
identity".
What matters is that now they know that they are probably descendants of
them, trought all the mixing, and that the Cannanites were an old Nation
that predated the Israelis.
This is more than enough to make one feel like a "Canaanite" on the
context of Palestinian Nationalism.
> Since the answer to both questions is "No" (and in fact, the
> descendents of the ancient Canaanites pretty much gave up calling
> themselves "Canaanites" by Hellenistic times), I conclude that Arabs
> are not Canaanites with no further ado.
You can use the same argument to prove that the Portuguese are not
Lusitans, and we'll just show you the tongue and ask you - So what?
It doesn't matter if there is historical evidence that we are Lusitans, it
only needs some credibility and a good nationalistic background. I could
fill entire pages with the Nationalistic myths that we have around in our
schools, and we are a modern European country.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
I tell you more than this, there never was any "Lusitanic self-identity"
before modern times.
The word was used by the Romans to define the Barbarians who lived here,
independently of their tribe or ethny.
And we have absolutely no problem with this.
However, recent developments (last 2 decades or so) have somewhat tainted
the term, as it was adopted by the fucken neo-nazis, who also like to
identify themselves with the Visigothic bandits that once built their
petty Kingdom here on Hispania.
It's a good thing that the last King of these bastard German invaders left
no descendancy when the Arabs had put an end to his sorry life, or else
they would be forging genealogies to him.
>> There is no point in diminishing the word Palestinians had chosen to
>> name the region on their Nationalistic quest just because apparently
>> it's not a native name (and it could even be, who knows).
>
> It was the native name of the Philistine people who lived in the
> southern coastal plain area of the land of Canaan/Israel (the
> Philistine city-states of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashqelon, and a few others).
> The name Palestine or "Philistia" meant only the southern coastal
> plain area (and NOT the entire land of Canaan/Israel) -- until the
> Roman emperor Hadrian decided rather arbitrarily to rename the Roman
> province of "Judaea" as "Palaestina" around 135 A.D., as part of
If "Philistia" is a native word, or if the lands occupied by the
Phillistines exactly coincide with nowadays Palestine, as defined by the
British, it doesn't matter.
There was once a great nation there [in Palestine] where lived the
Phillistines who, according to the Bible, come from Egypt and were
ferocious enemies of Israel. Probably they mixed with the local
populations after disappearing as a Nation.
As you see I've included your claims on the Romantic Nationalist concept
of Palestine, even reinforcing it on the proccess.
[paragraph's position changed to here as it deals with the same matter]
> There's no continuous historical tradition of cultural self-identity
> connecting ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians, since the
> ancient Philistines lost their distinctive language and separate
> identity -- and became absorbed into the general mass of
> Aramaic-speaking superfically-Hellenized "Syrians" -- even before the
> Roman period.
This is irrelevant too, as demonstrated with the analogy with the
"Lusitans".
If you havce credible evidence that that people is part of you, that is
all that matters.
> his brutal and vicious program of anti-Jewish measures connected with
> the suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt -- something which some
> Jews don't forget.
This pure Zionist Romantic Nationalism. The only problem with it, is that
the ones who adhered to it lived in Europe, and not in Palestine itself,
nor had lived there for almost 2000 years, and it is doubtfull that some
ever had any roots at all on the region, except for the Religion they
professed.
They had to invade Palestine in order to serve their Romantic Nationalism,
performing an aggression against local populations and temporarily
restoring the ancient Jewish empire. But unless they manage to kill or
expell all the local Population - assimilation is not an option - they
will ever feel menaced, and onde day they will fall, for the genuine
feelings of the ones who are defending their ancestor's land - as opposed
the land of the tribes of some religious myth - will always pervail.
I reccommend you the reading of the following text by the well known
Zionist Jabotinsky, which is defined by the Jewish Agency for Israel as
"An inspiration to manythousands of young Zionists, particularly in East
Europe, VladimirJabotinsky was a soldier, orator, novelist and poet,
founder of theJewish Legion and supreme commander of the Irgun Zeva'i
Le'ummi(IZL)"[1], which gives a further insight on this reasoning:
"There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the
Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well-meaning
people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago
the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the
Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab
country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some general
understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example
when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the
native population. Such an event has never occurred.
The natives will always struggle obstinately against the colonists – and
it is all the same whether they are cultured or uncultured. The comrades
in arms of [Hernan] Cortez or [Francisco] Pizarro conducted themselves
like brigands. The Redskins fought with uncompromising fervor against both
evil and good-hearted colonizers. The natives struggled because any kind
of colonization anywhere at anytime is inadmissible to any native people.
Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they
will be complete masters. They will never voluntarily allow a new master.
So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the
Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations
of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view of the Palestinian
Arabs.
They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine
with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon
his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle
against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the
dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians
will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.
It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization.
Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by
every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in
the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been
necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian
Arabs and the same condition exists now.
Even an agreement with non-Palestinians represents the same kind of
fantasy. In order for Arab nationalists of Baghdad and Mecca and Damascus
to agree to pay so serious a price they would have to refuse to maintain
the Arab character of Palestine.
We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians
nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All
colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the
will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only
under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the
local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To
formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.
Whether through the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, external force is
a necessity for establishing in the country conditions of rule and defense
through which the local population, regardless of what it wishes, will be
deprived of the possibility of impeding our colonization, administratively
or physically. Force must play its role – with strength and without
indulgence. In this, there are no meaningful differences between our
militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish
bayonets; the other an Iron Wall of English bayonets.
To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer,
’absolutely untrue.’ This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long
as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they
will not sell these hopes – not for any sweet words nor for any tasty
morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no
people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except
when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in
the Iron Wall."
Jabotinsky, Vladimir, The Iron Wall – “O Zheleznoi Stene” – Rassvet,
November 4, 1923.
Quoted by Schoenman, Ralph, "The Hidden History of Zionism" (Veritas
Press, Santa Barbara (Calif.) 1988)
[1] - http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/people/BIOS/jabo.html
Paulo Gomes Jardim
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:16:37 -0500, AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>> and the idea of a separatist specifically-Palestinian Arab
>>> nationalist ideology didn't begin to gain mass support and
>>> allegiance until after 1964.
>
>> The AnonMoos trick here is that he glues the "separatist" bit to his
>> sentence, which turns it into an absolutely meaningless truism.
>
> Dude, in the normal way that the word "nationalist" is used in the
> English language, if you're an "Xian nationalist", then it means that
> you basically support the independent separate sovereign statehood of
> entity X in all circumstances. So if you're an Austrian nationalist,
> then you oppose anschluss with Germany -- and if you support Germany's
> anschluss of Austria, then you're not considered a true Austrian
> nationalist.
Can you envisage he being an Austrian Nationalist AND an European
Nationalist at the same time?
I guess that the answer to this is yes, or else you would have a great
problem understanding why country-level Nationalism still exists and
thrives in the EU countries after their integration on the EU.
Your analogy with the "anschluss" is also not as good as it may seem, as
many (some say the majority of them) Austrians actually supported the
inclusion on "Greater Germany", and the Austrian Nationalism escaped
intact from those times. In fact, even today some well known Austrian
politicians who praise the "Anschluss" are in the most Nationalistic and
Fascist fringe of the Austrian political spectrum [1].
[1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4591725.stm
> However, in the case of Palestinian "waTaniyyah", for many years you
> could be a "waTanii filasTiinii" or a "waTanii li-filasTiiin" (or
"al-umma al-filastiniyya".
> however it would be expressed), and still be IN FAVOR of Palestine's
> absorption into a larger pan-Islamic, pan-Arab, and/or Greater Syrian
> state -- and see no contradiction in that.
This is much close to what I said.
> Therefore, your attempt to describe such Palestinian local feelings
> prior to the 1960's as "Palestinian nationalism" is disingenuous at
> best and intentionally deceptive at worst, since the normal meaning
> of the word "nationalism" in the English language would lead to the
> presumption that "Palestinian nationalism" should be a movement
> seeking separatist independent sovereign statehood for Palestine as
> its exclusive and uncompromising goal. What you choose to call
> pre-WW1 Palestinian so-called "nationalism" was in fact NOT such a
> movement.
Apparently you understood that your argument was lost, and decided to
fiddle with semantics in order to score at least some points.
You claim that "Nationalism" has a specific meaning in the English
Language, which does not comprises the Arab version of Nationalism.
However, when looking the definition of the word at Webster, I found:
Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism
...
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national
consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary
emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of
other nations or supranational groups
It seems that you limited your vision to the "especially" part of the
term, falling for the fallacy that if it is not "pure nationalism" then it
is not nationalism at all.
However, all that is necessary to prove the existence of Palestinian
Nationalism is that thare is a concept of a Palestinian Nation, and
loyalty and devotion to it, and I've demonstrated both well in place as
early as 1914.
In fact, the only period where Palestinian Nationalism doesn't fit the
"especially" definition of Nationalism is on 1919 and the year after. I
would say that your attempt to dismiss the entire notion of Nationalism
based on 2 years is, to use your very words, "disingenuous at best and
intentionally deceptive at worst".
>>> and most Palestinians assumed that Israel/Palestine would
>>> relatively soon be swallowed up by some neighboring Arab state, and
>>> they generally saw no great problem with this...
>
>> And probably they wouldn't see a great problem with this again, if
>> the circunstances favour such an Arab Nation.
>
> And such feelings aren't very compatible with the ordinary meaning of
> a phrase such as "Palestinian nationalism" in the English language --
> are they, now?
They may not fit *your own* meaning of Nationalism, but according to
Webster they are indeed.
gab
"Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:opsrtcp7tyurn6af@paulo...
> FANTASIES AND MURDER PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU HATE EDUCATIUON AND CULTURE. ARABS
> ARE THE DUST OF THE WORLD AND THE DREGS OF MANKIND.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
>> YOU HAD NOTHING AND YOU HAVE NOTHING EXCEPT A STRONG URGE TO TELL ABSURD
>> FANTASIES AND MURDER PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU HATE EDUCATIUON AND CULTURE.
>> ARABS
>> ARE THE DUST OF THE WORLD AND THE DREGS OF MANKIND.
Better dregs than drags.
abu ishrak
carrying the discussion back to the coexistence of modern humans
[Palestinians] and neandertalers ["Israelis"] at Qafzeh might be, this
only clouds the issue.
It seems to me that a simpler approach would be:
They're Arabs, and it's their country. From the desert to the sea.
Here's why:
1] The current international committment to self-determination
overrides previous imperial mandates.
2] The British Empire awarded itself a mandate for Palestine, the
international community did not.
Granted, there is no system for appealing crooked mandates from either
the League of Nations or the post-war United Nations, except a vigorous
military protest of such judgements by the victimized party.
3] The validity of minority settler governments imposed on native
populations by Imperial entities has been rejected by international
consensus, as in the case of South Africa.
4] The region designated as "Palestine" is a subdivision of a larger
Arab nation, defined by a common language and, in general, a common
culture, deprived of a common national consciousness by 800 years of
Turkish domination, and the deliberate suppression of national identity
by the subsequent British rule.
The division of Arabia into petty kingdoms served British and later
"Israeli"/American interests well.
The imposition of Hejazi "kings" in Iraq and Palestine confused the
issue even further, as did Britain's acquiesence to the conquest of the
Hejaz by a family of Nejdi bandits.
Setting up "kings" who depended on foreign support rather than the
affection of their people is an eloquent imperial tactic, but must be
seen as heinous through modern eyes.
Palestinians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Saudis, are all creations of the
British imperial system for the explicit purpose of suppressing Arab
nationalism.
The time has come to correct that, as Nasser saw.
5] The separation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine, with a non-native
royal family whose loyalty was and still is to its Western protectors
is as relevant to modern conditions as the establishment of Yugo-Slavia
or the Danzig corridor: one more destructive relic of British hegemony.
6] Until new political subdivisions are established by a legitimate
[i.e. Arab] government, the designation of a "Palestinian" people will
have to serve when referring to the Arabs who live in Palestine
[Palestine being comprised of Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, and the
land currently claimed by Jewish Agency in Palestine.
7] Who owned the land 2000 years ago is, unfortunately, irrelevant. A
global return to CE 1 political borders is impossible as well as
undesirable.
If an exception is granted to the Jews, what about minority cultures
who have actually maintained continuous residence? The Kurds, the
Mingrelians, the Basques, the Chechens etc, etc?
8] As inconvenient and even dangerous movement to Pan-Arabism is, the
alternative, a rejection of self-determination and popular sovereignty,
the principles the West has come to see as the core of its ideology, is
even more dangerous.
Without a commitment to real democracy in the colonies, the U.S.
adventure in the Middle East is just another shitheel imperial
invasion, and I, for one, don't give my loyalty to governments that
believe in democracy for themselves and their buddies, while denying it
to others.
If they'll deny political rights to the "sand niggers", they'll deny
those rights to anyone they see fit. Including me.
9] Precedents for the resolution of the Jewish problem in Arabia
already exist.
The Sudetan Germans, I believe, were repatriated to Germany. European
residents of Zimbabwe and South Africa either stayed and tried to work
with the new, legitimate governments [unwisely, in the case of
Zimbabwe], or emigrated to their lands of origin or elsewhere.
10] With the exception of the Boers in South Africa, none of the above
examples involved religious cult members. This complicates the
situation in Palestine, but the solution used by the U.S. government
against the Branch Davidians worked out well. We are dealing, of
course, with a religious cult armed with hydrogen bombs in "Israel".
Pity the U.S. government didn't destroy Dimona like the "Israelis" did
Osirak. Spilt milk.
The threat of nuclear blackmail by a rogue state cannot be allowed to
prevent the righting of a great wrong.
shinerman
AnonMoos
obliteration and extirpation of the State of Israel and the "transfer"
of the Jews, but doesn't this go against your professed loyalty to the
Northern Kingdom of Jeroboam, and your elevation of the November 29th
1947 partition plan to be the solution to all problems?
P.S. I fiddled with some small details of the large (GIF/PDF) version
of the map at http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/#biblicisrael
if you want to copy the updated version to your site...
abu ishrak
> Hey Shinerman, it's no real surprise to see you justifying the
> obliteration and extirpation of the State of Israel and the "transfer"
> of the Jews,
versus the obliteration, extirpation, and transfer of the people of
Palestine?
I once thought the two state solution might work. The actions of the
Jewish Agency in Palestine, and getting to know how "Israelis" think
from the posts on this NG have disabused me of that fantasy.
You don't give Dr. Goldstein enough credit: he was the John Brown of the
"Israeli" right, and there is no political solution.
Somebody's gotta go, and I'm picking the European colonists.
Ten years from now, or a thousand years from now. The Jews have been
bucking the tide of inevitability for 3000 years, and it's pointless.
"Israel" is a dodo. And pretending to resurrect the corpse isn't helping
anyone except the ultraorthodox rabbis.
The Jewish Agency in Palestine is the only remaining European colony
holding a majority indigenous population captive. For that reason, the
90% of the
world's population who were subjected to colonialism hate the Jewish
Agency in Palestine's guts. It's a permanent instability that can only
be resolved one way. The only choice is whether thousands die or
millions die in the resolution. The choice the Allies had to make at
Dunkirk.
Maybe when the ice sheet slides off of Antarctica, we can establish a
Jewish Homeland there. It's bigger than Europe, with real defensible
borders.
And it has a mountain that's also an active volcano! You must admit that
Fuji worked a lot better as a magic mountain than Moriah did, right?
Also, since the main causes of global conflicts are lack of a common
language and religious differences [will ou concede that point?] isn't
it a fucken brilliant idea to revive a dead language and a dying
religion and insert it into the WORST POSSIBLE PLACE for such an
experiment in social engineering?
Sheer genius!
> but doesn't this go against your professed loyalty to the
> Northern Kingdom of Jeroboam,
The descendants of the Northern Kingdom are walled up in Gaza and the
West Bank at the moment. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
> and your elevation of the November 29th
> 1947 partition plan to be the solution to all problems?
Never meant to imply that. I just pointed out that the partition was as
unacceptable to the Jewish Agency in Palestine as it was to the Arabs
[indefensible borders], and that the Jewish Agency in Palestine would
have sabotaged it as soon as convenient. Which they did, by attacking
the Arabs living in the Jewish section of the Partition. And then
stealing more land from the Arab section. [All those settlers getting
bombed from Gaza aren't in the Jewish Agency in Palestine, they're
living in the parts of Gaza the Jewish Agency in Palestine stole in
1948.]
>
> P.S. I fiddled with some small details of the large (GIF/PDF) version
> of the map at http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/#biblicisrael
> if you want to copy the updated version to your site...
Thanx. I will. Please don't use Hebrew characters in the future. They
might cause me to burst into flames.
shinerman