The Emergence of Palestinian Arab Nationalism in the mid-to-late 20th century

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 14, 2016 2:55 PM GMT
    As always, AyaTrolLiar Founcer (now JTheM) engages in the maximal anti-Israel argument. Not on the basis of his sources (which he looks for after-the-fact and then twists and misrepresents), but based on his hate for Jews and all things Jewish, including the Jewish State.

    Let's look at more than one cherry-picked (then twisted) sentence written by Gerber, his source:

    || scholars almost universally agree that there were NO traces of Palestinian identity before it was invented by the British in 1918. Rashid Khalidi and Yehoshua Porath are alone in claiming that such an identity existed a little earlier, although for Porath it was no more than a reaction to Zionism.

    || I do NOT argue that a Palestinian nation existed before 1920

    || I do NOT even argue the existence of a full-fledged, self-conscious ethnic community.

    Wups. He jettisons Gerber in favor of another source, the "foremost expert".
    As if that makes Gerber wrong now that it's clear he doesn't say what the AyaTrolLiar posted?

    ATLF> Porath is considered the foremost expert on the Palestinian national movement

    And the title of his masterpiece on the subject?

    || The emergence of the Palestinian-Arab national movement, 1918-1929

    ATLF> Glad to see you withdraw your lie that Palestinian nationalism was a "late-20th Century" phenomenon.

    The usual lack of nuance mixed with incredible amounts of idiocy. The normal fare from founcer.

    The liar is the person who claimed Palestinian Arab nationalism dates back another century, despite his own source - who he just claimed was the "foremost expert" - saying (in the title of his book!) it "emerged" only after WW I (as I have stated). For years founcer has waived that source as if it supports his claims when in fact it denounces it, exposing founcer's intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty. (Indeed, associating the term "intellectual bankruptcy" likely gives this "all around sh*tty excuse for a human being", as Sharkspeare observed, too much credit)

    Note further:

    As a counter-stroke to Zionism.
    Within borders established by Europeans AFTER WW I.


    As virtually all historians agree, it "emerged" in bits and pieces. With different thoughts and beliefs that varied over time. Consider that from 1949-1967 there was no movement to establish a Palestinian Arab state in the territories (then held by Arab governments). Those in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem accepted Trans/Jordan's unification/annexation and Trans/Jordanian citizenship.

    Consider that the PLO wouldn't try to take over Jordan until 1970 (after Jordan lost its so-called "West Bank").

    The current form of Palestinian Arab nationalism is a post-1967 phenomenon.
    (See next post: the inclusion of Bedouin and Armenians as Palestininans is a post-Oslo phenomenon.)


    Combine that with Gerber's chapter (founcer's other source):

    || The Formative Period: 1918-1922

    ATLF> [ducks]


    ATLF> Baruch Kimmerling, Joel Migdal, Abu Izz al-Din) trace the Palestinian national movement to almost a century earlier.

    We know how the AyaTrolLiar likes to cherry pick sources and then cherry pick from within them, too.

    ATLF> [denies he cherry picks, even as his hand is in the cookie (cherry?) jar.]

    It wouldn't then surprise anyone that elsewhere he's arguing the Arab population in 1800 was 350,000 while Kimmerling & Migdal put it around 200,000 in the 1830s. Did the population drop by almost half in 30 years?

    ATLF> [flees]


    Consider further that while he contests my use of "desolate", his sources, Kimmerling & Migdal, write:

    || At the beginning of the 19th century, the towns up and down Palestine's coast were mere shells of their former selves, the grandeur and vibrancy of the biblical, Roman, or Arabic eras having been eroded by prolonged misery and neglect.

    ATLF> [nada]


    With respect to Palestinian Arab nationalism, Kimmerling and Migdal, his sources, trace a "spark" to 1834, but that is severely flawed.

    The "rebellion" against Egyptian rule wasn't uniform (several important families fought with the Egyptians)

    ATLF> two clans (the 'Abd al-Hadi and Abu Ghawsh - out of how many?) fought with the Egyptians.

    You tell me how many clans fought against the Egyptians.

    How come those two clans weren't considered traitors?


    The "revolt" wasn't for independence (the "rebels" wanted to restore Ottoman rule)

    ATLF> [diverts]


    The "revolt" wasn't limited to "Palestine" but included areas of Lebanon and Trans-Jordan (thus it actually undermines the argument as it shows that the nationalism that eventually followed after WW I had a different scope than this would-be "nationalism").

    ATLF> It failed to conform precisely to post-Ottoman 20th Century borders, so is hence meaningless

    Mostly yes, as most historians agree. It shows the two movements are completely unassociated, despite your attempt to draw a line between them (absent any other points in a span of 90 years - 4 generations!)

    It's like saying that if in 1685 Quebec and Maine opposed some British policy, even taking up arms, that this was the origin of American (USA) nationalism.


    Thus it is no wonder that, contrary to ATLF's cherry-picked mis-representations of their work, they write:

    || It was these groups that would LATER constitute the Palestinian people.

    ATLF> [exposed, he crawls back under his rock]

    His central argument is that "Palestinians" (referencing Arabs), if not an ancient group, date back at least 90 years earlier. Yet his own sources - again! - actually say the exact opposite.

    ATLF> I prefer to base my arguments on knowledgeable historians

    ROTFL. He debases his "arguments" on what he TWISTS or totally LIES about that "knowledgeable historians" write.


    The story of American independence similarly goes back to the Pilgrims, but no one would claim that was the start of American nationalism or that the Pilgrims were "American". They were part of groups that LATER became Americans.

    ATLF> [runs away]
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 14, 2016 2:58 PM GMT
    ATLF> " The country was composed of three principal Ottoman subdistricts, Acre, Nablus and Jerusalem, which were connected by history and tradition."

    That was a reorganization in 1864.
    Which also saw the Nablus Sanjak losing the territory it previously included in Trans-Jordan (Balkah).

    In reality, an Arab in Acre was closer to an Arab in Sidon (Lebanon) [which was in the Ottoman Sanjak of Acre, too!] than to an Arab in Jericho. An Arab in Jericho was closer to one in Amman (Jordan) than to one in Gaza. An Arab in Gaza was closer to an Arab in El Arish (Egypt) than to that first Arab in Acre.

    ATLF> No surprise to see him pull a new lie out of his ass that Sidon was part of the Sancak of Acre.

    Acre was the capital of the Sidon Eyalet for 66 years, during which time it was known as the Acre Eyalet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre_Sanjak

    || The Sanjak of Acre was created c. early 18th century as a prefecture of the Sidon Eyalet. The Sidon Eyalet later became known as the Acre Eyalet between 1775 and 1841 when Acre was designated as the eyalet's capital city. Following the promulgation of the Vilayet Law as per the then-ongoing Tanzimat, or administrative reforms, in 1864, the sanjak of Acre was annexed to the newly created Syria Vilayet. In 1888, the sanjaks of Acre, Latakia, Tripoli, Beirut, and Nablus were separated from the Syria Vilayet and transferred to the Beirut Vilayet.[2]

    If Wikipedia isn't sufficient enough, I'm happy to reference dozens of works (books) by historians - while founcer with his warped methodology is relegated to the same handful (and even then misrepresenting them for maximal idiocy) while sock-puppet "Nimrod" speaks of "the history" even as he is woefully ignorant of it.


    What bound these Arabs together was the post WW I borders drawn by the European powers. Indeed, when almost all of the Sanjak of Acre was made part of Lebanon, no Arab objected saying they were "Palestinian" and should be included. Likewise when the border on the south ran through the middle of Rafah, those in the north half of the city nominally became "Palestinians" (a notion which at that time they rejected) and their cousins a kilometer south became Egyptians.

    ATLF> "In the very last years of their rule, the Ottomans allowed the Arab elite to take a more intensive part in the politics of the land – turning its cities such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa and Nablus – into epicenters of social, and LATER even national, unity."

    What is "later" than the "very last years" of Ottoman rule?
    After 1917!

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 14, 2016 3:05 PM GMT
    The Europeans called the territory "Palestine". The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica clearly explains how the term was then used: Not as an "Arab country" let alone ethnic group but as the Latin/European name for the Land of Israel.

    || Palestine: A geographical name of rather loose application. Etymological strictness would require it to denote exclusively the narrow strip of coast-land once occupied by the Philistines, from whose name it is derived. It is, however, conventionally used as a name for the territory which, in the Old Testament, is claimed as the inheritance of the pre-exilic Hebrews

    "Palestine" was a nebulous geographic area, similar to the Midwest.

    ATLF> Filastin was not a "nebulous" geographic area

    Except that Filastin didn't exist, the old Arab military district (of a foreign occupier, ruling from afar!) disappearing in 1099 with the Crusader conquest and no such division existing under Mamluk or Ottoman rule.

    Not to mention that Filastin was only the southern half of Israel - and of Trans/Jordan.

    It's funny because AyaTrolLiar founcer simultaneously argues that the region wasn't nebulous and that it didn't include Trans-Jordan, and yet in the late 19th century you have books published by the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) about "Western Palestine" (as opposed to what? A non-existent Eastern/Trans-Jordanian Palestine?). Not sufficient? Consider the PEF "Expedition to the East of Jordan" (1867, published in 1870).

    Granted they may not have included the desert that is today part of Jordan as part of Palestine, but it's like saying that "half of Nebraska" isn't nebulous because you know it includes Omaha and Lincoln but not Denver, but you're not sure if it includes Des Moines, Kansas City or Sioux Falls.


    Imagine that Russians drew borders and defined a "Midwest Mandate", with (to keep it simple) the eastern halves of Kansas & Nebraska (and some parts of S. Dakota and Iowa), while the western halves (and parts of Colorado and Oklahoma) they called Trans-Midwest.

    Could the people of this "Midwest" claim they are one people who have lived there thousands of years (Europeans who had intermixed with Native Americans, even if that happened relatively rarely if at all) - and that they were totally different from the people of Trans-Midwest and those from elsewhere in S Dakota and Iowa?


    ATLF> Filastini, Shami, Iraqi and Masri Arabs, while not mutually exclusive ethno-nationalisms, were distinct concepts with cultural, linguistic, even religious differentiations for centuries

    Except that the "differentiations" internally in "Palestine" were tremendous. You had the villagers and the Bedouin (it wasn't till the 1990s that the Bedouins were considered "Palestinian", and founcer is claiming this was true 100 years earlier, and already then "for centuries?). There was the historic division between Qais (northern) and Yamini (southern) Arabs (owing to their point of origin in Arabia). You had Muslims, Druze and Christians (including non-Arab Christians such as Armenians, who again no one considered "Palestinian" until recently, and I think most of them reject that). There were distinctions between Shia and Sunni, as between Maronite and other Christians. There were Turkomen and Circassians (who today consider themselves Israeli but never considered themselves "Filastini".) And Kurds and Persians and Bosnians and....

    Outside of the cities (which were few and small), they kept to themselves. This remains true today, both in Israel, Lebanon and Syria. There are Shia villages, Druze villages, Maronite villages, Circassian villages. This is why in Syria Shia forces can siege Sunni villages and Sunni forces can siege Shia villages.

    Maronites in Lebanon have more in common with Maronites in Israel - still today, let alone 100 years and "centuries" ago. Druze in "Palestine" had more in common with Druze in Lebanon than with Maronites in "Palestine" or the Egyptian immigrants in Gaza and elsewhere, or the Mughrabis (north Africans). Those Egyptians in Gaza and northern Rafah (as well as those who settled further north) had more in common with Egyptians in southern Rafah and El Arish (Egypt) than with Druze, Maronites, Armenians, Circassians or Shia further north. The Bedouin and other tribes that moved back and forth across the Jordan River had more in common with tribes that stayed east of the River than with any of the fore-mentioned groups west of the River.

    Had Jews disappeared in the 19th century, it's not even certain that the Brits/LON would have established a "Palestine Mandate", or if such a state emerged that it would have been viewed as any less "artificial" (or successful) than Iraq.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 14, 2016 3:21 PM GMT
    The overarching mistake in founcer's warped method is in projecting the present into the past, working backward through time, rather than starting in the past and moving forward.

    People 100 and 200 years ago did not know what would happen in the future and their thoughts and conceptions were independent of that.

    This is akin to his usual reversal of the scientific method, pretending that his preconceived and biased notions are conclusions, a functional "model", and thus seeing only "data" that supports it (even if it has to be twisted or completely invented) while ignoring the facts that refute it.

    Thus he not only cherry picks sources, but selectively cherry picks data within them, and then twists it further. On point after point after point.

    Why? Because he hates Jews and all things Jewish. In his puny and hate-infested mind, "one Jewish state is too many" and thus any and all arguments (even if outright lies) are valid, for-the-cause.

    Why does virulent Anti-Semitism play such a large role in MidEast discussions on RJ?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4015076
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1443151
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 14, 2016 3:37 PM GMT
    See also:

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    Arabs (like Arabic) NOT indigenous to Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4019405/

    The Palestine Paradox
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2652202

    Want to look forward rather than backward?

    UN Security Council Resolution 242, Oslo Accords, Camp David & Taba.
    I support the CLINTON COMPROMISE parameters. Yet the war-mongering anti-Israel trolls do not.

    (2008 )
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    Yalla, Peace!
    (2010. Why did founcer boycott this?)
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1285693

    The two-state solution: Revisiting the Clinton Compromise Parameters and the Olmert Plan
    (2012. Why did founcer boycott this?)
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2670812

    Let's talk peace: The two-state solution
    (2016. Boycotted by founcer, "Nimrod" and Sam27.)
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4180210

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 16, 2016 4:27 AM GMT
    The on-line etymological dictionary concurs with the 1911 Britannica explanation of how "Palestine" and "Palestinian" were used 100 years ago:

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Palestinian

    || Palestinian: 1875 (adj.), 1905 (n.), from Palestine + -ian. Also in early use with reference to Jews who settled or advocated settling in that place.

    As a noun, the term originates in 1905. And the "early use" was a "reference to Jews", not Arabs.

    When the Jaffa-based Arab newspaper "Falastin" (founded in 1911) referenced Arabs as Palestinians a decade later, it was a first. But it is also notable that they only did so in anti-Zionist articles. Thus confirming that this early form was a reaction to Zionism (and nothing to do with events nearly a century earlier).

    Consider that this newspaper came out 30 years into the Zionist period.
    Thirty years after Jews started draining the swamps and irrigating the deserts.
    After Tel Aviv was established in the sands north of Jaffa.
    After Jews started building outside of Jerusalem's old city walls.

    Note also that according to the "overly pedantic" pouncer, my use of "Falastin" (instead of "Filastin") is "wrong". How odd that the editors of the newspaper misspelled it on their own masthead (in English). Were they "wrong", or was the term new to them?

    Falastin was essentially one of two Arabic language newspapers in "Palestine" in the years before WWI. The other was al-Karmil, and while it was also anti-Zionist, it didn't promote Palestinian Arab nationalism but was loyal to the Ottoman Empire.

    Neville Mandel ("The Arabs and Zionism Before World War I") explains:

    || in Palestine, both al-Karmil and Falastin were pro-CUP [an Ottoman Turkish political party] and anti-Zionist, whereas papers in the surrounding provinces tended to be anti-CUP and anti-Zionist. But if their opposition to Zionism was linked to their hostility to CUP, it was also subordinate to it.

    || anti-CUP papers were almost invariably edited by Muslims and, besides being anti-Zionists, were also anti-Christian and anti-European. Papers edited by Christian Arabs ["in Beirut and Damascus"] were generally pro-CUP, and either friendly or neutral towards Jews and Zionists. ...a newspaper's stand in respect of Zionism was as much a function of its editor's religion as of his politics.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 17, 2016 12:44 AM GMT
    Other influences came from the Crimean War(s) and the Decentralisation Party.

    || The editor of al-Ahram, Da'ud Barakat, was a member of the Decentralisation Party. In view of his paper's long standing antipathy to Zionism, he was considered by the French Vice-Consul in Haifa as a prominent Arab anti-Zionist.... Nonetheless, Barakat was the first to suggest publicly [in 1913] that an agreement was needed between the ARABS and the Zionists:

    || "It is certain that the SYRIANS do not find it at all inconvenient to have their Jewish brethren as neighbours and to live among them. But what is reprehensible is that an agreement has been made [with the CUP] about [the Syrians'] land, without their knowledge or consent. It is absolutely imperative that an entente be made between the Zionists and the ARABS, because this war of words can only do evil. The Zionists are necessary for the country; the capital which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterises them, will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country."

    || Robert Ghazi answered this remarkable article and comment directly in al-Ahram with the retort that all the antagonism between the Zionists and the ARABS emanated from the latter.

    || Haqqi Bey al-Azm, the Secretary of the Decentralisation Party, entered the polemic by publishing an article, again in al-Ahram. He denied that all SYRIANS were opposed to the Zionists. On the contrary, they knew that SYRIA needed capital and energy to progress and that the Jews were best suited to that purpose. (p. 150)

    Note the repeated references to Syria/Syrian and Arab, and none to Palestine/Palestinians.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 20, 2016 4:49 PM GMT
    AyaTrolLiar founcer, elsewhere> The Ottoman Caliphate was a regional empire, not a global one. It shared the same religion and much of the same culture with the Arab world. In fact it was the successor to the Arab Caliphate and not even considered an empire by many living there.

    Except, evidently and magically, in "Palestine"?!
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 20, 2016 5:01 PM GMT
    You know how many Americas, Canadians, British, Australians and Germans care about this? Zero
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 24, 2016 3:45 AM GMT
    Odd, then, that the conflict continues to grab headlines in the western media and interest on college campuses.

    tj85016 saidYou know how many Americas, Canadians, British, Australians and Germans care about this? Zero
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 06, 2016 4:27 PM GMT
    Reading through an old thread in search of something else, I found this:

    AyaTrolLiar founcer> In his [1891] book 'Truth from Palestine'

    The title of the essay is actually "Emet me-Eretz Yisrael".
    Literally "Truth from the Land of Israel".

    Why would someone arguing that Palestine wasn't the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael translate EY as "Palestine"?!
    Once again he's caught misrepresenting the truth, hoping others would be misled to believe there was some other [Arab] "Palestine" in 1891.
    As we have seen, there wasn't.
    His lie actually proves my point!


    In that same post, our pathological liar-for-the-cause similarly provides a sentence fragment "quote" from 1905.
    Here's the first half which he omitted-for-the-cause:

    Zeitlin> What all the Palestinians forget....

    He isn't talking about the Arabs (in 1905 no one called them "Palestinians") but of the Jewish Zionists in Zion/Palestine.

    So his own sources actually undermine his argument and shows how "Palestine" and "Palestinians" were used at the time, 100 years ago: to describe Eretz Yisrael and Jews living there.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 08, 2016 4:51 PM GMT
    From an earlier discussion last year, there was this attempt to "prove" the existence of Palestinian nationalism in the ~1920s:

    AyaTrollah founcer> 1919-28 - Convening of seven Palestinian National Congresses

    It wasn't the "Palestinian" but "Palestine" National Congress. While he pretends that its existence (with it's name twisted) proves Palestinian ethnicity separate from the surrounding Arabs (Yet it was NOT the "Palestinian Congress"; as is it was the Congress of Arabs in British Mandate Palestine!), in reality:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Arab_Congress#First_congress:_Jerusalem.2C_1919

    || A cable was sent to the Paris Peace Conference, demanding a renunciation of the Balfour Declaration and the inclusion of Palestine as "an integral part of...the independent Arab Government of Syria within an Arab Union, free of any foreign influence or protection"

    || Palestine was envisaged as part of an independent Syrian state, governed by Faisal of the Hashemite family.

    By the 3rd congress, French control of Syria was established and Faisal had been evicted. The Congress couldn't insist on becoming part of Syria. Instead it:

    || Called for Palestine to be part of the independent Arab state promised in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence

    The 5th congress, in 1922, proclaimed:

    || "Palestine for the Arabs"

    Not for the Palestinians, that hadn't yet "crystallized".
    (Or rather, would likely be understood to mean the Jews!)

    It wasn't until 1932, a decade later, that the Arab Istiqlal (independence) party was formed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_(Palestine)

    || The party's aim was independence for all Arab countries, with the basic understanding that Palestine was historically and geographically part of Greater Syria.

    Yup, once again his reference, not cherry picked and twisted, actually proves the opposite of his claim!
    (Once again exposing the reversal of the scientific method, the "model" dictating the "facts".)
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 19, 2016 3:29 PM GMT
    In another thread, AyaTrolLiar founcer was lecturing that the Israel Druze (only 8% of whom primarily identify as "Palestinians" [2010]) are not "Arab Israelis" but "Palestinian Israelis". Then:

    ATLF> Who ever said that Armenians and Circassians were Palestinians?

    Why wouldn't they be? Are his "Palestinians" exclusively Arabs only?

    The Armenians likely predate the Arab invasion of the 7th century. They have been living in "Palestine" for over 1,000 years.
    Why wouldn't they be "Palestinians"?

    The Circassians arrived in the 19th century, about the same time as Arabs from Egypt, Libya and Algeria and Muslim colonists from Bosnia and a century later than various Bedouin tribes - all of whom are considered "Palestinian" today.

    Why wouldn't they be considered "Palestinians"?

    Oh, that's right, because ATLF is up to his usual contradictory snake-oil tricks and lies. Trying to criticize me for estimating* 21% as "almost 25%", he then sought to distinguish between "Israeli Arabs" and "Israeli Palestinians". But the latter would include groups other than just Arabs and approach 25%... so now he is forced to exclude them from "Israeli Palestinians".

    * Estimating, which he misrepresents as "rounding" to counter all of his rounding errors, not just 13.8% as 13% but also 6,000-something (his soruce's figure) to "2-3,000" (his number) because that's "under 7,000" (his source's summary).

    Yet another glaring example of AyaTrolLiar founcer's warped methodology, how he cooks the "data" to suit his preconceived and biased notions and current argument - even if he contradicts what he has claimed elsewhere.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 20, 2016 5:21 AM GMT
    Trolls can never discuss a topic in its thread, and true to form AyaTrolLiar founcer persists with his propaganda lies in a thread about sex workers.

    ATLF> Do Armenians and Circassians speak Arabic, like the Palestinian Arabs (otherwise known as Palestinians)?

    We weren't talking about "Palestinian Arabs" but "Israeli Palestinians".

    Is it a requirement to speak Arabic to be "Palestinian"?

    Suddenly Armenians in eastern Jerusalem and Circassians/Turkomen in Trans/Jordan's former so-called "West Bank" - today's would-be "Palestine" - aren't "Palestinians"?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 20, 2016 4:50 PM GMT
    Elsewhere AyaTrolLiar founcer has little to say:

    We weren't talking about "Palestinian Arabs" but "Israeli Palestinians".

    ATLF> [wups]

    Is it a requirement to speak Arabic to be "Palestinian"?

    ATLF> [crawls away]


    He then contradicts himself:

    Armenians in eastern Jerusalem and Circassians/Turkomen in Trans/Jordan's former so-called "West Bank" - today's would-be "Palestine" - aren't "Palestinians"?

    ATLF 1: No, because they don't IDENTIFY as such.

    ATLF 2: I haven't seen statistics for Armenians and Circassians (either for Palestine as a whole or for the Palestinian Territories and Israel separately), GladiatorSam says he regards them as Palestinians.

    First he asserts a "fact" and then he avoids the question saying he doesn't have facts?
    First it's a question of how they self-"identify", then it's up to how someone else "regards them"?!

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 20, 2016 4:51 PM GMT
    Then this startling revelation:

    ATLF> Once a Palestinian state is formed in practice and they become Palestinian citizens, this will likely change. Just look at the Druze in Israel!

    Ah, so not only are the Druze in Israel Israeli (and thus Israeli Arabs), but the Palestinian identity - invented in the 20th century - continues to evolve and change.

    Had such an ethnicity or identity actually existed prior to WW I, the Armenians, Bedouin, Circassians, Druze and others would have been part of it.

    Again consider the underlying inconsistency in the AyaTrolLiar founcer's argument:

    The Arameans, Armenians, Bedouin, Circassians, Druze, Samaritans, Turkomen and others didn't consider themselves "Palestinian" 50 let alone 100 or 150 years ago (and many still don't), only the sedentary Arab population were (retroactively) included (initially)? Note above his insistence on speaking Arabic as a requirement.

    The Druze (Arabic speakers), concentrated in the north of Israel, prior to WW I lived in the Vilayet of Beirut, not in "Palestine" (which didn't exist). Why would they have considered themselves "Palestinian" (other than due to modern politics) let alone based on a border drawn by European powers after WW I?

    Ironically, the Druze in the Golan, considered at the time to be part of "Palestine", the AyaTrolLiar insists are not "Palestinian" because the British ceded that land to the French Mandate of Syria in the early 1920s.

    But we are to believe that the "Palestinian ethnicity" (or "identity") predates WW I?

    Sure, like in ancient times, there was a nebulous region known as "Palestine" and people well within it knew they lived there, but ethnically they were Armenian, Circassian, etc., not "Palestinian". Just as people in the American midwest know where they live (more or less; does it include Ohio? Is southern Illinois in the midwest or the south - have you heard them talk?!), their ethnicity was perhaps German, Polish, Irish, Chinese, etc.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 23, 2016 8:33 AM GMT
    Prof. Benny Morris:

    Most serious historians point... to the 1920s and 1930s as the time when the Arabs of Palestine began thinking of themselves as a people separate from those of Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan (though, to be sure, they still regarded, and continue to regard, themselves as part of the wider Arab umma or nation), with a separate political destiny, and began to push for Palestinian independence and statehood. Between 1920 and 1935, Palestinian "nationalism" was propounded in a narrow circle of educated upper-class and middle-class families. During the revolt of 1936- 1939, the national idea spread from the urban upper classes to much of the countryside, though--to the embarrassment of Palestinian nationalists--many villages refused to participate in the uprising, and many Palestinians, especially in late 1938 and 1939, helped the British and the Zionists to crush the revolt.

    Since then, the Palestinians have indeed forged a collective identity and a separate history, which most historians view as necessary components of nationhood. ...The nakba of 1948 and the refugeedom that followed constitute the fulcrum around which Palestinian national identity and purpose have crystallized. But this is not quite the whole story. The reach of Palestinian nationalism, at least in past decades, deserves to be viewed with a measure of skepticism. For most of the conflict with Zionism and Israel, most "Palestinians" have cared far more about their family, their clan, and their village than about some remote construction called "nationalism" or "the nation."

    [Awaits personal attacks against Prof. Morris - even if in the form of misrepresenting other things he's said that have nothing to do with this subject thread, because we all know that a troll can never address a topic in its thread and must seek to endlessly divert.]
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jul 10, 2016 7:04 AM GMT
    The Palestinian Arab ethnogenesis is a 20th century event.
    It didn't take its present form until well after 1967.


    AyaTrolLiar*> You mean 1992, or something?

    In the 1970s, the prevailing view among Arabs in the territories were that Israel would return them to Jordan/Egypt, not that an Arab Palestine would be established. In the 1978 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, autonomy (not independence) was envisioned for Gaza. Only in the 1980s did the shift toward an independent Palestinian Arab state begin to take hold. By 1988 Jordan rescinded its claims to its former so-called "West Bank".

    * Elsewhere, of course. Trolls can never discuss a topic in its thread, rather they endlessly seek to spam their already discredited claims elsewhere.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jul 16, 2016 6:51 PM GMT
    In the 1970s, the prevailing view among Arabs in the territories were that Israel would return them to Jordan/Egypt, not that an Arab Palestine would be established.

    AyaTrolLiar> They supported overwhelmingly the position of the PLO, which came out for a TWO-STATE solution, involving a sovereign Arab Palestine, in 1974, 1975 and 1976.

    Oooh, 1974 at the earliest? And he thinks it caught on immediately and universally?

    AyaTrolLiar> It had already caught on, which is why the PLO pushed for it

    He's hopeless. Even today roughly half of the Palestinian Arabs in the territories reject the two-state solution.
    But he wants to pretend this was already embraced 40 years ago?

    Let's talk peace: The two-state solution
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4180210


    The people of Trans/Jordan's so-called "West Bank" themselves accepted Jordanian rule.
    They willingly accepted Jordanian citizenship.
    There were no protests or uprisings.


    AyaTrolLiar> Only an inveterate fool like you would try to twist it into meaning they were not Palestinians.

    Zuheir Mohsen was secretary general of the PLO’s Saiqa terrorist faction and a member of the PLO Executive Committee.
    Here's what he said about this nearly 30 years later, in 1977 - 10 years after 1967:

    The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

    For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

    AyaTrolLiar> My guess is 95% of Palestinians never heard of him

    Relegated to "guessing"? Is that a fancy way for saying you'll invent a "fact" to fit your "model" in the usual reversal of the scientific method?

    The PLO Executive Council has 18 members, akin to the ministers in the government.
    He was well known.

    What is almost more amazing (today) than his statement then is that it didn't produce an outcry.
    He was saying what everyone else then knew.

    Here the ignorant idiot repeats his mistake of reading history backward. Viewing events in the 1970s not just from the perspective of the present, but as if events then were informed by the present (then's future) instead of history before it.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Aug 23, 2016 1:34 PM GMT
    From our resident Palestinian Arab: Jordanians, Lebanese, Palestinians were/are Syrians.
    They were defined by post-WW I European borders:

    5f5ch0.jpg
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Oct 28, 2016 1:31 PM GMT
    In another thread, AyaTrolLiar founcer/JTheM attempts to twist things again:

    AyaTrolLiar> The standard work on the topic - a book to which he himself has appealed in the past - is "The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929", by Yehoshua Porath.

    ROTFL. I didn't "appeal" to that book. It was his source. I just pointed out that the title contradicted the AyaTrolLiar's spew, claiming that Palestinian Arab nationalism dated to the 1830s - and that Porath agreed with that.

    First he abandoned Gerber (though in that thread he just repeated his lie, too), now his authority is my source?
    Yes, he really is that dizzy. The result of his "scholarship" being to constantly twist everything.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Nov 03, 2016 1:42 PM GMT
    In another thread, Sam27 posts this.
    Notice how he had to add "Palestinians" in square parentheses because the ARABS then didn't reference themselves as such but as Arabs:

    Sam27 said:
    Source: Wasserstein, Bernard (1991). The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and Arab-Jewish Conflict, 1917-1929

    A delegation of the Muslim-Christian Association, headed by Musa al-Husayni, expressed public disapproval on 3 November 1918, one day after the Zionist Commission parade marking the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. They handed a petition signed by more than 100 notables to Ronald Storrs, the OETA military governor:

    || We have noticed yesterday a large crowd of Jews carrying banners and over-running the streets shouting words which hurt the feeling and wound the soul. They pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the Holy Land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by the Arab [Palestinians] for long ages, who loved it and died in defending it, is now a national home for them... We Arab [Palestinians], Muslim and Christian, have always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries... but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation...ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Nov 11, 2016 1:10 PM GMT
    In another thread (about food), Sam27 diverted with this:
    (Always in another thread, they can't ever discuss a topic in its place.)

    Sam27> Palestinian Keffiyeh

    It's the product of the latter half of the 20th century.

    Recall these 1948 photos of the Holy War Army of the Arab High Committee, which represented the Arabs of Mandate Palestine.

    The AyaTrolLiar had also lied that the HWA was "unarmed", even while claiming that it "clashed" with the Arab League's Arab Liberation Army.

    Abd%20al-Qadir%20al-Husayni.jpg

    800px-Husseini_1948.jpg

    These Arabs are wearing the regular Arab keffiyeh, and were not yet themselves then known as "Palestinians".
    A term that at the time meant a citizen of Mandate Palestine, the Jewish state-to-be, be they Jewish, Arab or other.
    And which was embraced by Jews while the Arabs rejected it and "Palestine" as a "Zionist invention".