Why is the argument that there were no Palestinians raised?

[rosends]

At the start of the war in 48 there was no Israeli nor Palestine, neither were states before the war, only after was one recognized. The West Bank was occupied by Jordan during the war and was recognized as part of Jordan. According to your argument the occupation is valid since by this point Israeli and Jordan were recognized states. Occupation occurred in 68, 20 years after the first war.

Yes it is political but ignore every other factor as acknowledgement of these facts do not support Israeli's claims to the area.

Actually, IIRC, certain parts WERE occupied and have been subsequently -- by Jordan. Of course, as Jordan didn't exist before the mandate it had no prior claim so no occupation of "it's" land could happen in 1948.

As a side note, the current state is considered by many as a "restoration." The political point being made is not whether there was a valid previous kingdom, but the fact that the "Palestinian" group cannot claim the same restoration as there was certainly no previous group by that name. The claim to the area is one determined by international fiat. Blame the British. Blame the Ottomans or the Mamelukes or whoever. But the state was declared, it was attacked and defended itself. If other countries can exist, then Israel can.

 

[Shad]

Actually, IIRC, certain parts WERE occupied and have been subsequently -- by Jordan. Of course, as Jordan didn't exist before the mandate it had no prior claim so no occupation of "it's" land could happen in 1948.

As a side note, the current state is considered by many as a "restoration." The political point being made is not whether there was a valid previous kingdom, but the fact that the "Palestinian" group cannot claim the same restoration as there was certainly no previous group by that name. The claim to the area is one determined by international fiat. Blame the British. Blame the Ottomans or the Mamelukes or whoever. But the state was declared, it was attacked and defended itself. If other countries can exist, then Israel can.

The 48 war caused all such borders of Palestine Mandate to be halted. The UK planned to end the mandate by a certain date regardless resolutions of statehood being unresolved. Both sides claimed statehood on the last day of the Mandate then war broke out. Now if one wants to put forward that each claim was a recognized state during the war then occupation is legal. Other states such as Jordan, 46, and Egypt, 22, were formed before the 48 war. This creates an issue. If the two states in Palestine were states prior or during the war the occupation was legal, as well as Jordan's occupation of the WB. If not then Palestine as a sovereign state is a recent claim not based on prior political status. Likewise Israeli would be a post war state not a pre-war state. It comes down to whether there were states in Palestine were recognized before or after the war. Jordan and Egypt were formed years to decades before 48 and were recognized states.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To its credit, the Zionist movement did spend a remarkable amount of time, dedication and money towards legally buying what I understand to be basically the territory of Israel as its frontiers were established at the moment of inauguration.

Let me again suggest …

A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time​

 

[rosends]

The 48 war caused all such borders of Palestine Mandate to be halted. The UK planned to end the mandate by a certain date regardless resolutions of statehood being unresolved. Both sides claimed statehood on the last day of the Mandate then war broke out. Now if one wants to put forward that each claim was a recognized state during the war then occupation is legal. Other states such as Jordan, 46, and Egypt, 22, were formed before the 48 war. This creates an issue. If the two states in Palestine were states prior or during the war the occupation was legal, as well as Jordan's occupation of the WB. If not then Palestine as a sovereign state is a recent claim not based on prior political status. Likewise Israeli would be a post war state not a pre-war state. It comes down to whether there were states in Palestine were recognized before or after the war. Jordan and Egypt were formed years to decades before 48 and were recognized states.

The two states, Egypt and Transjordan (till 46, the just Jordan) were not states in the area mandated to be Israel so when Jordan occupied land after May of 1948, it was an occupying power (assuming that the declarations of statehood of Jordan and Israel are equally valid). Israel's taking East Jerusalem/W-B back would therefore not be an occupation as Jordan's claim was invalid initially. A similar point could be made about Gaza -- it was part of the Mandate for a Jewish homeland. Egypt then occupied it after taking it from the soveeign nation (Israel).

But, while the various governmental agencies use the word "Palestine" in their names, such as the "All Palestine Government" these were not declarations of a Palestinian nation or people. Simply a reference to the mandatory geographical label.

 

[CMike]

One of the most esoteric parts of the heated controversy and conflict between Israelis and their neighbors (and the allies of both sides) is well represented in this quote (which is currently in the signature of a forum member).



I understand that for most Israelis that basically says that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state - or, at least, it denies some mysterious hypothetical reason to disapprove of its existence. Apparently some reason that is crystal clear for most Israelis, to the point that they assume everyone else to have a clue of what it is, if not an intuitive understanding.

I have barely any clue of what they mean with that. If it does not mean that they earned the right to the land by buying what was previously underpopulated, underoccupied land from whoever lived there previously, then I can't even attempt to guess what it might possibly mean. It is just an odd thing to say.

The whole saying is only meaningful to me in that it offers a perhaps involuntary glimpse of insight on the Israeli understanding of what the meaning and nature of people and territory are and how they relate to each other.

Perhaps more involuntarily still, it may in so doing also highlight that most Middle Eastern non-Jewish people have a very different understanding about those rights.

But I truly don't know. The saying is really very odd to me. Were it not for circunstantial evidence, I would assume that it is meant not to be understood by non-initiates. It relies way too much on what I consider a dogmatic, unfounded certainty about inherent meanings of nationality and rights of territory that are IMO no less than entirely and inherently fictional, albeit deeply valued by many people nonetheless.

What do you understand of that quote, and how did you reach that understanding? How stable are your conclusions?

It's very simple.

There was never an independent palestinian state where Israel exists now.

There have been three Jewish states there.

Before Israel became Israel it was divided by the UN into a Jewish Palestinian State. The arabs didn't accept it, and immediately declared war and attacked the Jewish state.

Before that it was part of the British Empire.

Before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

Before that the romans took it away from the jews and called it "palestine", which refers to the Phillistines whom had nothing to do with the Palestinians.

Jordan was created by the British as well. Over 60% of the arabs there are from what was "palestine".

The arabs already have a palestinian state, it's called Jordan.

There are 22 arab/muslim states. There is already a palestinian state.

There is only one tiny little Jewish State.

This conflict was never about the actual land, it has been about that the arabs don't want the Jews to exist-period.

 

[CMike]

The notion the Palestinians do not exist as a distinct people -- which Meir's saying seems to me to reflect -- appears to me to be based on a few facts very heavily spun into an absurd conclusion. Perhaps it would be kind of like the British arguing they had a claim to the US or parts of it on the grounds Americans were not a discreet and separate people before 1776. After all, when and how does a people become a people? Must they have always existed as a people to be a people today?

I think Israel has a right to exist. But so too, do I think the Palestinians have a right to form their own state, separate from both Israel and Jordan.

Please cite where the "palestinians" had an independent state.


And sure they can form a state wherever they want, except within the tiny Jewish state of Israel.

Both Iran and Iraq have a great deal of unpopulated land that would be a great place to have it.

 

[leibowde84]

One of the most esoteric parts of the heated controversy and conflict between Israelis and their neighbors (and the allies of both sides) is well represented in this quote (which is currently in the signature of a forum member).



I understand that for most Israelis that basically says that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state - or, at least, it denies some mysterious hypothetical reason to disapprove of its existence. Apparently some reason that is crystal clear for most Israelis, to the point that they assume everyone else to have a clue of what it is, if not an intuitive understanding.

I have barely any clue of what they mean with that. If it does not mean that they earned the right to the land by buying what was previously underpopulated, underoccupied land from whoever lived there previously, then I can't even attempt to guess what it might possibly mean. It is just an odd thing to say.

The whole saying is only meaningful to me in that it offers a perhaps involuntary glimpse of insight on the Israeli understanding of what the meaning and nature of people and territory are and how they relate to each other.

Perhaps more involuntarily still, it may in so doing also highlight that most Middle Eastern non-Jewish people have a very different understanding about those rights.

But I truly don't know. The saying is really very odd to me. Were it not for circunstantial evidence, I would assume that it is meant not to be understood by non-initiates. It relies way too much on what I consider a dogmatic, unfounded certainty about inherent meanings of nationality and rights of territory that are IMO no less than entirely and inherently fictional, albeit deeply valued by many people nonetheless.

What do you understand of that quote, and how did you reach that understanding? How stable are your conclusions?

I agree that it is a foolish sentiment, but there is a truth that most Muslims seem to ignore, whether it is intentional or not. The Hebrew people were residents of Palestine before Islam even existed. So, if we are going by who inhabited the land first, which is also pretty foolish, the land should certainly go to the Jews.

 

[CMike]

Sure, but there was never a sovereign state in the modern sense for the Jews until the 20th century.I'm not seeing what relevance it has to occupancy. The locals were still local.

What's the difference if it was a modern state or not?

They still had two previous Jewish states in that land.

 

[Sunstone]

Please cite where the "palestinians" had an independent state.

Obviously irrelevant to my point.

And sure they can form a state wherever they want, except within the tiny Jewish state of Israel.

Both Iran and Iraq have a great deal of unpopulated land that would be a great place to have it.

I'm thrilled you would permit them a state. Now if you can just get everyone to go along with you, you statement might actually become worth someone's time.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree that it is a foolish sentiment, but there is a truth that most Muslims seem to ignore, whether it is intentional or not. The Hebrew people were residents of Palestine before Islam even existed. So, if we are going by who inhabited the land first, which is also pretty foolish, the land should certainly go to the Jews.

That is indeed very foolish. It does not even make nominal sense to expect lands to be attached to people centuries after they left. People are not mineral deposits. They have cultures, their knowledge and goals change, their numbers vary wildly during centuries.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree that it is a foolish sentiment, but there is a truth that most Muslims seem to ignore, whether it is intentional or not. The Hebrew people were residents of Palestine before Islam even existed. So, if we are going by who inhabited the land first, which is also pretty foolish, the land should certainly go to the Jews.

Or the Canaanites. Or, for that matter, those of us with Neanderthal genes.

 

[CMike]

Israel defend itself, what a joke, murdering innocent civilians, you call that defense, I call it genocide, something the Jews of all people should be reticent to do.

I call it ignorance.

 

[leibowde84]

That is indeed very foolish. It does not even make nominal sense to expect lands to be attached to people centuries after they left. People are not mineral deposits. They have cultures, their knowledge and goals change, their numbers vary wildly during centuries.

I agree. That is why the notion that the Muslims were "kicked out" of their "home land" is a fraudulent one, assuming that they expect this argument to get it back.

 

[CMike]

At the start of the war in 48 there was no Israeli nor Palestine, neither were states before the war, only after was one recognized. The West Bank was occupied by Jordan during the war and was recognized as part of Jordan. According to your argument the occupation is valid since by this point Israeli and Jordan were recognized states. Occupation occurred in 68, 20 years after the first war.

Yes it is political but ignore every other factor as acknowledgement of these facts do not support Israeli's claims to the area.

You don't occupy your own home.

 

[CMike]

Or the Canaanites. Or, for that matter, those of us with Neanderthal genes.

And who are the Cannanites today?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's very simple.

There was never an independent palestinian state where Israel exists now.

And that could not even hypothetically mean anything... so?

There have been three Jewish states there.

Before Israel became Israel it was divided by the UN into a Jewish Palestinian State. The arabs didn't accept it, and immediately declared war and attacked the Jewish state.

Yes, that is the fact of most interest in the whole story by far, IMO. What exactly did the neighboring Arabs think and feel? What motivated them? What official justification they expressed?

Before that it was part of the British Empire.

Before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

Before that the romans took it away from the jews and called it "palestine", which refers to the Phillistines whom had nothing to do with the Palestinians.

Jordan was created by the British as well. Over 60% of the arabs there are from what was "palestine".

The arabs already have a palestinian state, it's called Jordan.

There are 22 arab/muslim states. There is already a palestinian state.

There is only one tiny little Jewish State.

This conflict was never about the actual land, it has been about that the arabs don't want the Jews to exist-period.

A tip: it is pointless to talk of states to me. I don't recognize the concept as useful, much less legitimate. And forget about sovereignity, which is even worse.

There is land. There are people (hardly static in their characteristics from one generation to the next). There is a very thorny issue of people always needing, craving or wanting land and breeding themselves out of any reasonable expectations of life quality. And there is the blood that is invariably drawn in order to "correct" those situations.

Talk about how a sovereign state must go at war to defend its people... is just not something I intend to respect. I am not that kind of person.

 

[CMike]

And that could not even hypothetically mean anything... so?




Yes, that is the fact of most interest in the whole story by far, IMO. What exactly did the neighboring Arabs think and feel? What motivated them? What official justification they expressed?




A tip: it is pointless to talk of states to me. I don't recognize the concept as useful, much less legitimate. And forget about sovereignity, which is even worse.

There is land. There are people (hardly static in their characteristics from one generation to the next). There is a very thorny issue of people always needing, craving or wanting land and breeding themselves out of any reasonable expectations of life quality. And there is the blood that is invariably drawn in order to "correct" those situations.

Talk about how a sovereign state must go at war to defend its people... is just not something I intend to respect. I am not that kind of person.

Though I never was in the military, the people whom do defend my country have my highest respect.

I have my freedom because of these people.

I honor all veterans of the US.

I am also grateful to the IDF whom are surrounded by enemies whom are very hostile and want to destroy them and keep the Jewish state safe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., if we are going by who inhabited the land first, which is also pretty foolish, the land should certainly go to the Jews.

First? Certainly? Goof grief!

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree. That is why the notion that the Muslims were "kicked out" of their "home land" is a fraudulent one, assuming that they expect this argument to get it back.

Oh, definitely. Home lands, to the extent that they may even exist as such, are an accident of history and inherently unstable.


Lands themselves grant no rights, nor could they ever. It is the people who may and should attempt to reach mutual understandings and grant themselves and each other rights.

 

[LuisDantas]

Though I never was in the military, the people whom do defend my country have my highest respect.

I have my freedom because of these people.

I honor all veterans of the US.

I am also grateful to the IDF whom are surrounded by enemies whom are very hostile and want to destroy them and keep the Jewish state safe.

We should of course respect people who risk their well-being to protect our own. That goes without saying, but I might as well say it.

But not because they are defending some abstract, arbitrary notion of "country" or "nation". Defending people is certainly laudable. Communities, no doubt. But not empty names, and never without considering what they are destroying while engaged in that supposed defense.