How is that a counterexample? Are you arguing that the Zionists didn’t conceive of Israel as a Jewish state? I mean, you’re sort of going all over the board here, so lets focus on that for now.
No, I am pointing out that the Zionists were willing to have an Arab state in Palestine sitting next to their Jewish state.
However, the Palestinian Nationalists were unwilling to have a Jewish state in Palestine next to their Arab state.
According to you the Palestinian Nationalists were “maximalist.”
I would prefer that you try to answer my other questions if you are able.
According to you, and if I understand you correctly, the Palestinian Nationalists did not want anyone to have control of any part of Palestine besides themselves. If this is true, then surely they would have gone to great lengths to end the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank after 1948 and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza after 1948. Did they go to such great lengths?
This is an exceedingly ignorant question. The Palestinians weren’t in a position to do so at that time.
In the 70s they were able to do so and launched the Black September revolt against Jordan.
Unfortunately, Black September has already been discussed, to no avail.
That makes no sense at all. Black September was back in the 70s. There have been a lot of efforts since then towards “Palestinian Statehood.”
Clearly “Palestinian Statehood” has not been crushed.
ETA:Most of the “Levant” consists of what is now known as Syria, no? And the “Palestinian Nationalism” you refer to did not apply to that area, right?
Proving, yet again, that you lack even a basic understanding of the events involved in this discussion. If you honestly do not understand how Palestinian self-determination was crushed by Egypt and Jordan invading non-Israeli territory and claiming it as theirs, then you don’t even understand the roughest outlines of what happened in '48. You have been shown to be ignorant on basic matters of fact, to apply bogus logical claims to cover up a lack of factual and contextual knowledge, to continually try to change the topic with bad faith fetch-quests when caught on one of your errors (see your bullshit fetch-quest above about Syria and the Levant), and that you are not dissuaded from holding forth on an issue by lacking a basic working historical knowledge.
When the board’s Dopers who are capable of advancing cogent, knowledgeable pro and anti-Zionist positions all agree that your anti-Palestinian argument is full of shit, it’s time to back down and admit error. Or, at least, stop posting.
Seems to me that you are the one proving something about the merits of your position by substituting insults for actual evidence or arguments.
Palestinians did assassinate Abdullah of Jordan, you know. Palestinian-Jordanian relations weren’t all sweetness and light. But part of the reason there wasn’t more resistance against Jordanian control of the West Bank in the 50s and 60s was:
- Palestinian nationalism had always been an urban and middle class phenomenon. Most of the peasants of the West Bank were focused more on family relationships.
- The Jordanians bought off a lot of Palestinian leaders
- The Palestinian refugees who had been dispossessed were obviously pissed off by that, and most of their energy went into trying to find ways to get back home and get the Israelis out of there.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about that:
No, just kidding. Here’s what Wikipedia actually says:
(my bolding)
Wow, you’d almost think there was some kind of pattern.
You can offer excuses all day long. But at a certain point, Occam’s Razor comes into play.
I suspect that you would like to use this Band-Aid™ after trying to wield Occam’s Razor.
So not only were you totally ignorant of the event, you decided that an uncited claim on Wikipedia would be a great resource to clear up your ignorance. And, lo and behold, you again arrived at the conclusion that the Palestinians, who don’t exist in your world, just wanted to attack Israel. And, of course, we know that you’ve presented a good faith argument, because it’s not like you’ve handwaved away facts by stating that if you can’t rely on an author’s statement as gospel truth without checking primary sources, we should discard those facts. Or, if you had said that, then obviously Wikipedia is such a source that can be believed as the gospel truth with no confirmation.
Of course, as this represents yet another historical issue that you’re ignorant of, you probably should be educated.
Not that any of us really expect you to retract your errors, but there are folks reading along who shouldn’t be fooled by your absurd tactics. And those of us who actually value truth and clarity in this discussion would probably all rather than crypto-racist views of the Palestinians don’t gain any currency in the debate.
Yawn. Still waiting for even a shred of evidence that there was a Palestinian declaration of independence before 1988.
Or for you to concede that the “Levant” includes Syria.
Ignorance, indeed.
Surely that means his motivation was to get Jordan out of the West Bank
:rolleyes:
Ah. I suppose you’ve forgotten that not only did you already see evidence to that effect, but you cited and quoted it yourself… after you claimed that no such evidence existed and you knew that because you’d actually performed an exhaustive google search. Ah, how malleable memory is.
Of course, one might wonder if your lapse in memory has anything to do with the fact that, yet again, you’ve been shown to be fundamentally ignorant on a topic and mistaken to boot. Readers less charitable than I might just wonder why it is that you’re attempting to change the subject with feeble dodges rather than admitting error and modifying your argument. Then again, readers less charitable than I might just wonder how it possibly is that you both believe that you can safely ignore any historian whose work can’t be treated as gospel truth and whose sources should be examined to verify their claims… and that you also cite uncited claims, from Wikipedia, to “prove” your points. Less charitable readers might wonder at that contradiction, and might question the overall nature of your argument.
Not me. I’m full of charity.
Why, I can understand that it must be a real bitch to try to support a racist argument that’s false to facts, and that it must necessitate all sorts of tactics that one would have no need of if their argument wasn’t, ya know, racist bullshit.
Nonsense. Please show me where I did so. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I did no such thing and apologize.
Your choice.
Lol, personal attacks might make you feel good but they don’t help your case.
Finn, back off on the personal remarks. Stick to simply pointing out errors of fact or logic and leave motivation out of the discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
Neither of these points have a single thing to do with your claim. You appear to be trying to avoid the issue by persisting in raising non-issues.
Regardless when some formal declaration was issued, there has been quite a bit of evidence provided that the people now living on the West Bank were interested in an independent nation from the early 1920s at the latest. If you have no contradictory evidence to that point, just drop the whole topic.
Fair enough, although I’d appreciate a bit of clarification via PM if you have the time.
So you think that bloody three year long revolt staged against the British by the Arab Committee to kick out the British didn’t constitute a decleration of a desire for a Palestinian Arab State?:dubious:
Please explain your logic.
Thanks
Nothing in there about a declaration of independence.
Here’s what I said before:
I realize you really wish I had said that the first calls or demands for a “Palestinian State” were in 1988. Because then I would be wrong. But your wishes cannot substitute for reality. I said what I actually said – not what you would like to pretend that I said.
If you look back at the thread, you will see that the distinction is important, since Latro was ascribing significance to the date when Israel formally declared its independence – as opposed to the date when there were calls for a Jewish state in Palestine.
Anyway, since you insist on responding to what you imagine or wish I had said and not what I actually said, this exchange is concluded.