As you cited and quoted yourself, 1920 saw official demands for Palestinian autonomy and local self-rule. Not, of course, that whether or not you are now claiming that you were only responding to Latro’s formulation has any bearing on the facts of the matter, nor does just how thin you can slice “declaring” and “independence” in order to avoid having to admit that there are a Palestinian people, there has been for quite some time, and their group identity was not invented just to fuck with Jews. Of course, you are still unaware of basic facts, as even if we were to accept your spurious objections to the 1920 resolution, 1968 saw the creation of the Palestinian National Charter.
The historical record is quite clear: there has existed a population group, defined by geography, religion, ethnicity, language and self-identification, for roughly a century. The claim that this population group was created out of whole cloth in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s is provably fictitious. The argument that Palestinians “are” Jordanians or Syrians, or what have you, is gainsaid not only by the official positions of all population groups involved, but also by the history of violence between such groups. Notably, you have completely failed to address, let alone cogently explain, how the events of Black September can possibly be interpreted as Jordanians and other accepted Jordanians all fighting over whether or not Jordan should be a Palestinian nation.
You are, of course, free to pretend that copious refutations to your position do not exist, or to trade in threadbare rhetorical shifts. You are even free to unilaterally declare that “this exchange is concluded.” I, however, will quite happily continue to point out your egregious errors of fact, logic, context, and analysis.
Dude, have you ever read a book on this subject or have you even talked to anyone who’s knowledgeable about it.
Yes, I understand that you’re under the impression that Jews on the West Bank will quite soon outnumber Palestinians due to birthrates, which anyone from the area would find asinine, but it’s really hard to believe that someone who so regularly posts about the subject has never heard of the Palestinian National Charter/Covenant.
Have you ever heard of El Hajj Amin Al Husayni, Qawukji, or Ahmad Shukairy?
Zuheir Mohsein, Member of the Supreme Council of the PLO:
"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."
Trouw (Dutch newspaper) March 31, 1977
What is considered “Palestine” or “Israel” has meant many different things to many different people.
The early Zionists regularly insisted that what’s now Jordan should be considered part of Palestine to be made into the Jewish state.
This was an argument put forward not only by fringe Zionists, but by the father of the current Israeli PM.
In fact, the Israeli foreign ministry put out a video whining about the British partitioning off Jordan.
Yes, many Palestinians felt that Syria should be a part of Palestine just as many Syrians, including the present day government, insist that Lebanon is a part of Syria.
In fact, until the European Colonialist ripped up the Middle East, Palestine was governed from Damascus.
Next time, you’d have been better off referring to the Peel Commission report and made it look like you did more than merely cherry-pick quotes.
If you have the time to read up on it rather than skim the internet you’ll find some significantly more juicy quotes from people who are far more seen as Palestinian heroes than a man who was referred to as “a windbag’s windbag.”
Now, perhaps you feel that Zionism or Israeli nationalism shouldn’t be considered legitimate since many disagree on what should be considered the land of Israel but most of us do not though based on your logic we should.
In '56 he was an official for the Arab League. It’s not terribly surprising that his position was more in accord with the AL than what the PLO’s would later be.
Likewise, Mohsein was a member of a pan-Arabist faction within the PLO.
Should Lieberman’s statements be taken as representative of all Israeli policy?
Only if you’re using the fallacies of Composition and Division. To say nothing of the fact that the PLO was not taking orders from Syria, or working to the benefit of the Syrians, or representing the Syrians, even if a faction in it believed that it was/should be part of Syrian territory.
It’s hard to make people with the people who kill your friends and family. I think both sides can make that claim and as long as that holds true I wouldn’t expect peace.
If someone killed a member of my family I wouldn’t make peace with them. If a government I considered illegitimate was ultimately responsible for said murder I wouldn’t forgive that government.
I think this is just an invented reason. After all, many family members got killed in the war between the US and Japan; between the US and Germany; in the US civil war; between England and France; and so on. And yet these countries are at peace.
No, the reason there won’t be peace between the Zionists and the Arabs is that the groups’ goals are mutually inconsistent. The Zionists want there to be a Jewish state in the Middle East; the Arabs want there NOT to be a Jewish state in the Middle East.
You are pretty clearly ignoring the nature of the conflicts in your first case. The wars to which you pointed were simply all-out wars between people who lived far away from each other. Even the U.S. Civil War was fought between states divided along a fairly recognizable border.
In contrast, the situation between the Mediterranean and the Jordan was much more a matter of neighbors fighting neighbors. That sort of hostility leads to the sort of thing that you are blithely dismissing. Northern Ireland was torn by violence for over thirty years by that sort of conflict–a conflict that was perpetuated much more by a need for revenge than for any actual ideals or political goals among the people doing the actual killing. Similarly, the dissolution of Yugoslavia led to a lot of internecine warfare–with a lot of the violence rationalized by invoking events that happened hundreds of years ago–until the ethnic cleansing had progressed to the point where the fighting factions were separated by clearly defined borders.
Now, there is some truth to your second paragraph, although it describes a situation in black and white that has a lot more shades of grey, but it only describes the continuing violence. It was your claim that that was the origin of the violence and you have failed to demonstrate that, generally ignoring any evidence that fails to support your claims with red herrings about declarations of independence and so forth.