Aren’t there a few ethnicly distict folks in that region, besides the Palestinains & the Israelis? Are there not a few Samaritans left, and the Druse? Do some folks still speak syriac or Aramaic as their native language?
I do not think the Palestinians quite qualify as a nation, as they are more-or-less identical to the Jordanians. However, some of them had their great-great-grandfathers born there, and that is good enuf to have SOME claim on the land.
That being said, the Isrealis have made an offer, while not quite generous, is certainly reasonable. Arafat had demanded something he does not need, and something the Israelis will not give. I think he did this on purpose. I honestly think he does not want peace, as he started as a terrorist, and heck- you know if they had a REAL government, they might actually elect a real leader. Terrorists never can give up terrorism- Arafat is proof.
sdim: i know you were provoked, but say you’re sorry- you are better than that.
Foist: Sdimbert, I’m glad to be a prick in the service of bursting the bubbles of ignorance. But you apparently missed the point, as you said:
I hardly missed the larger more general idea --that the Palestinians differ in some way from any other group who aspired to a nation-state Rather that is precisely what I destroyed with my examples. Now if that escaped you, I’m sorry. Really, the readings I suggested would help enrich your understanding of nationalism and its formation.
The Palestinians are a nation cause they say they are, whether or not they are newly created or not. (What the heck, only half a century after the Czechs) Whether they should have a state and whether that is going to be at Israel’s expense or whether there is grounds for a non-zero sum solution. I do follow your point that it appears that the drive the Israelis into the sea mentality seems to underlie much of Palestinian politics. Evenhandedness makes me say on one hand that’s understandable on their part, but they gotta grow up and live with the fact they lost. Else the Israelis will have to continue to kick their butts.
Sec
I think Syriac and Aramiac are dead (except perhaps as liturgical langauges?). Anyways the Palestinians of today are largely without a doubt the Arabized descendants of all the folks who were there before. The Druse are a new “sect” - the detials escape me but somehow they’re some kind of attempt at fusing the religions of the region. I don’t recall ever hearing them mentioned in connection with the Israelo-Palestian region. They’re in Lebanon in numbers. I think the Israeli area’s population before 1948 in was divided between Christians, Muslims and Jews, most of whom spoke Arabic.
Nation is what nation claims. As I am led to understand, Palestinians are the (non-Jewish) Arabic speakers who lived in the area, so its not a question of “some of them” --they were there, much as there were Jews there too. Of course they have claim to land, but life is not always fair.
Provoked? I just pointed out how the argument on Palestinian nationhood was fallacious. I don’t need apologies.
The Druze are a pretty interesting sect, actually. It has been some time since I researched them, and I am without notes or sources at the moment so consider this tentative.
You are correct that the largest known concentration of Druze is/was in Lebanon. But identifying Druze populations is a non-trivial task. They are a Muslim sect, but one of the tenets of their belief is that only a select few individuals are required to worship openly. Most Druze can, and are sometimes encouraged to, adopt the customs (even the religious practices), of the community in which they live.
A Druze family in Israely territory, for instance, might adopt Jewish customs and practices. To remain “true” to their faith, a Druze must only know in his heart that he remains holy. External practices do not interfere with that.
As I said, this comes from recollections of readings done a decade or more ago, so I welcome any additions or corrections from those more current/qualified in the area.
OK… I’m not making myself clear. There’s no crime in that; I will certainly try to restate my thesis.
As I see it, Farah’s point is that there really is no Palistinian people. Now, there are obviously those (Farah, as well as some posters to this thread) that know quite a bit more than I do about the vocabulary of Nationalism. I am trying to avoid wandering into areas of scholarship I am not qualified to debate. I simply support Farah’s thesis:
**
The current Palestinian uprising has very little to do with Muslim holy sites or a “homeland” for a people that has never seemed to want one before. It has everything to do with the Arab/Muslim need to destroy Israel.
Kimstu:
I am sorry that we got involved in a semantic debate. I misstated myself and caused some confusion. You picked up on Farah’s use of language and culture as effects of nationhood. Since we’re approaching the issue from two different understandings, let’s just drop it; I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted.
Regarding the Texas Example - we’re both right. The American Colonists did fight for and earn their independence in a way very similar to what appears to be going on in the Middle East. But, if they had lost, I would be English. The Palestinians have lost this rebellion several times before, on both large and small scales, and, barring continuing undeserved pressure form the UN and US (which Arafat is banking on), they will continue to lose. As would the Texans.
Collounsbury:
You seem like a nice enough fellow and certainly seem to know more than I do about these things. Nontheless, your post was insulting, arrogant and offensive. If you didn’t mean it to be, you’re an idiot. If you did, you’re a prick. And, if you really are “glad” to have done it, you’re an even bigger prick than I thought at first.
Yes, and he’s wrong. The fact that their identity might be recent (does any of us have empirical historical analyses of what non-Jewish Arab speakers identity(ies) in the pre-1948/Israel period was based on?) is besides the point. As I noted, national identies are created things, acts of will. If the Palestinians did not exist as a popular idenity in 1948, they certainly did by at least the 1960s. End of issue. It’s really irrelevant to the issue of Israel’s rights.
If you asked around in Czech speaking Austro-Hungarian lands about 110 years ago you wouldn’t have found many outside a few intellectuals who called themselves Czech as opposed to Moravian, etc. The Czech(oslovak) nation was an act of will on the part of its leadership, in opposition to the German speaking elite. There had not even been the semblance of a Czechophone led state for centuries. So would we say there is no Czech nation then? I suppose by Farah’s standards there was not (and should not be? What about the Slovaks? How did they become distinct enough to be a nation. Or … etc. ad nauseum.)
The argument is quite simply wrong, and is based on old Victorian romantic ideas about what a nation(state) is. There is no magic distinctiveness or cultural difference which makes a nation (e.g. Catalan… Why not the Occitans?). The Palestinians are a self-identified nation seeking a state. Whether that is a good goal is another question.
That’s pity since he’s wrong and I suspect you’re supporting it for the wrong reasons.
Right now I’m travelling through the mid east on business. (And cannot wait to get out frankly) It certainly seems to me that emotionally the Muslims I deal with are genuinely worked up about al-Quds and their mosque there. And the Palestinians (who are indeed distinct insofar as they id themselves and are id’ed that way in my very limited experience – they even speak a bit differently to my very inexperience ear, but I’m not really qualified, on the other hand I’ve read this too, so…) seem genuinely to desire a state to call their own.
But yes, I do get the sense that given the occasion they’d love to squash Israel. Well, if so, they’re stupid. Frankly, I think the above statement is an exageration. It seems to me that many, as much as they hate Israel --from their perspective for good reason-- they might make do with a state. But then the Israelis have good, indeed excellent reason to suspect that the minority -large?- who wouldn’t live with even that would end up controling the game. So round and round in the zero sum game.
Collounsbury:
You seem like a nice enough fellow and certainly seem to know more than I do about these things. Nontheless, your post was insulting, arrogant and offensive.
[/quote]
I suggest you misread it. I did not, for example, call you silly, I called Farah’s analysis silly – and I stick by that charectization.
Whatever…
Rolls eyes. I remain glad to prick bubbles of ignorance – which is just making light of your continued use of that word.
::sound of moderator footsteps entering thread:::
[Moderator Hat ON]
Yes, you’re right, Spiritus and Kimstu (although insulting someone is rarely a banning offense, Kim). sdimbert, don’t call anyone “prick” or “idiot” in the GD forum. I don’t think your debating ability will suffer for lack of those terms.
Gaudere, have I broken the rules if I call myself a “prick”? Because, looking back, I certainly acted like one.
Hey, C, the frustration I vented stemmed from my own inability to put my opinions into words; you just got in the way. Whether you want to hear it or not, I’m sorry for acting like such a… well, you know. :sheepish grin: Sorry, Gaudere, almost did it again.
Daniel, my hat is off to you. You are, as usual, correct.
I’m not going to climb back into the debate on this issue… I am out of my league. Whether or not the Palestinians have a claim to nationhood is not the issue I meant to debate, nor is it the reason I posted excerpts from Farah’s article. This thread was hijacked… again my fault… and much ignorance was fought, depite my best efforts at resistance.
Stay tuned to this forum… I want to do a little thinking, but I may be starting a new, related thread tomorrow. Collunsbury. Daniel, Kimstu, I expect to see you all there.
[sub]Now, all I want to know is how in the world did Spiritus Mundi know that Gaudere was coming?[/sub]
Oh stop, it gave me the occasion to use the bubbles and balloons imagery which I rather liked.
I always thought attacking the claim was not the strongest argument in the whole debate… Frankly why go for the extraneous when there are stronger issues, say like explusions from Arab lands.
This is a very long thread, and I have only skimmed some of it.
Just wanted to add that NPR had an interview with the author of the e-mail that started this topic. He is a Christian Arab-American, he is NOT Jewish, which makes his comments very interesting. He apparently publishes a number of articles (or has a regular newsletter) along the same line; he basically accused Arafat of being anti-Semitic and not acting in the best interests of the Arab peoples.
He said that his statements are all true, although sometimes presented in a way to be deliberately confrontational with traditional Arab positions.
NPR also added an Arab woman (I think a professor at some University in London?), who was an 8-year old child whose family fled at the creation of Israel in 1948. Among her interesting comments:
She agreed that Jerusalem was not explicitly mentioned in the Koran, but argued that there was one line of Koran text that was a thinly-veiled reference to Jerusalem. OK, sure.
While strongly avowing the right of the Palestinian people to their own state, she explicitly denied that Israel as a state has a right to exist. (In fairness, she also denied that ANY state has the right to exist, she used France as an example as well.)
She said that the Palestinian Charter is an historical document and so should not be changed to remove the reference to the destruction of Israel, any more than the Magna Carta should be “changed” to reflect modern views. IMHO, she thus very deftly mixed “historical” documents like the Declaration of Independence with living documents, “laws of the land,” like the U.S. Constitution. She never once said that the comment in the Charter about destroying Israel was out of date or was no longer the thinking of Palestinian leadership. It was not very masterful evasion.
Figured as much from the name, probably a Maronite, no?
His position on nationalism is, as I mentioned, utterly fallacious. Other than that I guess I don’t care, but I’ve always found nationalism an interesting topic.