tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post4935907849350595182..comments2024-01-02T02:18:30.960-08:00Comments on Israel Thrives: The Palestinian Re-Write of HistoryMike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06450806807610560873noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-77877180770728619752011-09-26T20:52:21.797-07:002011-09-26T20:52:21.797-07:00You know Karma, I have to agree with this anonymou...You know Karma, I have to agree with this anonymous guy. They may not have had a name, but they were a people, and it had to have predated 1949. How do I know this? Because after the war they were not, for the most part, invited to assimilate into Jordanian culture or Egyptian culture or Syrian or Lebanese culture. They WERE different. And that probably predates the war by generations. Whether they had a name or not. And now, 60 years later, as you point out, it doesn't matter. Today they are a people. <br /><br />That said, I whole-heartedly agree that facts matter. (as i argued with wu ming recently) It annoys me greatly when the argument is made that the Palestinians have occupied that land for centuries. Even thousands of years. (Someone once argued on dk that their ancestors were the Philistines.) But 50 or 100 or 200 years really doesn't matter. Anymore that it matters that Kwanzaa is a new holiday. They weren't invented by Arafat or al-Husseini.<br /><br /><br />S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-17533102533377356642011-09-26T19:48:05.422-07:002011-09-26T19:48:05.422-07:00"The people that were there when Jews from Eu..."The people that were there when Jews from Europe began arriving did not refer to themselves as Palestinians. They did not think of themselves as Palestinians."<br /><br />What's your point? This is not entirely true and you're confusing the issue. Certainly Muslim or Christian or Jewish was the preferred mode of identification for people who inhabited the land that was called Palestine for centuries. But it makes no sense to talk about modern nationalism in a context when nationalism did not exist. There were no nationalist movements in the Middle East until the late 19th century, and most nationalist movements did not crystallize until the mid-20th century. So would you say that Egyptians, whose modern nationalist movement was an entirely 20th century movement, should not be called Egyptian? Or that the Lebanese of today, who are fiercely nationalist, are somehow less legitimate because their own nationalist movement is recent? They're still Lebanese, and they still claim ancestry on the land they live on.<br /><br />It's no less true for Palestinians. There may not have been a Palestinian nationalist movement until the mid 29th century, but that certainly does not mean that there were no Palestinians. They were certainly FROM Palestine, even if their nationalist movement developed in the 20th century, at the same time, I would add as the Jewish nationalist movement developed. Becaue, you know, there were no ISRAELIS until 1948. Your line of argument is sloppy, Karma.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-28031975842054865192011-09-26T18:16:46.567-07:002011-09-26T18:16:46.567-07:00They were not organized as a national movement unt...<i>They were not organized as a national movement until recently, but it doesn't mean they were not there when Jews began arriving by the thousands from Europe.</i><br /><br />The people that were there when Jews from Europe began arriving did not refer to themselves as Palestinians. They did not think of themselves as Palestinians.<br /><br />They were Arabs and they were Muslims and they were out of this or that family or tribe, but they did not self-identify as "Palestinians."<br /><br />That is an historical fact.Mike L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06450806807610560873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-47615975828959021742011-09-26T18:09:27.870-07:002011-09-26T18:09:27.870-07:00Also, it is historically accurate to suggest, as I...Also, it is historically accurate to suggest, as I did, that we do not know what percentage of Palestinians are descended from people who came from elsewhere.Mike L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06450806807610560873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-28417994555822395692011-09-26T18:08:06.258-07:002011-09-26T18:08:06.258-07:00The bottom line is that the majority of Palestinia...The bottom line is that the majority of Palestinians did not start self-identifying as Palestinians until the end of the 20th century.<br /><br />Are you actually denying that fact and, if so, I would ask that you point to any Palestinian leader prior to Arafat who called himself a Palestinian.<br /><br />The Mufti certainly did not.Mike L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06450806807610560873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-10729096818597697762011-09-26T17:35:35.392-07:002011-09-26T17:35:35.392-07:00Karma,
I say this as a friend: you can make many ...Karma,<br /><br />I say this as a friend: you can make many of your points, indeed, you can make them just as well, without distorting history.<br /><br />Conquering armies came and went. Many Muslims from Arabia settled into what is today Palestine and mixed with the population already there. Indeed, many living in Palestine converted to Islam. But there is really no way of knowing just how many settled there after the Arab conquests and how many converted. Not to mention the presence of local Christians for centuries. It was, indeed, the Islamic armies that, once they captured Jerusalem, allowed Jews to resettle there and worship there. <br /><br />The point of all of this is that if you emphasize only certain historical trends and magnify them (for example, the "large scale Arab immigration due to Jewish industry"--in fact it was not that large scale), you deligitimize yourself. You don't give an accurate or nuanced portrayal of identity either. Certainly the Palestinian nationalist movement is fairly new, historically speaking, but Palestinians are not. They were not organized as a national movement until recently, but it doesn't mean they were not there when Jews began arriving by the thousands from Europe. And anyway, as you know, Zionism is a modern nationalist movement as well, and it doesn't detract from Jewish claims at all. I find the entire idea of argument--that Palestinians are somehow not native to the land, to be the ugly reverse of what many try to claim about Jews. <br /><br />Not only is it ugly, but it's historically inaccurate. You simply have to pick up a history book to know this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-32361867432232130392011-09-26T10:15:42.162-07:002011-09-26T10:15:42.162-07:00The Palestinians are the New Jews and for many &qu...The Palestinians are the New Jews and for many "progressives" we are the New Nazis in some kind of crazed cosmic apocalyptic drama which they have invented for themselves at our expense.Mike L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06450806807610560873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6579213173749170024.post-64803659772709854432011-09-26T09:42:16.931-07:002011-09-26T09:42:16.931-07:00The Palestinians get a lot of help with it. eg
&q...The Palestinians get a lot of help with it. eg<br /><br />"The Los Angeles Times has converted Judah Ben-Hur, the fictional enslaved Jewish nobleman who serves as a protagonist in Charles Heston's 1951 Hollywood blockbuster, into a "Palestinian nobleman." Today's paper reports:<br /><br />Based on the novel by Lew Wallace, the period drama revolves around Judah Ben-Hur (Heston), a Palestinian nobleman who is enslaved by the Romans, engages in one of the most thrilling chariot races ever captured on screen, and even encounters Jesus Christ."<br /><br />http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/09/la_times_remakes_judah_benhur.html<br /><br />Like Bibi said at the UN....you couldn't make this stuff up.Doodadnoreply@blogger.com