Why is the argument that there were no Palestinians raised?

[Lyndon]

I'm starting to get a picture of why so many Palestinians are calling for Israel's destruction, it appears hard to have a rational discussion with many of the Jews with regards peaceful coexistence.

 

[rosends]

OK, so, a national identity, which is a cultural construct, is to do with people's identifying themselves with a national identity, believing they should have a state, or at least some autonomy if the former isn't practical, that they have their own distinct culture (doesn't matter if it's exactly true, as all cultures blur into each other anyway) and their own political legitimacy..

But that is circular. A national identity is based in people believing they have a national identity? A distinct culture is dependent on people believing they have a distinct culture even if they don't? Are there no external and quantifiable standards by which any group can be judged as having a unique identity? Tribal affiliation means family. History means experiences. Culture includes values and heritage. Geography indicates origin. Here the threshold is lowered so that identity is simply a function of arbitrary self naming. That self-naming should (I would think) be based in something.

Now, I'm not one to say that this is "not allowed" but if it is accepted then the ramifications must be admitted to. Without any other standard, there is no way to know who is in and not in the group. A native American from Minnesota can equally claim a place as a Palestinian and must be accorded all the same rights, simply because he identifies himself that way (especially if he learns the Palestinian dialect of Arabic, which thus far is the only distinct marker). And, as the Palestinian state would have to represent all the people who are Palestinians, he would be guaranteed a political voice, no matter where he chose to live. It seems ridiculous but it is the logical consequence of allowing self-identification to rule the day.

 

[Flankerl]

I'm starting to get a picture of why so many Palestinians are calling for Israel's destruction, it appears hard to have a rational discussion with many of the Jews with regards peaceful coexistence.

Wait you actually believe that you are trying to have a rational discussion?

 

[Lyndon]

Well I was, seems no one else is though!! Denying the existence of the Palestinian people is not a rational argument.

 

[Kirran]

But that is circular. A national identity is based in people believing they have a national identity? A distinct culture is dependent on people believing they have a distinct culture even if they don't? Are there no external and quantifiable standards by which any group can be judged as having a unique identity? Tribal affiliation means family. History means experiences. Culture includes values and heritage. Geography indicates origin. Here the threshold is lowered so that identity is simply a function of arbitrary self naming. That self-naming should (I would think) be based in something.

Now, I'm not one to say that this is "not allowed" but if it is accepted then the ramifications must be admitted to. Without any other standard, there is no way to know who is in and not in the group. A native American from Minnesota can equally claim a place as a Palestinian and must be accorded all the same rights, simply because he identifies himself that way (especially if he learns the Palestinian dialect of Arabic, which thus far is the only distinct marker). And, as the Palestinian state would have to represent all the people who are Palestinians, he would be guaranteed a political voice, no matter where he chose to live. It seems ridiculous but it is the logical consequence of allowing self-identification to rule the day.

I don't really think it is circular to be honest, I'm just saying it stems from self-identification. But yes, that self-identification does tend to stem from a shared history, a location, a language or dialect, these are all factors involved in ethnogenesis. But once established, people can certainly join a national group, or at least you can get situation where two Saudis moving to Jerusalem can have a child who is a Palestinian.

An American from Minnesota would, I think, not do so, because they're not a part of the shared experience shaping that nationality, which in this case stems partly from an identity formed in opposition to an outside group (the Israelis).

I'm not sure that a Palestinian state would have to represent all Palestinians. I have a friend who's Palestinian Greek, there's no need for it to represent him, and a few who are Palestinian British, there's no need for it to represent them either.

 

[rosends]

I don't really think it is circular to be honest, I'm just saying it stems from self-identification. But yes, that self-identification does tend to stem from a shared history, a location, a language or dialect, these are all factors involved in ethnogenesis. But once established, people can certainly join a national group, or at least you can get situation where two Saudis moving to Jerusalem can have a child who is a Palestinian.

An American from Minnesota would, I think, not do so, because they're not a part of the shared experience shaping that nationality, which in this case stems partly from an identity formed in opposition to an outside group (the Israelis).

I'm not sure that a Palestinian state would have to represent all Palestinians. I have a friend who's Palestinian Greek, there's no need for it to represent him, and a few who are Palestinian British, there's no need for it to represent them either.

But how is the Saudi child "part of the shared experience"?
You are allowing the self-identification to precede the shared components. If the only shared experience is opposition to an outside group, then plenty of people can instantly claim membership.

 

[Kirran]

But how is the Saudi child "part of the shared experience"?
You are allowing the self-identification to precede the shared components. If the only shared experience is opposition to an outside group, then plenty of people can instantly claim membership.

By virtue of adopting the Palestinian identity and culture.

No, I'm saying that the self-identity is the factor, but that it emerges from various components, which are then reaffirmed by dint of the national identity. I include marginalization by the Israeli state in this particular case.

 

[rosends]

By virtue of adopting the Palestinian identity and culture.

No, I'm saying that the self-identity is the factor, but that it emerges from various components, which are then reaffirmed by dint of the national identity. I include marginalization by the Israeli state in this particular case.

But we have yet to define a "culture" to adopt, let alone an identity.
If a Phillipino feels marginalized by Israel, then he can claim Palestinian identity? How about John Kerry? He certain has been marginalized. What about the entire country of Cuba which still refuses to exist Israel's existence. This would shift the religious and economic reality among the "Palestinian" people. Even moreso, it would turn the "national" identity into one based not on any nation, as much as a feeling.

Now, to specifics, if those marginalized by Israel are Israeli Arabs and therefore not Palestinians then they cannot claim that national identity. If "Palestinians" are ones who currently are NOT citizens of Israel then what about those who would prefer being governed by Israel than an Arab government? They might have been marginalized in one sense but prefer Israel in another. Do they forfeit their right to claim Palestinian membership? What about babies who have yet to be marginalized? How does one quantify being marginalized?

 

[Kirran]

But we have yet to define a "culture" to adopt, let alone an identity.
If a Phillipino feels marginalized by Israel, then he can claim Palestinian identity? How about John Kerry? He certain has been marginalized. What about the entire country of Cuba which still refuses to exist Israel's existence. This would shift the religious and economic reality among the "Palestinian" people. Even moreso, it would turn the "national" identity into one based not on any nation, as much as a feeling.

Now, to specifics, if those marginalized by Israel are Israeli Arabs and therefore not Palestinians then they cannot claim that national identity. If "Palestinians" are ones who currently are NOT citizens of Israel then what about those who would prefer being governed by Israel than an Arab government? They might have been marginalized in one sense but prefer Israel in another. Do they forfeit their right to claim Palestinian membership? What about babies who have yet to be marginalized? How does one quantify being marginalized?

I'm not saying marginsalised-by-Israel = Palestinian.

I'm saying that that process is part of what triggered the solidification of the Palestinian identity.

 

[Shad]

But that is circular. A national identity is based in people believing they have a national identity? A distinct culture is dependent on people believing they have a distinct culture even if they don't? Are there no external and quantifiable standards by which any group can be judged as having a unique identity? Tribal affiliation means family. History means experiences. Culture includes values and heritage. Geography indicates origin. Here the threshold is lowered so that identity is simply a function of arbitrary self naming. That self-naming should (I would think) be based in something.

Now, I'm not one to say that this is "not allowed" but if it is accepted then the ramifications must be admitted to. Without any other standard, there is no way to know who is in and not in the group. A native American from Minnesota can equally claim a place as a Palestinian and must be accorded all the same rights, simply because he identifies himself that way (especially if he learns the Palestinian dialect of Arabic, which thus far is the only distinct marker). And, as the Palestinian state would have to represent all the people who are Palestinians, he would be guaranteed a political voice, no matter where he chose to live. It seems ridiculous but it is the logical consequence of allowing self-identification to rule the day.

I hope you realize that your own standards were largely ignored during periods of immigration from anti-semitic Europe. Also the standard becomes arbitrary since cultural identity for one group is through religion but is not applied to the other group. Palestinians can merely invoke Islam and have a claim. Change Palestine identity to Abbasid Caliphate, same effect. All this posturing still ignores the reality on the ground. There are a group of people under military administration of a another nation that does not grant them the rights of citizenship. A nation which violates quasi-territorial boundaries without provoking a war due to the non-state status of the occupied region. A nation that repeatedly has destroyed property for the sake of colonization.

 

[rosends]

I hope you realize that your own standards were largely ignored during periods of immigration from anti-semitic Europe. Also the standard becomes arbitrary since cultural identity for one group is through religion but is not applied to the other group. Palestinians can merely invoke Islam and have a claim. Change Palestine identity to Abbasid Caliphate, same effect. All this posturing still ignores the reality on the ground. There are a group of people under military administration of a another nation that does not grant them the rights of citizenship. A nation which violates quasi-territorial boundaries without provoking a war due to the non-state status of the occupied region. A nation that repeatedly has destroyed property for the sake of colonization.

My standard is supported specifically by the Balfour Declaration which uses the word "Jew." The only category of "other" is "non-Jewish" so a "Palestinian" cannot claim as a Muslim specifically any more than a Bahai can claim because he is Bahai.

 

[rosends]

I'm not saying marginsalised-by-Israel = Palestinian.

I'm saying that that process is part of what triggered the solidification of the Palestinian identity.

But WHAT did it trigger? What other attribute or quality united the people which was then affected by that catalyst? It is as close as anyone has come to finding a common thread which defines "Palestinian" identity.

 

[Kirran]

But WHAT did it trigger? What other attribute or quality united the people which was then affected by that catalyst? It is as close as anyone has come to finding a common thread which defines "Palestinian" identity.

Triggered the emergence of that national identity, that is a thing in itself, a sociocultural complex with a variety of dimensions constituting a portion of a given Palestinian's self-identity, just as valid as a Kurd's or an Israeli's. Why do I keep using Kurds as an example? :/ The common thread defining Palestinian identity is their identity as Palestinian. Plus their dialect, their history as the residents of Palestine who've not become a part of the Israeli nationality, etc.

 

[Lyndon]

In any case Israel is not adhering to the Balfour agreement in regards treatment of non Jews living in Palestine/Israel.

 

[rosends]

Triggered the emergence of that national identity, that is a thing in itself, a sociocultural complex with a variety of dimensions constituting a portion of a given Palestinian's self-identity, just as valid as a Kurd's or an Israeli's. Why do I keep using Kurds as an example? :/ The common thread defining Palestinian identity is their identity as Palestinian. Plus their dialect, their history as the residents of Palestine who've not become a part of the Israeli nationality, etc.

But that's the circular part -- the national identity was triggered by the antipathy towards Israel with triggered the national identity. But there was no "thing" to be triggered. It is not a sociocultural complex because it cannot be quantified, or attributed to any particular person and not others. The self identity is empty. If that is enough, then it should be enough for anyone else to presume the same identity and demand equal status within the group. The common thread is their identity as Palestinian, but that identity only exists AFTER they consider themselves a group. Their being "residents of Palestine" is meaningless because that definition includes a huge number of Jews and a huge number of Arabs who do not consider themselves Palestinians, and would exclude the huge number who consider themselves Palestinian who have never lived there. They have no shared history, so if membership is simply because they have not become part of Israel, then that would include people who lived all over the world who never became part of Israel.

 

[Bunyip]

It recognizes as being assured civil and religious rights. Not nationalistic ones which are explicitly given to the Jewish inhabitants.

No, it does not make that distinction. You made that up.

Did you never wonder why the text clearly delineates national rights for only one group and not another?

No, mainly because it does no such thing.

And the population guaranteed those rights is the non-Jewish one, not specifically a Muslim one, so if there is a nationalistic movement that somehow springs out of this, it must represent any other religion also, therefore not be driven by a Muslim theocratic agenda, which the PA is.

No idea what point you are trying to make there.

 

[Lyndon]

There's no point in trying to understand what he's saying Bunyip, because he's not making any sense!!

 

[Bunyip]

There's no point in trying to understand what he's saying Bunyip, because he's not making any sense!!

Yeah, that is increasingly apparent. I just can not make sense of the argument.

 

[Lyndon]

The arguments are about as illogical as the Nazi's arguments for treating the Jews.

 

[rosends]

No, it does not make that distinction. You made that up. No, mainly because it does no such thing. No idea what point you are trying to make there.

Let's start again. Here is the text.
----
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
-----
Now, take a look -- this is a statement of "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations." The government, it says, favors establishing a national home for the Jewish people. The only place where any statement regarding a "national home" is mentioned is in reference to Jews. With regard to non-Jews, it speaks only of "civil and religious rights" not nationalistic ones. You see the? I didn't create that distinction. The text clearly separates the groups and the rights recognized for each.

No mention of "Palestinians" as a group. No mention of any nationalistic right or guarantee or even awareness for any other group besides Jews. And you can't show otherwise.