Why is the argument that there were no Palestinians raised?

[rosends]

Either they stopped existing in 1948? How does a population stop existing? You are not making sense.

The topic here is about the myth that there were no Palestinians, you agree that there was. So what are you arguing about?

The population continues but the name changes. After the US was declared, the citizens of it started being called American. Well, it didn't happen overnight, but it happened. Unless I'm still British. Oh no! I'm British!
The topic here is whether there was a unique and discrete Palestinian people. There was never a north American people, was there?
The secondary argument would be that if there was a Palestinian people and Israel was declared, then there is no group left referred to by the declaration who have any nationalistic future separate from Israel.

 

[Bunyip]

The population continues but the name changes. After the US was declared, the citizens of it started being called American. Well, it didn't happen overnight, but it happened. Unless I'm still British. Oh no! I'm British!
The topic here is whether there was a unique and discrete Palestinian people. There was never a north American people, was there?

Sure, the name changes - that's all. The topic mentions nothing about 'unique and discrete Palestinian people' by the way. Read it again.

The fact remains that there were Palestinians, a point we both agree on.

 

[rosends]

Sure, the name changes - that's all. The topic mentions nothing about 'unique and discrete Palestinian people' by the way. Read it again.

The fact remains that there were Palestinians, a point we both agree on.

And that they no longer exist or they are all Israeli citizens. Agreed.

 

[metis]

It's really sort of a trick questions because it begs "What's in a name?", if you know what I mean. At different times the people who lived in the region were called different names, plus there always was a constant flow of people coming and going because of numerous reasons. It was probably the most transient region in the world because of this.

 

[Bunyip]

And that they no longer exist or they are all Israeli citizens. Agreed.

That doesn't make sense - how do you even imagine a population just stops existing? They existed before Israel was established, and still exist now. You seem to think changing a label magically pops entire populations in and out of existence.

 

[Bunyip]

It's really sort of a trick questions because it begs "What's in a name?", if you know what I mean. At different times the people who lived in the region were called different names, plus there always was a constant flow of people coming and going because of numerous reasons. It was probably the most transient region in the world because of this.

What's in a name indeed. Labels are just a diversion here, there was a population. They existed. How we label them does not change that.

 

[metis]

What's in a name indeed. Labels are just a diversion here, there was a population. They existed. How we label them does not change that.

There always was a population there, but as I mentioned in my last post, it also was highly fluid and for a variety of reasons.

 

[Bunyip]

There always was a population there, but as I mentioned in my last post, it also was highly fluid and for a variety of reasons.

Sure, it was. But so what? What is your point?

 

[rosends]

What's in a name indeed. Labels are just a diversion here, there was a population. They existed. How we label them does not change that.

Yes, there was a population and it became citizens of Israel. What's the problem?

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, there was a population and it became citizens of Israel. What's the problem?

What problem? The topic is the myth that there were no Palestinians, which we have resolved - we both agree that there were.

 

[metis]

Sure, it was. But so what? What is your point?

That was the point, so from this point on it's just a matter of connecting the dots.

 

[rosends]

What problem? The topic is the myth that there were no Palestinians, which we have resolved - we both agree that there were.

Yes, and for the third time, we also agree that they are the current citizens of Israel. That's great. Why are you still arguing?

 

[icehorse]

Didn't read all 17 pages, sorry if this has been covered...

One hundred years ago various tribes lived in the areas we now call Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, parts of SA and parts of Egypt. After WW I the Brits did a bang-up job - not! - of dividing up these lands. Some tribes made a killing, some got the shaft. Now, 100 years later, the tribes that made a killing aren't interested in any repartitioning (which would be the fairest approach), and it strikes me that because the region is dominated by Arabs, all eyes turn towards Israel to give land to the Palestinians. But it seems that with any sort of fair-minded historical perspective Jordan, Egypt and SA should all be on the hook as much or more than Israel to provide for a Palestinian homeland.

Next we could tackle the Kurds, who got at least as shafted as the Palestinians...

Long story short, I think that in the correct context the "no Palestinians" argument has some validity.

 

[metis]

Didn't read all 17 pages, sorry if this has been covered...

One hundred years ago various tribes lived in the areas we now call Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, parts of SA and parts of Egypt. After WW I the Brits did a bang-up job - not! - of dividing up these lands. Some tribes made a killing, some got the shaft. Now, 100 years later, the tribes that made a killing aren't interested in any repartitioning (which would be the fairest approach), and it strikes me that because the region is dominated by Arabs, all eyes turn towards Israel to give land to the Palestinians. But it seems that with any sort of fair-minded historical perspective Jordan, Egypt and SA should all be on the hook as much or more than Israel to provide for a Palestinian homeland.

Next we could tackle the Kurds, who got at least as shafted as the Palestinians...

Long story short, I think that in the correct context the "no Palestinians" argument has some validity.

Very well put.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, and for the third time, we also agree that they are the current citizens of Israel. That's great. Why are you still arguing?

I'm not arguing - you conceded the point a while back.

 

[Bunyip]

That was the point, so from this point on it's just a matter of connecting the dots.

What do you mean?

 

[rosends]

I'm not arguing - you conceded the point a while back.

As did you. Everyone is happy!

 

[Shad]

That might be relevant if the question being addressed was about the current status of anything. But, again, the claim was made specifically about the content of the Balfour Declaration, so the answer was specifically related to the Balfour Declaration.

It is relevant since the 47 plan supersedes the the declaration by UN and UK agreement.

 

[rosends]

It is relevant since the 47 plan supersedes the the declaration by UN and UK agreement.

If you make the claim that the articles of Confederation say X, and I show you that they don't, then it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. The question at hand was about the articles of Confederation.

 

[Bunyip]

Didn't read all 17 pages, sorry if this has been covered...

One hundred years ago various tribes lived in the areas we now call Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, parts of SA and parts of Egypt. After WW I the Brits did a bang-up job - not! - of dividing up these lands. Some tribes made a killing, some got the shaft. Now, 100 years later, the tribes that made a killing aren't interested in any repartitioning (which would be the fairest approach), and it strikes me that because the region is dominated by Arabs, all eyes turn towards Israel to give land to the Palestinians. But it seems that with any sort of fair-minded historical perspective Jordan, Egypt and SA should all be on the hook as much or more than Israel to provide for a Palestinian homeland.

Next we could tackle the Kurds, who got at least as shafted as the Palestinians...

Long story short, I think that in the correct context the "no Palestinians" argument has some validity.

The only context where it has any validity would apply equally to the Israelis. If there was no Palestine, because it was
not a formal state - then by the same token there was no Israel.