Why is the argument that there were no Palestinians raised?

[rosends]

Well, there are very large numbers of people who identify as Palestinians, so they're included, and the standard of whether there's a sizable self-identity with some measure of associated culture is met. Palestinian Arabic has distinct features.

There are many people who identify themselves as Pittsburgh Steelers fans and who have a patois all their own. The question wasn't whether people can call themselves something, but whether a standard that is delineated and consistent can be met. Because the group is not tied together by a particular history, heritage, experiences, geography, family or religion, I wonder what exactly, other than an arbitrary self-identification, establishes this identity. Can someone convert into or out of it? Move into or out of it? Recognize membership in it? Simply having a dialect as a standard of identity would then allow any group which has its own jargon to consider itself a separate identity. Is that what you believe about cultural identity? That it is simply a function of language?

 

[rosends]

You did basically invade and start to take over Arab land, and you're putting all the blame on the Arabs for wanting to fight that, that's really punk. mate.

No, history does not support that contention. Misrepresenting history and creating a false narrative is pretty low, mate.

 

[CMike]

You did basically invade and start to take over Arab land, and you're putting all the blame on the Arabs for wanting to fight that, that's really punk. mate.

It's the opposite.

Five arab countries invaded Israel in 1948. They also invaded in 1968.

They lost.

 

[Kirran]

There are many people who identify themselves as Pittsburgh Steelers fans and who have a patois all their own. The question wasn't whether people can call themselves something, but whether a standard that is delineated and consistent can be met. Because the group is not tied together by a particular history, heritage, experiences, geography, family or religion, I wonder what exactly, other than an arbitrary self-identification, establishes this identity. Can someone convert into or out of it? Move into or out of it? Recognize membership in it? Simply having a dialect as a standard of identity would then allow any group which has its own jargon to consider itself a separate identity. Is that what you believe about cultural identity? That it is simply a function of language?

All depends on self-identification AS A NATIONAL GROUP by a group of people.

 

[rosends]

All depends on self-identification AS A NATIONAL GROUP by a group of people.

Ah, that would explain Steelers Nation. You are just throwing in other words -- what does it mean to be a "national group"? What is a nation if not a group with some shared history, geography, culture etc?

 

[Kirran]

Ah, that would explain Steelers Nation. You are just throwing in other words -- what does it mean to be a "national group"? What is a nation if not a group with some shared history, geography, culture etc?

A group which seriously considers itself to have a distinct nationality, like the Palestinians, the Kurds or the Danish. Sorry if I'm being unclear here.

 

[rosends]

A group which seriously considers itself to have a distinct nationality, like the Palestinians, the Kurds or the Danish. Sorry if I'm being unclear here.

The unclear issue is exactly the problem I'm having. Because there is no clear and specific quantifiable "seriously considers" or "distinct nationality" I have to keep saying "I don't know."

The Danish nationality can be linked to Denmark and the Kurds to Kurdistan and a particular culture. What are the Palestinians linked to besides language?

 

[Kirran]

The unclear issue is exactly the problem I'm having. Because there is no clear and specific quantifiable "seriously considers" or "distinct nationality" I have to keep saying "I don't know."

The Danish nationality can be linked to Denmark and the Kurds to Kurdistan and a particular culture. What are the Palestinians linked to besides language?

Palestine

Before you say 'no such thing', it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, because this is a group who believe that they are a national group in exactly the same was as Kurds, Danish and Guatemalans. Nations are born, and their youth does not undermine their legitimacy.

 

[rosends]

Palestine

Before you say 'no such thing', it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, because this is a group who believe that they are a national group in exactly the same was as Kurds, Danish and Guatemalans. Nations are born, and their youth does not undermine their legitimacy.

Ah, but I wouldn't say "no such thing." I would say "Palestine existed -- it had money, stamps and a newspaper. The question is, who were the people called Palestinians when it was just Palestine and are they Palestinians now?"
And as to the connection with others, which came first, the nation or the national identity? Were there Danes before there was Denmark?

 

[Kirran]

Ah, but I wouldn't say "no such thing." I would say "Palestine existed -- it had money, stamps and a newspaper. The question is, who were the people called Palestinians when it was just Palestine and are they Palestinians now?"
And as to the connection with others, which came first, the nation or the national identity? Were there Danes before there was Denmark?

True, people move in and out of areas and of national identities. Many members of my family weren't British, but I am British.

Danes before Denmark, yes

Americans before America, no, I don't think so.

 

[rosends]

True, people move in and out of areas and of national identities. Many members of my family weren't British, but I am British.

Danes before Denmark, yes

Americans before America, no, I don't think so.

So what made a Dane a Dane before Denmark? If we have a precedent of a national identity before a country then we can extrapolate from previously used standards.

 

[Kirran]

So what made a Dane a Dane before Denmark? If we have a precedent of a national identity before a country then we can extrapolate from previously used standards.

I don't think it's really important to this discussion, because it's the current identification which matters.

But Danes were a tribal group before Denmark.

 

[rosends]

I don't think it's really important to this discussion, because it's the current identification which matters.

But Danes were a tribal group before Denmark.

It is important because it establishes a standard we can compare to. But what you gave me, a "tribal group" still begs the question of how one was or was not identified within that group.

 

[Kirran]

It is important because it establishes a standard we can compare to. But what you gave me, a "tribal group" still begs the question of how one was or was not identified within that group.

I think a sufficient standard is whether or not people identify with it. Ethnicities, nationalities and races are all cultural constructs, we must remember.

I enjoy our discussions rosends. Good night, we'll continue tomorrow, I'm sure.

 

[rosends]

I think a sufficient standard is whether or not people identify with it. Ethnicities, nationalities and races are all cultural constructs, we must remember.

I enjoy our discussions rosends. Good night, we'll continue tomorrow, I'm sure.

Thanks for the conversation -- when we pick up (no promises...Mondays are work days) I'll ask you about that notion of cultural construct -- around what notion of culture and what components is it built.

 

[Bunyip]

The idea of nationalism for a non-named group when the declaration is an explicit statement of nationalism for a particular named group is implicit in your mind? What else do you find in there? A declaration so short sure says a lot of things if you start to guess at what is hidden between the lines. I wonder why you keep thinking that this is about occupation? Maybe because you keep seeing something implicit that simply isn't there.

The only thing I am seeing is a population that the declaration recognises as existing and having equal statue to the new migrants. The population is recognised as the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine - the Palestinians.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The only thing I am seeing is a population that the declaration recognises as existing and having equal statue to the new migrants. The population is recognised as the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine - the Palestinians.

Palestine is a geographical designation, not a national one. Calling Palestine a nation is like calling New England a state.

 

[Bunyip]

Palestine is a geographical designation, not a national one. Calling Palestine a nation is like calling New England a state.

North America is also a geographical location, so is Europe - what was your point? Sure, Palestine is a geographical location - not a formal state, I know that. What I am asking is; How is that relevant?

 

[Kirran]

Thanks for the conversation -- when we pick up (no promises...Mondays are work days) I'll ask you about that notion of cultural construct -- around what notion of culture and what components is it built.

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.

Palestine is a geographical designation, not a national one. Calling Palestine a nation is like calling New England a state.

It would be like calling New England a state if it was organised as a state, thought of by its people as a state and recognised as a state by two thirds of the world's countries.

 

[rosends]

The only thing I am seeing is a population that the declaration recognises as existing and having equal statue to the new migrants. The population is recognised as the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine - the Palestinians.

It recognizes as being assured civil and religious rights. Not nationalistic ones which are explicitly given to the Jewish inhabitants. Did you never wonder why the text clearly delineates national rights for only one group and not another? 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.