What if UK never writen white papers during it Palestine mandate

Hmm...
I suspect that one of the more charitable interpretations of the issue
regarding the Palestinian people's existence or non-existence is whether
you think of it in terms of "Did a more or less specific group of people live
in Palestine at/before point X?" or "Did the people who lived in Palestine
at/before point X self-identify as Palestinians as opposed to some larger
national/ethnic identity?"

To use a logical fallacy which I can't think of the name of at the moment:
Would it be okay to give Texas back to Mexico, as most Americans live elsewhere, or does it matter that there are Texans?
 
No first form Palestinian nationalism did not existed until 1929s created idea of Palestinian people basic all done by Haj Amin al-Husseini. It basic draw up Zionist and put place UK.

Nope, Palestinian nationalism was earlier, Zionism merely gave it an easy root to coherence at one level while lacking coherence at others.
 
I find the idea that the Iraqis were created by the British confusing. Under the Ottomans Mesopotamia had a long period of autonomy (= self-rule) under the Mamelukes until the Ottoman state finally retook control.

Pan-Arabism strikes me rather like pan-Slavism, more of an idea or ideal than a reality. I'd be pretty sure a Syrian would think of his identity different than an Egyptian would, even when Egypt was ruling Syria under Mehmed Ali

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Yes, there is. The Palestinians were actually undergoing the first stages in development of industrialization and the establishment of their own middle class urban minority, and the uprising in the 19th Century was to that first generation what the 1936 uprising was to the second generation. The arrival of the Zionists in the 19th Century, of course, provided a sort of short-circuit of some of the processes by virtue of the "there is enemy, let us unite against enemy" pattern that other nationalisms took.

There is a strong degree to which reading any nationalism is anachronistic, but it's arguable that Palestinian national consciousness predated Israeli, and that the phenomenon of a Jewish movement visibly intent on pushing out the Arabs to secure their own state proved a great boost to this nationalist movement...

Are you talking about the mostly urbanized Turkish and Arab population? Either way they didn't get along with the Bedoins nor Zionist settlers at the time. Which unlike what you imply, had no inclination to want to kick anyone off but simply live on the Jewish idealogical and cultural homeland. They were Palestinian citizens too, including the Jewish community in Hebron that, until 1948, pre-dated all immigration.

Another problem is that was is today Palestine nor Israel for the matter has geographically little to do with Syria Palestina under Rome, Palestina Prima and Secunda under the Byzantines nor even what the Ottomans mapped it as. It simply comes down to the fact that the Arab Nationalist movement for Palestine did "awaken" first but only in the sense of being the riots in 1921 and revolt from1936-1939. Unless you want to consider the revolt of 1916 against the Ottomans part of that as well despite regional differences. It took longer for many Zionist settlements and organizations to help grow, organize and defence in response to the riots arrived to a similar conclusion.

And yes, Miss Eastern European not-from-the-Middle East did say that the people who'd lived there for centuries did not exist. This is standard Terra Nullius rhetoric. Examined in an objective light, Israel is nothing but a Rhodesia with Jews instead of British, Ben Gurion for Cecil Rhodes, and the Palestinians taking the place of the Matabele. MacCauley probably has the obsession with it he does because in hindsight the two are extremely similar, and the analogy is much closer than Israel-South Africa.

How kind of you comparing many refugees with prospectors.:rolleyes: Fyi, a state within an area of cultural significance to a people and founded on such principles would be considered a "national homeland." That is still regardless of how its governed and autonomy. That are still many such soveriegn nationstates since otherwise what makes Sri Lanka Sri Lankan and Turkey Turkish?
 
Are you talking about the mostly urbanized Turkish and Arab population? Either way they didn't get along with the Bedoins nor Zionist settlers at the time. Which unlike what you imply, had no inclination to want to kick anyone off but simply live on the Jewish idealogical and cultural homeland. They were Palestinian citizens too, including the Jewish community in Hebron that, until 1948, pre-dated all immigration.

Another problem is that was is today Palestine nor Israel for the matter has geographically little to do with Syria Palestina under Rome, Palestina Prima and Secunda under the Byzantines nor even what the Ottomans mapped it as. It simply comes down to the fact that the Arab Nationalist movement for Palestine did "awaken" first but only in the sense of being the riots in 1921 and revolt from1936-1939. Unless you want to consider the revolt of 1916 against the Ottomans part of that as well despite regional differences. It took longer for many Zionist settlements and organizations to help grow, organize and defence in response to the riots arrived to a similar conclusion.

Actually in 1834 there was an earlier revolt of Palestinian peasants against the Ottomans as a result of the emergence of the Khedivate. Like its later successors in the 1936-9 Revolt and in the First and Second Intifadas it was a flop (but may have something to do with how the Arafats wound up in Cairo, I don't know if it does or not). It's *this* revolt that started to crystallize the movement. Like all proto-nationalisms it had a lot of issues creating a consolidated entity out of a number of local interest groups, and it was here that Zionism directly contributed by in a real sense cutting out the middleman and enabling the Palestinians to directly focus on an obvious Other deliberately intent on that Terra Nullius nonsense about Palestine being uninhabited because wishful thinking would make it so (when it in fact was not).

How kind of you comparing many refugees with prospectors.:rolleyes: Fyi, a state within an area of cultural significance to a people and founded on such principles would be considered a "national homeland." That is still regardless of how its governed and autonomy. That are still many such soveriegn nationstates since otherwise what makes Sri Lanka Sri Lankan and Turkey Turkish?

In Turkey's case it was the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne removing most of the non-"Turkish" population. In the case of Palestinian nationalism it's always been a complex issue, with a Palestinian diaspora that actually predated 1948 (just as the Jewish diaspora predated Hadrian, but this is inconvenient for nationalism to point out complex history, in particular as Arafat tried to engage in outright lies about his past on a regular basis).

Palestinian nationalism is further complicated by the reality that Arab-Israelis *are* ethnically Palestinian, but neither the Palestinian nationalists nor the Israelis, nor these Arab-Israelis themselves like pointing this out as it's inconvenient for everybody. A real, as opposed to ideological, history of Palestinian nationalism would note the real thing is much more complex than a simple morality play of Arab v. Zionist.
 
Hmm...
I suspect that one of the more charitable interpretations of the issue
regarding the Palestinian people's existence or non-existence is whether
you think of it in terms of "Did a more or less specific group of people live
in Palestine at/before point X?" or "Did the people who lived in Palestine
at/before point X self-identify as Palestinians as opposed to some larger
national/ethnic identity?"

To use a logical fallacy which I can't think of the name of at the moment:
Would it be okay to give Texas back to Mexico, as most Americans live elsewhere, or does it matter that there are Texans?

I think it's more that the real "issue" is that like the earlier emergence of Jewish identity out of a mish-mash of various Diaspora and Palestinian communities, Palestinian nationalism emerged from multiple distinct communities, with the Palestinian diaspora predating the 1948 calamity. 1948 in this sense is the Bar Kokhba Revolt in being a horrendous defeat that expelled a great deal of the erstwhile natives in the region and led to a profound alteration in identity.

The major difference is that Palestinian nationalism grew in an age of things like AK-47 and superpowers willing to give it advanced weapon to (in theory) challenge Israel, while the Jews after Bar-Kokhba had no equivalent aid against Rome.

The real history of Palestinians is much more complicated than a simple Palestinians v. Zionist history, not least because when Arab states took over Palestinian territory they were just as content as Israel to suppress Palestinian autonomy and independence. It is this factor that led to the rise of Arafat. If we treat Palestinian history as that of Palestinian nationalism and recognize the distinction between the broader Israeli-Arab wars and the smaller Israeli-Palestinian separate war, then it's easy to see how 1967 led to the fall of the Shuqeri PLO and the emergence of the Fatah coalition. And why from the POV of the Fatah movement an Arab victory in 1967 would have been a geopolitical disaster.
 

Jason222

Banned
Actually in 1834 there was an earlier revolt of Palestinian peasants against the Ottomans as a result of the emergence of the Khedivate. Like its later successors in the 1936-9 Revolt and in the First and Second Intifadas it was a flop (but may have something to do with how the Arafats wound up in Cairo, I don't know if it does or not). It's *this* revolt that started to crystallize the movement. Like all proto-nationalisms it had a lot of issues creating a consolidated entity out of a number of local interest groups, and it was here that Zionism directly contributed by in a real sense cutting out the middleman and enabling the Palestinians to directly focus on an obvious Other deliberately intent on that Terra Nullius nonsense about Palestine being uninhabited because wishful thinking would make it so (when it in fact was not).



In Turkey's case it was the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne removing most of the non-"Turkish" population. In the case of Palestinian nationalism it's always been a complex issue, with a Palestinian diaspora that actually predated 1948 (just as the Jewish diaspora predated Hadrian, but this is inconvenient for nationalism to point out complex history, in particular as Arafat tried to engage in outright lies about his past on a regular basis).

Palestinian nationalism is further complicated by the reality that Arab-Israelis *are* ethnically Palestinian, but neither the Palestinian nationalists nor the Israelis, nor these Arab-Israelis themselves like pointing this out as it's inconvenient for everybody. A real, as opposed to ideological, history of Palestinian nationalism would note the real thing is much more complex than a simple morality play of Arab v. Zionist.

Just Egypt could get Palestinian Peasants to revolt does not pure say mean form nationalist belief. Spain get peasant Latin American revolt against two major Empire at the time. They did have nationalist idealize either. Kind like better off our rule then yours. With fact some Palestinian apart Egypt other want to part Syria put the your claim real nationalism into other want under Muhammand Anin Al-Husayi claim more unlikely. I think very unlikely Muhammand Anin Al-Husayi was not born be Palestinian nationalism period.
 
Just Egypt could get Palestinian Peasants to revolt does not pure say mean form nationalist belief. Spain get peasant Latin American revolt against two major Empire at the time. They did have nationalist idealize either. Kind like better off our rule then yours. With fact some Palestinian apart Egypt other want to part Syria put the your claim real nationalism into other want under Muhammand Anin Al-Husayi claim more unlikely. I think very unlikely Muhammand Anin Al-Husayi was not born be Palestinian nationalism period.

Wait what? Palestinian nationalism very much existed in its own right. If it didn't, we'd damn Shuqeri as the Evil Palestinian Terrorist Boogeyman, not Arafat. Arafat, in fact, would never have been a success. Palestinian nationalism in the PLO sense very much existed, Al-Husseini simply lost his war and fractured it and the Palestinian people for 20 years. Losing a war does not mean nationalism ceases to exist. Nor does the disappearance of a state. Otherwise nobody would have ever heard of Poland again after the Third Partition.
 

Jason222

Banned
Wait what? Palestinian nationalism very much existed in its own right. If it didn't, we'd damn Shuqeri as the Evil Palestinian Terrorist Boogeyman, not Arafat. Arafat, in fact, would never have been a success. Palestinian nationalism in the PLO sense very much existed, Al-Husseini simply lost his war and fractured it and the Palestinian people for 20 years. Losing a war does not mean nationalism ceases to exist. Nor does the disappearance of a state. Otherwise nobody would have ever heard of Poland again after the Third Partition.
No I am saying that Al-Husseini invent Palestinian nationalist he was father of it. 1920 Arab riots in Jerusalem and around birth place Palestinian nationalism. Part reason West Bank not over power basic put rest of the Israel/Palestine was. Also many different areas even beyond West Bank were his followers as well. Him not being born simple prevent the White papers.
 
No I am saying that Al-Husseini invent Palestinian nationalist he was father of it. 1920 Arab riots in Jerusalem and around birth place Palestinian nationalism. Part reason West Bank not over power basic put rest of the Israel/Palestine was. Also many different areas even beyond West Bank were his followers as well. Him not being born simple prevent the White papers.

No, he was not. Rather he was co-copter of it,, gaining fame and infamy and power by killing any would-be rivals. The death of Al-Husseini means someone else takes over Palestinian leadership, most likely from his rival clan. And if that man happens to be actually competent, as opposed to just quick on the draw........
 
anyone mentioned the fact that the native isrealis and those coming in had a segment of society that were planning a military uprising prior to the uk giving up the mandate?
 
Top