Talk:Palestinian nationalism

Old version vs. new version

Here is why the older version is not as suitable - and others can comment on the recently revised version similarly. Incidentally, referring to my own ideological POV is irrelevant and uncalled for. If you are reverting solely on that basis, you have not abided by the assume good faith standard.

"several wars have been fought in the region as a means of ending Jewish influence in the region."

1- at least three wars didn't even involve Israel

2- "ending Jewish influence in the region" is strongly POV and also inaccurate, since the wars referred to were against a state.

"A key point of dispute is the percentage of the region that should be allotted to Arabs"

This is original research insofar as it is nonsense. A key point according to whom? There are many key points, but "percentages" isn't one of them.

"Some Arabs, as well as their allies and sympathizers, want 100% of the region to be Arabic, or at least Islamic. They do not believe in and refuse to tolerate a Jewish homeland in Palestine."

Source please?

"Other advocates, primarily Zionists and their allies and sympathizers, claim a Biblical mandate to re-establish the biblical Kingdom of Israel (although such a claim would seem far-fetched, consider that the biblical kingdom encompassed territory all the way to Damascus)."

Again, source please? (For both sentences, again the part in parentheses is blatant OR.

"During and after the establishment of Israel, many Arab refugees were left homeless. Some sold their real estate, while others had their property confiscated."

Very twisted POV. Left homeless? Like a hurricane came through? "Some sold"? Placing "sold" and "confiscated" on equal footing is a vile distortion of fact.

"These refugees remain largely near the Jordan River. On the east bank, they reside in Jordan, which has given them equal rights with other Jordanians. On the West Bank, tempers fume as various nationalist and terrorist groups clamor for the control of any future Palestinian state."

Wildly POV and erroneous. Most refugees are far away from the River. The "Tempers fume" sentence is a vile misrepresentation and again, unsourced original research.

"The proposals for a Palestinian state for this group nearly all dismiss the idea of the group's absorption into Jordan."

They also dismiss the idea of the "group's" absorption into Mongolia. Should we add that as well?

"And a majority of Israelis oppose their absorption into Israel, since such a measure would surely dilute the Jewish majority, while granting voting rights to a group that may seek to vote them out of existence."

This is neutral? Are you kidding me?

"As a compromise between permanent sovereignty and indefinite occupation, the PLO was allowed to establish the Palestinian Authority as a quasi-governmental administration in the West Bank."

BS - that is factually wrong.

Ramallite ^(talk) 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One minor quibble: I don't particularly want anyone to think of this as "Palmiro's version"; it was a quick attempt to replace a very poor, historically inaccurate and POV article with something that could serve as a starting point for a historically rigorous approach to the topic. I feel no particular allegiance to what I wrote and hope that as much of it as possible will be changed, expanded and improved.... Palmiro | Talk 17:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think of it as "Palmiro's version", since you wrote it, and it was, in my view, just as POV as the previous version, if not moreso. "liberation of their lost lands" or even "liberation of Palestine"? Honestly. In the 50s and 60s they had no intention of "liberating" the Gaza Strip or West Bank - it was about replacing Israel with an Arab state. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write "liberation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip"? Palmiro | Talk 22:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you did not, which is precisely why the exact term "Israel" is more appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no doubt that Palestine was used in the sense of the entirety of the British mandate in that period, and in talking about the political aspirations of Palestinian nationalists at the time is hardly subject to ambiguity. The use of the term "Palestine" to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is extremely recent, as far as I know. "Israel", by contrast, refers only to the territory under Israeli control after 1949, and while this territory was undoubtedly the main focus of the Palestinian national movement, they thought of all Palestine as their homeland. Palmiro | Talk 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But in fact, the use of "Palestine" by these movements was not intended to mean all of the British mandate, as I made clear - they had no intention of "liberating" the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but were perfectly happy to have them under Jordanian and Egyptian control. Rather, they intended to conquer Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism v. Zionist colonisation

Zionism is an ideology, Zionist colonisation is what was happening in Palestine at the time in question (I don't think this is really disputed, whether you think it was a good thing or a bad is another question) and getting people worried. I think the difference between the two is a difference between an idea and a social process, not between POV and NPOV! That said, it is a very minor point and I'm certainly not particularly concerned about it. Palmiro | Talk 16:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is disputed, as the use of the term "colonization" assumes that the "colonizers" have no connection with the land. If the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees eventually returned to Israel, would they be "colonizing" it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. However, the sentiments of those involved are one thing; the real question is, how do we describe this objective process? It is, as far as I can see, the same phenomenon as occurred in Algeria, South Africa or Australia, and historians usually term it colonisation. Of course, it was distinct from these in the motives of those engaged in it and in their views as to their relationship with the place they were colonising. Nevertheless, we should remember that while "colonisation" is viewed as a "bad thing' these days, this wasn;t so when Zionism was first proposed and estanlished itself in Palestine. The fact that colonisation was widely seen as normal at the time in Europe was in fact the context for the acceptance of Zionism. I wonder did Zionist writers use the words "colony" or "colonise" or settler" or "settle", by the way?

I'm not sure that the word "colonisation" implies any particular view of the land being colonised on the part of the coloniser. And also, my impression, from what little I know of the subject, is that the Zionist settlers' romantic vision of the land was focused very much on the future rather than on the past. Palmiro | Talk 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think there are "objective" ways of describing these things? "Colonization" is a political term, with political implications. Jews did not return to Israel as "colonies" of their countries of birth, so from an "objective" standpoint it is unlike Algeria, South Africa, or Australia, where people who had no connection to a land settled there as representatives of the mother country. Again, if the Palestinians were ever able to implement their claimed "Right of Return", would those Palestinians be "colonizing" Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do you think it should be described? Were the Pilgrim Fathers in America colonists? I would think so, but they were hardly representatives of their mother country. Perhaps this is another case of a word having different connotations to different people (like proletariat, apparently). As far as Algeria etc are concerned, the objective phenomenon in terms of its effects on the country being colonised/settled/gone and lived in and its land bought up for use by the new immigrants was more or less of the same nature. Palmiro | Talk 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you how those grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) of Palestinian refugees would be described. As for the Pilgim Fathers, they were given grants by their mother country, and were subjects of the crown, in the original 13 colonies. Of course they were colonists. This is not a word that has different connotations in English, this is a word which is being inappropriately applied. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to answer your question, if they were immigrating from outside Palestine and taking land occupied by native inhabitants with a view to exploiting it, yes, it might indeed be an appropriate term. You might like to take a look at colonization and see the distinction drawn there between that term and colonialism. Now that I have answered your question, perhpas you'd answer mine? Palmiro | Talk 11:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a view to exploiting it"? I thought you claimed this was an objective thing that has nothing to do with "the sentiments of those involved". Everyone "exploits" the land they own, whether to hunt and fish, grow crops, use it for grazing, use it for parkland, mine it, build houses, build roads, etc. And in answer to your question, I'd characterize it as returning to their native land. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Everyone "exploits" the land they own, whether to hunt and fish, grow crops, use it for grazing, use it for parkland, mine it, build houses, build roads, etc.' Well, there's a difference, I think, between living on a piece of land, which is hardly exploiting it, and using it for agriculture or whatever, which is, and the term is hardly subjective. But surely you can do better than "return to their native land"? That's purely ideology. What was the social process involved? Palmiro | Talk 11:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both "colonists" and "natives" use land for the same purposes, so your distinctions don't make much sense to me. When you talk about "pure ideology" and a "social process involved" about "return to their native land", are you referring to the claim of a "Right of Return" by the great-grandchildren of people who left Palestine in 1948, and whose great-grandparents may themselves have been immigrants to Palestine, or the children or grandchildren of immigrants? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the first paragraph

The first paragraph:

The growing weakness of the Ottoman Empire in the last years of the nineteenth century and the years prior to the World War I was accompanied by an increasing sense of Arab identity in the Empire's Arab provinces, most notably Syria, then considered to include both Palestine and Lebanon. While Arab nationalism, at least in an early form, and Syrian nationalism were the dominant tendencies along with continuing loyalty to the Ottoman state, Palestinian politics was marked by certain specificities, largely due to Zionism which was increasingly identified as a threat by Palestinian leaders and the concrete results of which were having a direct impact on Palestinian peasants in particular.

doesn't appear to mean anything, particularly the second sentence. Can someone explain it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought this was a blandly standard explanation of the rise of nationalism in the early C20 in the region. I'll try and flesh it out with more specific info and sources later today, if I get the time. Palmiro | Talk 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]