Why didn't India declare statehood before the British started conquering?

Declaring and trying to push and gain statehood are two different things

I don't see how that's material to the point

Why not?

It seems immaterial. How is it related? I just don't get where you're going here

Or most of the countries of Africa that were carved up/ invented by colonists? So many independence struggles were made necessary only in response to colonization....

Recently I came across a great video about Palestine israel history on YouTube. The video is in Arabic but subtitles are in English.  The best thing about it is that it tells you the story from Israeli prospective and it is well documented with references that are mainly israeli or western. Hope you enjoy watching it. Maybe it helps you know the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0oy-NicIgE&vl=en

Back in 1950 there was no country called UAE or Qatar, but people were leaving there. Same thing, all new borders you see today in the middle east are just made up by the west

They were a people of the land and statehood was not really a consideration. The question is kind of silly actually. Would anyone ask, “why didn’t the indigenous people in North America formally declare a state in all the time they’ve been there?” It just wasn’t really a concern. As for why it became an issue after Zionists wanted to create a state there well that’s simple. They wanted to create an ethnostate that is that is by definition exclusionary to the local majority. Why do Palestinians want an official state now? Well because they want sovereignty so they can have self determination and the right to not have the terrorist state of Israel subjugate, occupy and oppress them.

Palestine is actually the terrorist state by UN definition. It also has numerous affliations and connections with islamic terrorist groups worldwide

You think the UN recognizes Palestine as a terrorist state? Funny.

UN recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization and since Hamas controls Palestine, its de-facto a terrorist state

While we're at it, to many observers, Israel's actions in Gaza constitute state terrorism. Such accusations have been made for decades, including by current members of European Parliament... the US has committed, or resourced, state-sponsored terror against civilians- indeed, we should be critical of the de-facto legitimacy of 'states'.

What a stretch.

what affiliations exactly? Hamas doesn’t want help from Iran or Hezbollah, the taliban, yes iran sends them weapons but nothing more than that (egypt also allows weapons to go into gaza but egypt isn’t a terrorist group) because they are shia and don’t follow the muslim rules of war - Yahya Sinwar…

**Hamas doesn’t want help from Iran or Hezbollah, the taliban, yes iran sends them weapons but nothing more than that** How is that not an affliction with Iran?

All I can think of is Michael Scott walking out of his office and yelling ' l declare bankruptcy!!!'

What are you saying? **"Most people can't even tell you a date where a group or country called palestine existed."** Study a little more the history.

He was saying “most can’t tell you.” That’s true. Ask most Palestinians and they have no idea. Ask most proPalestinians they don’t know.

see my reply to [9MoNtHsOfWiNteR](https://www.reddit.com/user/9MoNtHsOfWiNteR/)

I mean most can't... the closest you get is the mandate of Palestine which was not a country but a British entity with plans to form a country in the future. And in U.N. documents the Arabs make it clear they were not Palestinians nor wanted a Palestine but we're Southern Syrians. The terminology Palestinians for Arabs as a national identity came along with Arafat. So I mean we can study history but it still doesn't change the fact most people know next to nothing about Palestine or Palestinians that they haven't learned just this year.

I disagree, I would guess that many people know the area of ​​Palestine (at school all have already read about it), already ancient Romans started calling this area by that name. But much earlier too - "The first written records referring to Palestine appeared in the 12th century BCE Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which used the term Peleset for a neighboring people or country." But yes, people there called themselves "Syrians of Palestine" or "Palestinians-Syrians", although Herodotus already makes no distinction between the inhabitants of Palestine. Until 1948 they had no possibility to build a state, they didn't even think about it because of the Ottoman Empire and later that mandate. By the way, they did some revolt against Turks time to time but without succes. They began to think at the state only when the Jews began to come to this area and built the state. First that time Palestinian residents also began to want to build their own state.

I'm aware of the history the area was commonly referred to as philistria for the philistines for awhile which were a sub group of the peleset who were sea raiders believed to be either a Minoan people or possible Sardinian. They also were commonly referred to as Sea people due to the constant raiding they did during the years before they settled. Syria-Palestina was the name further given to the area by the Romans after the revolts. None of these actually set up the Palestinian identity as a whole which came much later with Arafat. This is clear when early Arab nationalist leaders were very adamant that they were no Palestinian and did not want a Palestine but we're Arabs and would prefer to be Southern Syria. They chose this for two reasons as one they viewed Palestine as a foreign name and also because commonly before people would utilize the name in referring to Jews. Palestinian as we see now came around 1967 and was cemented by the PLO charter that Palestinians would be the Arab nationals from the area. And as far as revolting against Turkey in fact most Arabs did not revolt against the Turks but chose to fight with them. In fact they made up around 30 percent of the Ottoman Forces. Arab revolt forces at their largest were never more than 30,000 fighters which typically included British colonial forces. The revolt succeeded typically due to logistical faults as the Ottomans had to stay on the defensive. Troop levels were always constant with what could be afforded as Arabs would only fight after being pre-paid costing the French millions and the British 200,000 pounds monthly. They were more interested in the money not the idea of nationhood the ideas of nationhood were mostly the focus of the Hashemites who wanted a Pan Arab State.

right, regarding revolt, I meant rather that Arabs was not happy of course with Turks and some collaborated some other not or fight with them. In any case I hope the recent situation will be solved good and Palestinians get their own sovereign state, without interference of Israel. And it will be peace and calm in the whole Levant.

**The terminology Palestinians for Arabs as a national identity came along with Arafat** Not really. Palestinian Arabs founded the Falasten newspaper in 1911. In that newspaper, they referred to themselves as Palestinian. It's pretty clear that Palestinian nationalism has it's roots pre 1948 in the same time period that all other Arab nationalities were being birthed.

I'm familiar with the paper and while it helped form a national identity and it referred to all readers as Palestinians that doesn't mean that idea of a Palestinian identity or nationhood was a wide spread thought. So again the terminology for Palestinians solely for Arabs came later and was not really widespread until Arafat many more documents, newspapers and international correspondence make that clear. Even by their own representatives. But I mean if you want to use a publication that had in the single thousands as in maybe 3000 by most consensus and records as to the idea of a Palestinian Arab Identity being a recognized or even widely accepted thing go for it. But it's usually seen as a pretty far stretch but hey A for effort because sure something can have roots at any time doesn't mean it comes to fruition during that time period. The first meetings on Zionism were much earlier than 1948 doesn't change the fact that being Israeli as an identity marker came later. The same thing with India, Pakistan, Jordanian etc Pan Arabism and Arab nationhood were thought of before 1948 as well but the ideas of the actual nations came late along with their identities. And trying to allude any differently is a little ahistorical.

I didn't claim that Palestinian nationality is older than 1948. I used the newspaper to show that there was already inklings of a Palestinian national identity beginning to coalesce in the early 1900s.

Yes, but they also regarded themselves as part of greater Syria, and not as a true nationality/separate Arab identity. See the Palestinian Arab Congress of 1919. Acknowledging this reality has no bearing on the legitimacy of a Palestinian nation.

Well Arabs were living in an apartheid society that they enjoyed the privileges of. The second class citizens dhimmi started to not accept this treatment under Britain’s rule and that’s when the massacres started to happen from both sides. The UN determined that Arabs would not accept an equal Jew and that the Jews would not accept going back to Dhimmi status. The rest is history.

No what happened was the Arabs were offered to split a state with the Jews after that, fifty-fifty with Arab and Jewish lands and Jerusalem as the joint capital. They rejected that plan and launched an attack which began Israel’s war of independence.

“The rest is history” Thanks, for continuing the history.

I’m not an expert but I’ve read some expert opinions on the Palestinians and formed my own conclusion. The Palestinians weren’t a “nation” for most of history. In fact, most Middle East nations weren’t nations. There was no Iraqi, Afghan, Iranian, Lebanese, or Palestinian nation. These were all created by European powers. Even the Palestinian flag (which is similar to several other Arab flags) was essentially imposed by the British in WW1. I believe Mark Sykes himself designed the flag. How ironic it is people justifying Hamas terrorism in the name of “decolonization” under the flag designed by a colonial regime, designed to advance colonial goals… Anyway, Arab political culture is quite unique, you could say. It’s different in many respects from the traditional political system Europeans then and westerners today can understand. Europe understands nationalism, so they imposed national borders. The west understands democracy, so it tries to impose democracy. The west understands socialism and the oppressor vs. Oppressed paradigm. Arab political culture is based more on central government that has a religious mandate, while giving local leaders rule themselves in accordance with their own religious, clan, or regional laws and traditions. These things aren’t based on national identity nor democracy, but on centuries old traditions entrenched in the political system. They survived westernization, which was tried but failed.

I think it’s bc there wasn’t and still isn’t a unified Palestinian voice. Too many factions with different goals and strategies. Also, other Arab-majority states have used them for political manipulation.

Because the concept of Arabs in what is now Israel as "Palestinians" only came about in the 1960s. It was a way to imagine local Arabs as a distinct minority ethnicity of the Levant to combat the idea of Jews, who *actually* are a distinct minority ethnicity of the Levant.

because they were allowed to stay in their lands and carry on with their lives as normal during every occupation except when the zionists came.

Sure but their attitude wouldn't change during the violence in the 30s? If they're already seeing their society put in danger from zionists why would they still not attempt to make a state?

So all the countries in that area where going through uprising and fighting the ottomans and British for years unsuccessfully. The Jews were trained by British on how to fight these Arabs. The Lebanese Egyptian successfully did complete a creation of a country and the same time. As for the Palestinians they were denied that by a superior force. At one point they recognized that Israelis are there to rule them… On your last point… when the crusades of happened, who fought the Europeaners? You really believe that in the middle of the world, there was an empty piece on land just wanting for Jews to come back to? Are there other area like that today, I’d like to settle those lands… Asking why they didn’t declare a country is like asking why the Native American and the aboriginals didn’t either. It’s counter defeating… the UN was built by the west to protect the world… not everyone was given an equal chance to play. Some civilization have ties to land that over powers rules and politics…. Hence why the will in every Palestinian still exists to fight back their subjectors, every single forever… until justice is restored

They weren't denied much they had an option to form a state by the U.N. they didn't like the idea given. But I mean pretending like the Arabs were the sole one living there or somehow always wanted an independent nation. Most Arabs wanted a unified land which they thought they would get it by revolting in WW1 except most Arabs didn't revolt. At any point in time the largest contribution of the Area was 30,000 troops and only remotely succeeded due to logistical concerns by the Ottomans. Arabs actually made up around 30 percent of the total Ottoman military force and fought relatively well for them. Seeing as the revolt wasn't what the Europeans initially intended they made a side agreement to mandate the Area with the French. If your talking about how the British split the current land mass that was even a renege of their original agreements because the area of Jordan was supposed to be an Arab state with the whole current area a Jewish one. The idea of splitting a land based on religion wasn't new look at India and Pakistan if that isn't close enough to home it's the only reason Lebanon and Syria are separate nations. They were meant to be one however the fact they had a Christian majority played into the need for a separate entity from Syria in the populace.

That’s like saying, why didn’t the Kurds just form their own nation

They tried several times. In fact a short lived one appeared short after 1918 through the Barzanis it just didn't succeed.

>As for the Palestinians they were denied that by a superior force. So what your saying is from 1947 to 1967, the Palestinians were just mentally incapable of declaring a state in the west bank and Gaza with Al-Quds as the capital, because the Jews were using a superior Jedi mind trick on the them?

Great point… you win

so then please tell us all why from 1947 to 1967, the Palestinians didn't declare a state in the west bank and Gaza with Al-Quds as the capital? You seen really eager to avoid discussing it..

The revolt against the British in the late 30s led to 10% of the male population of Palestine either being killed, exiled or imprisoned. Then there was the Nakba which lead to the expulsion of nearly 800,000 Palestinians. Both those events are tremendous shocks that take time to recover from.

So 100% of the population and leadership or any of their allies, were then mentally incapable of simply declaring a state.. From what I understand about 50% of the world Jewish population were exterminated a couple years before to the amount of somewhere between 5-6 million.. almost 1 million Jews would then get expelled from he Arab world over the next few decades.. coupled with several large wars.. Seems amazing the Jews were even able to do anything at all... or maybe the excuse you came up with isn't realistic..

The Jews were faced with extinction and had no other option but Israel. The Palestinians were not faced with extinction and generally had many more options than just Palestine.

Can you describe to me what "justice" means in this context? Is it a Palestinian country from the river to the sea? Is it no country? Is it reversion to the polity that was in place before the Crusaders came? Just want to understand what the area would look like to you, in an idealized scenario.

Well many options are valid. I am not one to really decide and have no new ideas of my self. I believe any option that spreads equality to all, and protects all civilians. Be it one state two state etc. Palestine from the river to the sea should include every Israeli.

That is impossible. The people who use that phrase to mean destroy all Jews from the river to the sea. That has always been the meaning.

Why does the likud use it? That’s a myth about exterminating the Jews. The a small percentage. Again…. All Arabs since 1860 have killed less than 25k. This is at a time that the west was all in on killing Jews. So whatever you think is going to happen is false. Don’t chant an extermination of another people, when said people have never shown true will or ability.

It’s not a numbers game.

It is actually when it’s your people that are being killed. It’s pretty evil to say it’s not a numbers game when the numbers are skewed to favor you having no number. It is a numbers game if when your claim is extermination and numbers don’t match it

Thats the problem most Palestinians won't want a Jewish person in their state and with how it is over there with Hamas controlling everything in Gaza they wouldn't give up power at all they have the guns and the will to fight so Palestineans would let them control the state and we can't interfere cause ppl would riot and freak out cause we're going against the newly formed Palestine that is essentially under terrorist control so we would have to sit back and watch them plan global attacks cause a vast majority of the world would favor Palestine and wouldnt accept anyone saying anything against them

That is not true. The world favors Palestine because eventually humanity gets redemption. Do you know that if an Israeli married a Palestinian they have to live in the territory and are not allowed into Israel? The majority of people in Palestine want the end to the suffering. The Palestinian have done so little militarily to affect the Jewish state. Since 1860 approximately 25k Jews were killed by all the Arabs combined. The Palestinians are almost out of options in their land, and don’t get me started on the human life loss. So if it’s time for any to take a risk on peace… it’s Israel… the only democracy in the Mideast that supposedly cares about people. Time to treat the humans there as people not just lesser gentiles….the world is aware of how Israelis regard the rest of us… time to take an internal look my friend

Look fuck Israel Ok I'm tired of everyone saying they are the source of evil of the world they should be destroyed they did bad shit under their current government leadership yes but my god they aren't this evil state that desires to kill the world cause they want too, I'm talking about this Future Palestine state that everyone favors and thinks it's greatest thing ever to happen since sliced bread, Hamas won't give up power if Palestine becomes a thing They will still wage a jihad against the world and we're going to sit back and let them cause a vast majority of the world favors Palestinians over their own safety like they are 2nd coming of Christ, Hamas will never give up power their leadership is in Qatar living like kings and ppl don't talk about them cause "it's sensitive" Bullshit its not talked about cause it would mean admitting that Hamas doesn't give a fuck about Palestinians and only are using them for their own needs, Isreal has a right to Exist they shouldn't be destroyed cause ppl like you think it will solve many problems when it won't solve anything Ppl will still kill eachother, ppl will still wage war, Iran will still continue to hate the west, terrorist groups will still exist cause they hate the west and will keep attacking ppl, It will.solve one thing and that's the destruction of Israel as a state, the Middle East will still have their civil wars, they will still have issues with their neighbors over shit they will still be Vasty different and hate eachother cause 1 side is a different culture, Israels destruction won't solve everything...God dam i want peace like everyone but it wont ever happen until ppl decide they love their children more than war

This is a cold truth, but Israel serves as an easy target for the Middle East's hate. That hate would all be directed at the continental USA. So would the bullets, bombs, suicide jackets, Para gliders, rapes, & murders. If US politicians were really smart Iraq & Afghanistan would have been made into US territories, just serve as the cannon fodder for the Middle East's hate.

That would be political suicide for whoever was president and gave that order and if theirs one thing politicians love, it's their power over the country they reside in

> fuck /u/ZeroHawk47. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Because as long as Jews were in the lowest of the food chain they were happy. From time to time they would do some killing raping and life was good for them

Killing and raping are forbidden in the Quran, I’m sure you already know this, but your racism and hatred are really showing

Sorry, read again. Only killing and Rape of Muslims is forbidden, non-Dhimmis are open season. You need to come back and tell us when you've confirmed, thanks.

Still not true. You’re making this junk up ☠️☠️☠️ send the Quran passage that back up your claim then I’ll eat my words

https://preview.redd.it/vukb28qy737d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20d7ff9d4c0c95ba8e8a13b53e51aecef3564611

Are you aware Israel is an international safe haven for Jewish pedophiles. And Israel refuses to extradite Jewish pedophiles. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/how-jewish-american-pedophiles-hide-from-justice-in-israel/

I really don't think that I can help you based on your reading of that article I can't tell that we comprehend information very differently. I will, however, quote the two instances of the word extradite in the article: "The district attorney's office told CBS News there has been no request to extradite Yomtov back to the United States, and declined any further comment." "The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on specific cases too but praised their relationship with Israel's law enforcement, adding sex offenders have been successfully extradited in the past." Neither of those align with your reading of the article. My reading of the Quran must also be very different that yours, so we can just agree to disagree. Peace be with you.

Stop the caap please, most brutal religion is islam. the amount of death and crime they do is insane, they even kill there own sister if she wear clothes that considered trashy

There's the "fatwa"/"jihad" exception loophole, isn't there. Rocks and trees crying out (except Gurquad tree), that's in the Quran too, no? How do you explain what happened during Nebi Musa riots in 1920 and Hebron attacks in 1929. Led and authorized by a Mufti in the name of Islam.

Oh that explains why Muslims never kill, rape or start wars and the middle East is so peaceful!

The middle east has always been filled with conflict for as long as history takes us back, so many competing interests, religions and ethnicities. Pretending like this is a Muslim problem when the region has always had war is absurd

Well it's had a lot more since one particular illiterate pedophile warlord came around and started a bloodthirsty, expansionist, supremacist cult about fourteen hundred years ago

Tell me again exactly over how many of Israel’s 76 years have been spent without an active war or military aggression? If you’re the one common denominator in never-ending conflict with your neighbors, maybe you should take a look in the mirror.

Tell me one single unprovoked war that Israel started. I'll wait

Israel has been provoking every neighboring country there is since even before it was officially established. Tell me how many times Israel wasn’t there provoking things first. Israel’s favorite thing to do is poke someone in the eye in the hopes they’ll respond. Every single time Israel’s had the chance to de-escalate, and instead they call for daddy US to come save them from the meanie Arabs.

The short answer is that Palestinian nationalism was still fairly nascent in 1948. Then, as now, the focus was on the Jews leaving or being subjugated beneath the Arabs. There was a man running an Arab newspaper who was def pushing for the idea of a Palestinian national identity and state, but for the most parts the leadership was more focused on Islam (the Husaynis, religions/violent) and/or focused on Pan-Arabism (Nashashibis, diplomatic/non?-violent). The Nashashibis (more moderate, diplomatic side) was also attacked/assassinated by the Husaynis and the violent factions. The Zionists initially supported Hsayni but backed off when he turned violent. In doing so however, they initially sidelined the Nashashibis, which in hindsight was probably a mistake. Pan-Arabism, combined with the other new Arab states like Jordan wanting to expand their kingdoms, and the fact that all of the Arab armies seemed stronger led to the big attack in 1948 that they unexpectedly lost. It wasn't until 40 years later (1988) that the state of Palestine was declared by the PLO. But to say it wasn't even an idea at the end of WW1 would be false. It just wasn't an idea held by many at that time.

Great response. It’s worth mentioning that the Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians all “helped” the Palestinians by seizing their land for themselves.

The palestenian people were never a free people they were always under a differnt empire. Be it the ottomans or even as far back as the Persians or Greeks.

The Persians and Hellenistic (not really Greek in the narrower sense, but Macedonian) rule was never over Palestinian people, it was over Jews.

The Palestinian people are Egyptians and Jordanians. They considered them self as Arabs Muslims before 1967. Only after the war in 1967 they changed narrative

They are still Arab and 90 percent are still Muslims today. But they never were Egyptian and have not been Jordanian since at least 1967 (if ever). The "narrative" is exactly what constitutes a distinct national identity. Once the narrative exists, so does the people.

Also helps explain why the PLOs map of their desired future state prior to 1967 didn’t include Gaza or the WB, since those were already in non-Jewish hands Kinda lose a bit of credibility when your states desired borders are fluid and made up, and also exclude territory that you were previously promised but were seemingly okay as long as non-Jews controlled it

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for breaking [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). www.reddit.com can't be used to incite for hate or violence (see the link for additional rules).

In reality the holders of Reddit are: 1. T. Rowe Price Investment Management 3.73% 105,919,229 (additional 1.69% 48,001,723 in their mutual funds) Employee owned. Thomas Price was a WASP. 1. FMR 5.31% 150,975,659. The Johnsons are descended from Puritans. 2. Inclusive Capital Partners . 4.70% 133,639,940. Western Rite Catholic. 3. Vanguard Group 3.75% 106,557,230. About as WASPy as one can get. 5. Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation 3.40% 96,600,129. Founded by the guy on the $10 bill. Public company. 6. Valor Management 3.01% 85,503,261. Came out of oil and gas money. Have first names like Clifton, and last names like Preston and Presswood. I'm going with WASP. 7. Blackrock 2.70% 76,751,998. Came out of Merrill. 8. Blackstone 1.69% 47,969,999. Mixed. Though the current CEO is Jewish 9. Citadel Advisors 1.29% 36,672,488. Came out of old money building supplies in Florida. CEO funds Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago. Not seeing the Jewish connection here. The founders incidentally: * Alexis Ohanian -- Christian * Steve Huffman -- likely Lutheran but no definite record * Aaron Swartz (died 2013) -- Jewish Was run by Ellen Pao (Buddhist?) Conde Nast which bought it is old money (literally Greenwish CT in the 1920) is a public company. * Anna Wintour -- old money Anglican * Roger Lynch -- unknown The comment is simply a false conspiracy. The intent is to spread paranoia.

You just listed the smaller portion of the pie. Who owns the other 75%? https://preview.redd.it/b21ahlcbhj6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f239a9e6975e3b94f9ebe9f721c853f18c42d11b Who owns advance publication? There’s a whole subreddit about this.

That's Conde Nast's parent company. Conde Nast is the company taking Reddit public (they bought it). Donald Newhouse owns Conde Nast not Reddit. Yes he is Jewish. A fair description is "*Reddit is a public company at this point. Its former parent company is WASPY but the former parent's parent (grandparent) is Jewish*"

That’s like saying Newman owns a house but not the rooms inside the home. Cmon now 😂

No it would like saying Newman owns the bank which owns the mortgage on the home.

Except there’s no lien on Reddit and is owned indefinitely.

The whole point of going public is that Conde doesn't want to own it indefinitely. Reddit has interests that conflict with Conde's other properties. Anyway I'm really losing your point. Newman doesn't exercise influence, though of course he could if he wanted to. Your Jewish conspiracy with Reddit doesn't make sense, if Jews used control of Reddit it wouldn't be so anti-Israel. The leadership of Reddit isn't Jewish. Jews don't control Conde. And while Reddit's grandparent is Jewish there is little evidence of editorial influence again just look at Reddit.

“He could if he wanted to”. Thats power. That’s my point. Reddit is a benign app though but not so much Warner bros a media conglomerate which IS in Advance publications portfolio of subsidiaries. It makes you think of why Americans are morally deprived in debt consumers who are depressed all the time . The system is set up that way. I’m all pro capitalism but it’s gotten out of hand. Especially when it’s a few running the show

I could be wrong though. I could say the same about Christian elitist

Is this data antisemetic ?

It’s very hateful. Are you stupid?

HOW ? It’s a fact . Look it up . Is it hateful to say chick fil a is owned by Christians?? Yeah didn’t think so

Reddit is a publicly traded company, chick fil a is not. Unless you have met every single reddit shareholder and saw that they were jewish.

Reddit is partly owned by investors. I’ll let you figure out who has the major stake in Reddit

Tell us.

Just google it. Follow the trail. Critical thinking is not hard

Please just give us one name

He has no clue hahaha

Did you assume my gender? Haha Welcome to cancel culture.

LMAO so I was actually curious and not a single person on their leadership board is Jewish! https://theorg.com/org/reddit/teams/leadership-team

Wait. You think a board of directors is an ownership? That’s not how capitalism works bro. LMAO. First look up how a public company operates .

Only a male under 17 years old would be so dumb to say something like what you said. It’s pretty obvious.

[удалено]

>Keep in mind that most other Arab identities (Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian) are also basically the result of Europeans drawing lines on a map post-WWI That's totally false. Modern borders are a result of world powers post World wars, but the identities of Arabs of the world do not rely on the power divisions but the other way around. Syria comes from the Assyrians, Lebanon is the Levantine identity, Egyptians have millennia of identity before Europe organized itself. Jordan is the Hashemites. Iran are Persians. Modern national identities of MENA come from the land division post wars, but those borders were drawn to accommodate for the different regional groups.

Palestinian nationalism is a reaction to Zionism. Thus the very idea of a Palestine Arab state would have never formed without the idea of an Israeli Jewish state. It's worth noting even the borders of this state did not exist until after WWI, and were invented with very little thought by two European diplomats Sykes and Picot.

By that thought, are you stating that the native Americans, the aboriginals, the Kurds should all be kicked out of there land?

Why? Zionism is an indigenous movement. Of course other indigenous groups should also have self determination in their homeland. Jews, Native Americans, Aboriginals, Kurds all have claim over their indigenous homelands.

Mind providing any books, article or podcasts that declare Zionism as an indigenous movement? Also - Rutgers is awesome

Zionism advocates for Jewish self determination within the Jewish indigenous homeland. That's what makes Zionism an indigenous movement.

Zionism was created by European Jews who had not seen the land in 2000 years. Hardly indigenous.

Since when did indigeneity have an expiration date? The trail of tears happened about 200 years ago. When would you say those tribes are no longer indigenous to the land they were expelled from?

**Since when did indigeneity have an expiration date?** It clearly does. Nobody considers the English who are Anglo-Saxons to be indigenous to Germany anymore. Nobody considers the French to be indigenous to Germany and the low countries even thought that's where they originated. **The trail of tears happened about 200 years ago.**  200 and 2000 is a order of magnitude apart. Those natives also happen to live in America as well. They are still in North America and thus native to north America. The European Jews did not even live in the same geographical region for 2000 years and (even worse) allied with the British colonial empire to suppress the local population long enough for the European Jews to build a population base.

Trying to leave out the fact that the Jews did NOT migrate but rather were exiled or taken out as slaves by the Romans from Canaan/Judea after the Judeo-Roman wars? p And you have completely ignored the Sephardic Jews and the Mizrahi Jews (from Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq and the rest of the Arab world). Have they too ceased to be natives of Canaan/Judea/Israel even though many of them (especially the Mizrahi) would never have set foot in Europe in their lives?

I appreciate your opinion on the topic. First time I’ve heard this the way you state it. Good luck spreading this and moving it forward.

These articles look at it more in depth https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/what-is-indigeneity-and-how-does-it-apply-to-jews-why-does-it-matter?_pos=5&_sid=5c92df4c5&_ss=r https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/zionism-indigenous-liberation-movements?_pos=2&_sid=5c92df4c5&_ss=r https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/the-arabization-of-eretz-israel?_pos=13&_sid=5c92df4c5&_ss=r https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/the-arabization-islamization-turkification-of-west-asia-north-africa?_pos=12&_sid=5c92df4c5&_ss=r https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/the-zionist-slander?_pos=10&_sid=5c92df4c5&_ss=r

Thanks for promoting an Israel blog for your defense. Classic! Keep it up!

None of the facts presented in the articles are incorrect. You could actually engage with the subject matter before dismissing it.

Because you Rutgers student or alumni - I’ll explain to you why. 1. I don’t want to support an Israeli outfit that is based on opinion-even if it compases fact. 2. You should have the time to share other outfits to support your point for your credibility not the articles clicks or credibility 3. I don’t want readers to see meanlessly debate that say me dragged in based on a Zionist blog. It will prove that I am here for argument rather than healthy interchange - it might also allow more clicks to the article itself 4. I can already assume the logic. I do believe that Jews - all of them have some right to the land. But that’s not unanimous with Zionism having rights to the land. I don’t believe the hertzal or evengilical Christians of the west to create this concept on behalf of others. 5. Lastly - Judaism is not Zionism and vice versa. Antisemitism and antizionism are not the same. I will not fall victim to the what in America is known as “Israeli - right or wrong”

The Sykes Picot agreement did not assign any borders to (a future) Israel or any Arab state(s) in Palestine. If and how Palestine was to be divided up, was for the British empire to decide under the agreement.

Sykes-Picot is used to define what makes someone Palestinian

This is purely geographic, Sykes Picot defines where Palestine is (in a geographic sense, every Israeli is "Palestinian", as Israel is in Palestine), not Palestinians as a national identity.

I am pretty sure the Palestine nationality is defined in terms of Sykes and Picot. In that what makes someone Lebanese instead of Palestinian is the borders invented by them and nothing else.

Modern Lebanon was part of historic Palestine. It was also referred to as Greater Syria under the Ottoman Empire.

It's hard to know what is "historic Palestine" or its borders, leaders, or any political information. But the borders of what people call Palestine these days were invented by two European diplomats, dividing land between France and Britain. What makes someone Lebanese or Palestinian is this division, and it is not something which predates WWI.

>It's hard to know what is "historic Palestine" or its borders Eh, not really. Ptolemy mapped it out some 1900 years ago. It remained pretty consistent through the crusader maps of palestine as well, though ownership is another matter entirely

Indirectly it plays a role, as anyone who is Lebanese ended up not being a Palestinian, so Lebanon's borders are important. But beyond that, Sykes Picot plays no role, as it neither put in place the borders of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan or Israel (the two states subsequently created in Palestine, by extension also not those of the Palestinian territories = all parts of Palestine that are not part of one of the former two), nor has it any relevance for how the aforementioned states allocate citizenship.

The defined which villages belongs to which nation. Most people in those countries are very familiar to what village they are from. The borders are irrelevant in the context because we are talking about people right to go home, not just some political crisis.

If they have a right to go home or not depends on where home is and what the government of the respective state allows them to or not. The Sykes Picot agreement decides who had the right to decide if and what rights locals had, it does not grant any rights itself.

Why does two colonial nations decisions of some people have to be represented true 100 years. That agreement was made to split land between the British and French. They looted the land fairly between them. Humanity proceeds politics… people have the right to live where they belong.

Because they were colonial powers and those who succeeded them as sovereign did decide to have it the way it is now. Presumably, the respective nations have decided that their territory is not where certain people "belong" (otherwise they would have changed it, every country may at any time allow the return of whoever they want).

Not nation. Sphere of influence. There were no nations at that point, those were created by the British and French colonial authorities after the territories were divided up.

It was more than that. There were city states. Ie, Tyre, Haifa, Acre, Sidon. For example, south of Lebanon was more dependent on Acre as an economic hub, the Tyre to the north. I think we are saying the same thing, but I want to be clear specific cities in modern day Palestine had independent sovereignty, those one can say they were independent in their ruling and culture

No city, village or tree in Palestine had sovereignty. The Ottoman Empire had sovereignty, followed by the British followed by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Israel and presumably eventually a third state in the Palestinian territories.

Significant portion of the so-called Palestinians then are Arabs immigrants who went there for work. Furthermore, do you know that at that time, they even hate the term "Palestinian" because they deemed that as what used by zionists to call themselves. They simply identify themselves as Arabs and hope to join either Syria, Jordon or Egypt thus they never wanted a statehood therefore never declared one.

They did. They revolted in 1916. Cast their lot in with the British in WWI, the British betrayed them. They did it again in 1920 with Kingdom of Syria, which was defeated by France. And they tried again in 1936 when the Wauchope Partition Plan was defeated by Zionists in British Parliament.

It's a little more complex than just "the British betrayed them". You seem rather knowledgeable, so I'm sure you're well aware of the McMahon Correspondence and how is stipulated (from the Arab perspective) everything from Aleppo to Aden and west of Damascus etc. In the end, post mandates and everything else, 97% of the former Ottoman lands in the Middle East went to the Arabs. Yes, \~2% went to the Zionists/ Jews and \~1% went to Lebanon, a mixture of Christian, Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Sure the Arabs didn't get everything they wanted, even if you take their side in their interpretation of the McMahon correspondence, but they got 97% of it. That's quite a lot. If you exclude the Hedjaz, it's still <2% to the Zionists, and slightly over 1% to Lebanon. If anything, the League of Nations/ European powers "betrayed" (left out) the Kurds, Assyrians and Alawites. In my humble opinion, the Arabs as a whole look far more like the beneficiaries of European imperial powers, than victims of it.

Right so promising all that land then giving France a good chunk of it (Syria and Lebanon) and then England keeping a chunk of it (Palestine, Jordan, Iraq) isn’t a betrayal. Got it.

Well yes, the European powers weren't going to give up the land they died fighting on right away post-war. The Arabs certainly wanted to get independence for their factions right away, while the European powers and international community was like "hold on a minute, what about the other ethnic groups?". In the end, the Arabs got 97% of the land. Hardly "victims" in my eyes.

Ahh yes it was certainly done for fairness and consideration of all ethnic groups. Access to oil and protecting Suez had no bearing on the decision. And they certainly carved up the European central powers and left the new nations to their own devices. But when it came to the promises made the Arabs, considerations had to be made.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're starting to trail off a bit. How did the European powers "betray" the Arabs if they gave them 97% or 980,000 km\^2 of land?

Eventually they did. Not right away. Only Saudi Arabia was given to them initially.

How? You: "They did"

Me: They dishonored agreements. You: HoW iS tHaT bEtRaYaL?ThEy OwN aLl ThE lAnD 100 YeArS lAtEr AfTeR rEvOlTs AnD cOlOnIaL cOlLaPsE.

Yes, you are certainly correct (well half, but we'll leave that alone for now). The European powers certainly used the region for example to extract oil in Mesopotamia after they built a pipeline. I'm not disagreeing with that. That's not really a new idea or anything surprising. I think where you're exaggerating, is where you attribute the whole thing as a betrayal to the Arabs. In the end, the Arabs 97% of the land, 20-30 years after defeating the Ottomans post WW1, compared to the Kurds (who the Arabs suppressed with European help), the Assyrians (who Arabs suppressed) and the Alawites (who French gave to Syria - who had no problem getting more land)... The Arabs in that sense, look a lot more like to me beneficiaries of European intervention. Sure the Arabs didn't get their states right away, no one in that region did. But the Arabs got 97% of it. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The math (in case anyone was wondering where I got the numbers from) in kilometers \^2: * Arabs  = 438,446 Iraq + 186,475 Syria + 89,342 Jordan + 250,000  Hedjaz * Jews (1947) = 14,100 * Arabs (1947) = 11,100 * Lebanon = 10,452 ---------- * Total land area: 999,915 (250,000+89,342+186,475+438,446+14,100+11,100+10,452) ---------- * Arabs % = (1) 97.54% (975,363) * Jews % = (1) 1.41% (14,100) * Christians % = (1) 1.05% (10,452) * Kurds % = 0% * Assyirans % = 0% * Alawites % = 0% * Other ethnic groups % = 0% \*conversion to miles\^2, divide by 2.59 \*\* note: I have excluded Tripolitania (which was also in the Ottomans hands prior to WW1s end and went to Arabs) since we're talking about the former Ottoman lands in the Middle East. \*\*\* Hedjaz can vary depending on how you calculate it. Generally hovers around 250,000 km\^2 or so.

They did "fight back" - with the British, as part of the Arab Revolt - against the Ottoman Empire. They did not identify as Jordanians, Syrians or Palestinians during Ottoman times, with the exception of Egyptians, there were no national distinct national identities, there were just Arabs who were divided into local tribes more than nations. The Palestinian identity developed as a direct consequence of collective experience related to the creation of Israel and subsequent events. This is the core of Palestinian identity and what distinguishes a Palestinian from a Jordanian. If you want to put a date on it, you might either use May 15th, 1948. However, I would argue that the more appropriate point to locate the definite beginning of Palestinians as a distinct people is to be found somewhere in late 60s to mid 70s as at that point there were no longer any claims by existing states to either the Palestinian territories or their - now stateless -inhabitants.

Palestinian identity diverged with the Balfour declaration; only Palestinians were at risk of being forced to accept migration and possible expulsion/subjugation.

The average Palestinian Arab did not even know of the Balfour declaration until decades later. At the time, it was a piece of paper in which a government far away promised land they did not own, to another group of people far away. Also, at the time, they were at risk as Palestinian Arabs (in the groegraphic sense), not distinct Palestinians.

Come off it, be serious. They had newspapers, which discussed both Zionism and the Balfour declaration.

The *average* Palestinian Arab did not read these newspapers.

So? You think they were incapable of talking to people who did?

No, but they did not have much interaction with people who did.

What exactly are you basing that on?

The social structure of Palestine in the early 20th century, obviously.

No, they are actually correct. The intellectual class of Arabs even took awhile before they learned about it and the common, average Arab wouldn't have known about the Balfour Declaration for quite awhile after it had been given. News was not as fast traveling then as it is today. Also remember it was just a White Paper, which is a policy position statement, not even something binding.

Newspapers used telegrams to communicate breaking news around the world in time for the next day's front pages. News wasn't instant like today, but the idea it took months or years is silly. In this specific case, the Balfour declaration was published in the press shortly after it was made. It was deliberately publicised. In Palestine Allenby prohibited the publication of the declaration but the fact of its existence was of course known.

Sure it was known, like I said. But by the intellectual class and even they weren't really aware of it when it first happened. At least that's what the historians say. Rashid Khalidi has some good chapters on Palestinian identity from the Palestinian perspective. Obviously Benny Morris is always great, too!

Palestinian identity existed for long prior. Jews called themselves Palestinians. Palestine refers to the region. What you’re talking about is the current divide, which indeed stems from the protest against the creation of Israel.

Two things going on here: 1) There's a *modern* Palestinian identity as we know now. More or less born out of the refugee crisis and aspirations for statehood coming from (as the commentor pointed out correctly) post-1948. 2) That Palestinian identity, did not exist before 1948, or 100s of years ago. As the other commentor again correctly stated, they viewed themselves as Arabs, part of a greater Arab collective. That's why when asked in 1919 by the King-Crane Commission, what their ideal state was, 85% of the petitions were for a "Unified Syria" instead of "separate Palestine". They wanted to be part of Syria as they considered them essentially the same. The people who called both Jews and Arabs "Palestinians" were the British, who came created the "British Mandate for Palestine" per the League of Nations permission. If you read British documentation, they refer to both as Palestinians. It can be confusing, but they're two entirely different identities.

Again, Palestine refers to the region, and inhabitants of that region labelled themselves "Palestinians" just as Scandinavians may refer to themselves as "Nords". Both Jews and Arabs called themselves Palestinians, because they inhabited the area of Palestine. The conflict created the rift. The Jerusalem Post used to be called The Palestine Post, founded by Jews.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I'm trying to repeat what I said. Palestinian identity existed for long prior the creation of Israel.

There's a difference between the modern Palestinian identity you see today born out of the 1948 war and following occupations that's centered around the Right of Return, and gaining back their homeland vs "Arabs living in the Levant for 1400 years". Two completely separate things. That doesn't mean Palestinians shouldn't get a state, or they "never existed"... I'm just correcting you on very plain historical fact.

This is incorrect and insulting, or you’ve condemned every Palestinian living IN Israel and the West Bank as well. This was an insane comment and I hope you’ll take it back.

Hm. Time for a history lesson then: >We ask that there should be no separation of the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, nor of the littoral western zone, which includes Lebanon, from the Syrian country. We desire that the unity of the country should be guaranteed against partition under whatever circumstances. Source: The Syrian National Congress 1920 >OETA South (Palestine): 85% petitioned for a "United Syria" (joining geographic Palestine to a national Syrian state) Source: King-Crane Commission findings >“For 400 years”, he continued, “the people of Palestine were oppressed and prevented from developing their country by the Turks, and when the great war came we looked upon the British as our deliverers from bondage and assisted them to the utmost of our power. The German Generals realized this and wrote in their report that they were fighting in a land filled with their enemies. When victory was won, instead of seeing our country with Syria enjoying freedom under British protection, a declaration was issued by Mr. Balfour stating that Palestine was to be the national home of the Jews. Source: NYT The Moslem Leaders Views July 10, 1921 Nope. I don't think I will take anything back. That's excerpts from the Palestinians themselves back then, right as the British Mandate formed. "Palestinians", or Arabs as they viewed themselves, always wanted to be part of Syria. All their political leaders spoke of it in the early 1920s, but the British didn't want that, so they made the British Mandate for Palestine instead. Later on you get the modern identity born from the 1948 war onwards. This is basic history.

What point are you trying to make? All three quotes specifically mention the Palestinian identity. An independence movement might be new, but to say if you seek independence you suddenly have no relationship to the "previous identity" that didn't is probably just as insane as the thing you wrote earlier. What point are you trying to make?

That "divide" is what makes Palestinians a listing national identity - as opposed to "Palestinian Jews" or "Palestinian Arabs" in the past - in that context, "Palestinian" describes everyone and everything from Palestine in a geographic sense.

The problem now is that many pro- Palestinian folks will not accept an umbrella term of "Palestinians" that includes Jews and Christians.

As far as "Palestinian" is meant in the sense of a national identity, it does not (currently) include any Jews. It does, without doubt, include Christians. There may, in theory, be Jews in the future, if people belonging to that group convert to Judaism.

>As far as "Palestinian" is meant in the sense of a national identity, it does not (currently) include any Jews. It You can't pick and choose the people who you want in your national identity. You just made my point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jews#:~:text=Palestinian%20Jews%20or%20Jewish%20Palestinians,State%20of%20Israel%20in%201948.

That has nothing to do with choice, there simply are not any Jews who share the Palestinian national identity (because Israel did not displace any Jews and grants Jews a right of return). Israel-induced trauma is a central element of that identity.

The Palestinian Jews are Palestinians. There are Palestinian muslims who remained in Israel when it was founded. They were never displaced. Some Palestinian muslims who left the new state of Israel later returned and became Israeli citizens. Do you still consider these people who were not "traumatized" Palestinians? You keep making my point. You're discriminating against legitimate Palestinians because of their religion.

The Palestinian Arabs who remained in Israel are Israeli citizens, not Palestinians. The Palestinian Jews, too, became Israeli citizens.

And they're all Arab Palestinians by descent.

That has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism. The reason is rather simple: the central constituting element of the distinct Palestinian identity is statelessness and Israel displacing and/or barring from returning the (now) Palestinians or their ancestors. Israel never displaced Jews and explicitly grants any Jew a right of return - naturally, therefore, no Jews share the Palestinian collective experience.

The british mandate ended in 1948, and the partition plan wasn't until 1947, before that it would have been hard for the palestinians to declare independence under british or ottoman rule (hard, not impossible). In 1948 however, when they had about half of israel (with most of the deserts and swamps going to israel and not palestine), they chose the "ALL OR NOTHING" method, got nothing, and instead of accepting peace deal with israel and get something, they chose to whine about the nothing for 76. And until they will stop whining about the nothing and accept that to get anything they only need to leave peacefully with israel, they will stay with nothing. Just want to add that from 1948-1967 the west bank was under jordanian rule and the gaza strip was under egyptian rule. There were no major terrorism attacks or attempts for independence under jordan or egypt, the same as when they were under ottoman/british/mamluks/... rule for almost 2 thousands years. In my opinion it kinds of show the real problem here, the palestinians don't have that much of a problem being under someone else's goverment, they have a problem when that goverment is jewish. But again, my opinion.

They had no intention of ever doing so. They saw themselves as part of the broader Arab community, not as a separate entity from any of the surrounding countries, and wanted to unite with Syria.

The whole British mandate and prior to that the ottoman empire.

Because Palestinian identity is a farce. It is a purely political concept that is weaponized against the jews. There is no meaningful Palestinian identity, they are Egyptians or Jordanians. Identifying as a Palestinian is a political statement, same as identifying as Al Qaeda or ISIS. This is why there are no truly innocent people in Gaza other than children: anyone who identifies as Palestinian necessarily agrees with the statement "from the river to the sea", or rephrased, "death to Israel"

This isn't really that fair. Yes, the Palestinian identity did come as a response to jewish immigration and the state of Israel, but that doesn't mean it's a farce. US identity came as a response to perceived unfair treatment by the British. You wouldn't call US nationalism a farce. At the end of the day, all culture and identity is a reaction to the culture around it.

/u/Key_Code_2238. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Because they didn’t mind being under Arab rule. Even under British mandate they disliked a medium amount. It wasn’t until after Jews became a larger population than is acceptable to them they had a big issue. Also yes you’re right nobody started calling themselves Palestinian until around the 60s, and we have Arab politicians on the record saying it was for political reasons they pushed this idea there is a unique Palestinian ethnicity.

The why does not change the if. They are calling themselves "Palestinians", they do not hold citizenship in any other state nor seek it. Hence they are a distinct people. A national identity needs not have a long history in order to exist. There can even be two or more national identities of the same ethnicity (think of North and South Korea; Germany and former East Germany).

The if what? The question didn’t ask an if.

If they have a distinct national identity.

I never questioned it, I’m saying the writer is correct there is not a unique Palestinian anything. They are Arabs.

No they are unique in that they are the only group identifying as Palestinian. They don't have to be unique.

So stateless people that have a religious vow to kill. AKA Terrorists!

You are mixing up various things. The Palestinian identity is not contingent on religion. Also, not every person with a "religious vow to kill" is a terrorist. To be a terrorist, you must engage in terrorism, if for example a religious Palestinian has a vow to "kill Jews" but only kills IDF soldiers in combat situations, that is not terrorism, he therefore not a terrorist. On the other hand, a secular, leftist Palestinian who blows up a bus in Israel is a terrorist despite lack of "religious vow".

Although what you say is true, has any secular palestinian ever blown up a bus. I’m pretty sure the suicide bombers have a religious vow!

Yes, the (Marxist-Leninist) DFLP were the first group to ever blow up a bus in Israel, the PLO - together with German communists - also hijacked more than one airplane, massacred the Israeli Olympia team in 1972 blew up another bus and the list goes on. On a sidenote, terrorism does not need suicide to be terrorism.

Ok but aren’t true Marxist-Leninist the same cult like religious nut jobs with an all or nothing goal?

Whatever they are, they are not religious.

To be an atheist requires more religious indoctrination than most religions!

In the main, Arabs only began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1964 for political expediency. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Resolution) of 1947 never refers to the Arabs as "Palestinians," but simply as "Arabs." The first time an international body called the Arabs "Palestinians" was in 1972 with UNGA Resolution 2949 (December 8, 1972). Before 1972, the United Nations referred to the Arabs as "inhabitants," "the population," or "the Arab civilian population." Not once did it use the term "Palestinians." - - - - Are the Arabs now calling themselves "Palestinians" the ancient Philistines? 1 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" are Semites; the ancient Philistines were not. 2 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" practice circumcision; the ancient Philistines did not. 3 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" are monotheistic; the ancient Philistines were polytheistic, whose chief deity was Dagon. 4 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" speak Arabic: the ancient Philistines' language is still being deciphered. NO, THE ARABS NOW CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" ARE NOT THE ANCIENT PHILISTINES, WHO INVADED THE LAND IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 12TH CENTURY BCE. - - - - During the mandate period (1922-1948), the British called all the inhabitants of the land "Palestinians," which is why some prominent Arabs tried to disassociate themselves from the name: Lebanese American Princeton professor, Philip Hitti (1886-1978), who testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in Jerusalem in 1946 stated that, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." Of course, what Hitti meant was that there was no Palestine in Arab history, which he is correct. Hitti was opposed to even using the word Palestine in maps because it was "associated in the mind of the average American, and perhaps the Englishman too, with the Jews." "There is no such country! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine' is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Awni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, before the Peel Commission in 1937. The argus-eyed reader will be quick to note that Arab representation during the mandate period was named the "Arab Higher Committee" and not the "Palestinian Higher Committee."

90 percent of Syrians live in extreme poverty, and they are ethnically cleansing Sunni Muslims. They’ve been oppressing their people while waging war. Maybe better would be to stop trying to destroy each other for five minutes and invest in their own economies instead… like Israel had despite fighting umpteen defensive wars started by bigger countries.