Post Your Comment Please be respectful, humble and considerate; any abusive or disrespectful comments will be deleted promptly. Name/User Id eMail Address* Language English Arabic Comments with URL links will be rejected *It should be NOTED that your email address won't be shared, and all communications between members will be routed via the website's mail server.

Posted by Chris on September 19, 2009 #89348 The article (the one published by the Foreign Policy Research institute in the comment below, not the one above, which is excellent), is misleading, whether deliberately or not. First of all, 'a few hundred thousand people' as a figure for the population in the late 1800's would make one perhaps think of 200000 or 300000. All estimates show at a minimum a population of more than half a million to 600 000. Again this must be put into the context of the size of the land, which the article above explains - population density was very high,and this was before the general population boom worldwide. The idea that the Palestinians did not see themselves as 'Palestinians' is also misleading. Amongst the educated elite there was a concept of living in 'Palestine' and thus being 'Palestinians' since the 17th century (see Haim Gerbert, 'Palestine and other territorial concepts in the 17th Century), even if they did not see themselves as a 'nation' or perceive that identification as important (remember, nationalism itself was developed in the very late 18th Century, it is not a 'natural' frame of mind that existed since time immemorial) - however there WAS a distinct set of customs, dialect, and society developing in the area, due to geographical boundaries (the Litani, Jordan, Negev, Mediterranean), and the family/clannish connections that interwebbed the territory and were limited to it due to the above boundaries. The connections between the people in the area, can be seen when the Ottomans reformed their administrative system in the mid 19th C, and moved the sanjaks of Nablus and Acre into the eylaiet of Beirut (before they had all been part of a Greater Syrian district) - there was a large and violent protest movement in the Nablus sanjak, because of a desire to stay connected to Jerusalem. similarly, differentiation from other territories occured further after the Crimean war, when Haifa became an alternative port to Beirut, and as an economic centre, it was linked to the other major cities of Palestine. By the end of the 19th Century though, which is the period the article talks about, nationalism HAD entered Palestine as well - and though not a huge movement, at least in the urban areas and the young and the educated, the concept of a distinct Palestinian identity WAS taking shape. Though it was not a huge movement, it is wrong to say that Palestinian nationalism begun only as a response to Zionism. Had Palestine become part of a Greater Syrian state, as was the intention after WWI with Faisal's kingdom, perhaps that would have been subversed by the development of a wider Syrian identity. That we will never know. It is also misleading to say that much of the land was barren. Palestine was dotted with villages and habitations through its entire landmass by the late 1800s. Especially after the Crimean war, and the spur of economic growth that brought (though note not always for the benefit of the peasantry) much of the land was cultivated. Was there land that was not cultivated? Yes. Name me a single country where there isn't. But the whole article misses the point. The answer to the question of whether there was a Palestinian 'nation' before Zionism, isn't an argument that 'Yes there was', its 'Who cares!' Zionism would still be wrong if the 'Jewish nation' (a completely artificial notion that developed in the early 19th C as well) was the most 'true' nation in the world, and the 'Palestinian nation' the most 'false' nation in the world. States exist to serve the native indigenous peoples of the lands in which they are set, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, and not descriminating because of it. There were HUMAN BEINGS living in the land of Palestine, and they deserved to have their rights respected 100% -whether they understood European ideological notions that had been developed in the 19th Century is meaningless. The problem is that the Zionist is a racist and a follower of ethnic-nationalism, so he only gets to think in racial terms- for the Zionist, the state exists to be a 'nation-state' devoted exclusively to one ethnicity and one 'nation'. The Jewish state is for the Zionist there for all memebers of the Jewish nation, a world-wide collective that is defined along racial and religious lines. An American who has never suffered, witnessed persecution, seen any pogroms or holocausts, has his rights guaranteed by his government 100%, is somehow entitled to priviledged treatment by the Jewish state (most importantly, he can get citizenship no questions asked), just because of his racial identification - a person who has suffered all his life, who even had to suffer in a Nazi concentration camp, but is NOT a Jew, gets nothing. The unit of reference is always the race - and THAT is the problem with nationalism. In that it grants privileges to individuals along such lines it is racist. Arguing about the Palestinians being 'a nation' or not, simply falls into the trap of validating the mindframe that believes that being a self-identified 'nation' actually matters as to the treatment you receive from your state, and what kind of governments are set up in the various lands around the world. Are we to take every group of people who self-identifies themselves as a nation, and curve up completely unconnected lands for them around the world, and give them to them, the wishes of the natives be damned? With that logic, let the Palestinians get New York as their state. After all there is no such thing as a 'New York' nation, they're all Americans, and they can 'fulfill their national aspirations', in the rest of the US. There will be 49 American states, does the world need another one? Now find me a single American who will agree to that logic. But when its used by Zionists, its somehow all right...

Posted by Anonymous on April 18, 2008 #35209 What do you think of this, as published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia? Lord Shaftesbury called Israel ؟a land without a people for a people without a land.؟ This highlights the source of the problem that has troubled relations between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East for a hundred years. In the late 1800s, the land in question was indeed a ؟land without a people,؟ in the sense that the people living there did not think of themselves as a ؟nation.؟ But, it was not a land without people. While much of the land was barren, there were a few hundred thousand people living there, most of them Muslim Arabs, who began to be concerned about the influx of Jews. The Arabs living there did not, however, call themselves ؟Palestinians.؟ That is because in the late 1800s, there was no sovereign entity known as Palestine. (In ancient times, it was a Roman province.) The whole region, along with much of the Middle East, belonged to the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and Palestine did not even exist as a specific entity within the empire; nor had there ever been a sovereign entity known as Palestine. The area that today is called ؟historic Palestine؟ was at the time of Ottoman rule subdivided into different districts within the empire, reporting to different governors. If there was no Palestine, then there were no Palestinians. Indeed, if you asked the average person living there at the time to identify themselves, they may have identified themselves as members of a family or clan, as Muslims, possibly as Syrians (since ؟historic Palestine؟ was considered by many to be part of southern Syria, which itself was not an independent entity at the time), or they would have identified as Arabs or as subjects of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians didn؟t become a self-identifying people until later, perhaps around 1920 (or even much later), and that was largely in response to Zionism. One could say that had there been no Zionism, there likely would have been no ؟Palestinianism.؟ (Research the difference between an Arab, a Kurd, a Berber, and a Persian--all Muslims who live in the Middle East--and find out which states are associated with which of these peoples today, and which ؟nation؟ has no state. Also, define Pan-Arabism, and find out the years in which it appeared to thrive. )

Posted by David B. Gomes on July 16, 2007 #18149 Part 1 If you give credance to the Bible story in Genesis: 1. It was already called the land of Canaan before Abram arrived Gen 11:21, 12:5 2. The people who lived their were Canaanites a sub group of the Phoenician culture which was largely destroyed by the explosion of Santorini. 3. Abram claims that his God appeared to him and promised to give the land of Canaan to his seed. Gen 12:7, 17:2 4. Who are Abram؟s seed? Eight Sons By Hagar, first born, Ishmael, who married a Canaanite wife, was blessed by God to be a great nation. Gen 17:20 By Sarah, 2nd born, Isaac who married a Chaldian wife, Rebekah. By Keturah, Zimran,, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Gen 25:1. 5. All these sons lived in the Land of Canaan and took wives from the existing local inhabitants, except for Isaac who sent for a wife from Ur of the Chaldees. (now Iraq). 6. Isaac؟s first son Esau, also lived and married in the land. 7. Jacob went back to Iraq and eventually married 4 Chaldian wives by which he had twelve sons. 8. Jacob returned to Canaan and all of his sons married local women, except Joseph who married an Egyptian woman, the daughter of an Egyptian priest. 9. When Jacob moved to Egypt, the family including servants numbered 70.(Gen 46:27) Therefore, in order to reach the numbers which later left Egypt, most of the Israelites intermarried with the local people in Egypt. 40,000 fighting men which meant that there must have been several hundred thousand including women and children. Josh 4:13 So now when Joshua came storming out of the desert with his hordes 400 years later, who did he murder? His own kin folk. No different than when the Khazarian Zionists, who were not necessarily Israelis, took over Palestine in 1948.