Are the Palestinians a real people?

[Shusha]

I think this often skirts the real questions:

What is "a people"?
Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?
At what point do they become a "people"?

Do they need a unique culture (and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Do they need a unique language?

Do they have to have had a nation?

I'll take a stab at those questions, if you will.

​

 

[Shusha]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/23861721/']Are the Palestinians a real people?[/URL]
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

The confusion here, IMO, is that the issue of "claim" to the territory is maybe inappropriate.

I don't want to derail the thread - so I'll say this, and leave it (because this doesn't accurately describe the tensions going on at the time either): "The war began on June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a preemptive assault against the Egyptian and Syrian air forces." Six-Day War | Causes & Summary

OMG. Really? So with the premise of BOTH peoples having a valid claim to part of the territory, and in the context of the interference of Arabs NOT PART OF THAT CLAIM, with Jordan effectively annexing territory to which it did NOT have claim, and with Syria and Egypt (also Iraq and Lebanon) making threats and backing up those threats with military preparations ...

you label Israel as the one who is provocative?!??!?!!

You might want to look up the difference between provocative and preemptive.

(COMMENT)

Like many territorial disputes, someone has control and someone does not have control of the territory.

In the case of the territories in dispute between the Israelis (of 1947 and 1967) and the Arab Palestinians (from any of the perspectives 1966, 1974, 1988 or 2012) each have a "legal complaint" which has not been dealt with under the Para 1(2) Subpara 2, on the matter of settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. Nor have the Arab Palestinians many any effort (whatsoever) to exercise Article XV • Resolution of Disputes, agree to under A/48/486 S/26560 DOP Interim Self-Government Arrangements • OSLO I • 11 October 1993.

It should also be interesting to note that Mahmoud Abbas, signed on behalf of the PalestineLiberation Organization (PLO) (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RE: Are the Palestinians a real people?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

The confusion here, IMO, is that the issue of "claim" to the territory is maybe inappropriate.

I don't want to derail the thread - so I'll say this, and leave it (because this doesn't accurately describe the tensions going on at the time either): "The war began on June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a preemptive assault against the Egyptian and Syrian air forces." Six-Day War | Causes & Summary

OMG. Really? So with the premise of BOTH peoples having a valid claim to part of the territory, and in the context of the interference of Arabs NOT PART OF THAT CLAIM, with Jordan effectively annexing territory to which it did NOT have claim, and with Syria and Egypt (also Iraq and Lebanon) making threats and backing up those threats with military preparations ...

you label Israel as the one who is provocative?!??!?!!

You might want to look up the difference between provocative and preemptive.

(COMMENT)

Like many territorial disputes, someone has control and someone does not have control of the territory.

In the case of the territories in dispute between the Israelis (of 1947 and 1967) and the Arab Palestinians (from any of the perspectives 1966, 1974, 1988 or 2012) each have a "legal complaint" which has not been dealt with under the Para 1(2) Subpara 2, on the matter of settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. Nor have the Arab Palestinians many any effort (whatsoever) to exercise Article XV • Resolution of Disputes, agree to under A/48/486 S/26560 DOP Interim Self-Government Arrangements • OSLO I • 11 October 1993.

It should also be interesting to note that Mahmoud Abbas, signed on behalf of the PalestineLiberation Organization (PLO) (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people).


Most Respectfully,
R

There is no context in which Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon had a claim to the territory. Therefore, any actions made by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon is, by definition, provocative. And any response by Israel is, by definition, preemptive.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are terms of occupation.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are terms of occupation.

I was responding to your own definition.

 

[Hollie]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

People born in the "Bible Belt" or in Appalachia are not citizens of the Bible Belt or Appalachia.

So, no. You're not making a rational argument.

 

[rylah]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are terms of occupation.

 

[Hollie]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are terms of occupation.

What soverign territories controlled by Gaza or the West Bank are occupied?

 

[rylah]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

List of all birthplaces and languages of Muslims in Jerusalem in 1931:

Syria
Transiordan
Cyprus
Egypt
Hejaz-Nejd
Iraq
Yemen
Persia
Turkey
Indian Continent
Far Eastern Asia
Algeria
Morocco
Tripoli
Tunis
France
Greece
Spain
United Kingdom
U.S.S.R.
U.S.A.
Central & South
America
Australia

The whole myth about "born in Bhaalestine" is just propaganda for the weak minded.
Just a mixed multitude of pilgrims, nomadic tribes and work migrants who happened to move through the land from everywhere.

That's why the definitions are so minimal to be included in "the Bhaalestinians" -
2 years residence in prior to 1948 and you're a lucky recipient of the most privileged generational refugee scheme fund.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

People born in the "Bible Belt" or in Appalachia are not citizens of the Bible Belt or Appalachia.

So, no. You're not making a rational argument.

Well, Tinmore's argument makes some kind of sense if the ppl from the West Bank have Palestinian passports. There's no such thing as a Bible Belt passport. I'll do some research on this point and get back to you.

 

[rylah]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

People born in the "Bible Belt" or in Appalachia are not citizens of the Bible Belt or Appalachia.

So, no. You're not making a rational argument.

Well, Tinmore's argument makes some kind of sense if the ppl from the West Bank have Palestinian passports. There's no such thing as a Bible Belt passport. I'll do some research on this point and get back to you.

Ok, I just checked out Wikipedia on this issue. Since 1995, residents of the West Bank have been issued Palestinian Authority passports. Residents of Israel proper, of course, have Israeli passports. So if there is a Palestinian ppl, then they are confined to the West Bank (and Gaza, I suppose).

 

[P F Tinmore]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are terms of occupation.

What soverign territories controlled by Gaza or the West Bank are occupied?

Stupid question. The definition of occupation is controlled by external military forces.

 

[rylah]

Prior to that they were publicly declaring their submission to the rule of Arabian King of Mecca.

Arabs did not culturally appropriate the word until 1964 when it was deemed unacceptable for Arabs to continue their imperialist colonial ambitions.

The scheme couldn't be more in your face.

 

[rylah]

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are terms of occupation.

What soverign territories controlled by Gaza or the West Bank are occupied?

Stupid question. The definition of occupation is controlled by external military forces.

Indeed, those who always talk about occupation,
are the external military force.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Prior to that they were publicly declaring their submission to the rule of Arabian King of Mecca.

Arabs did not culturally appropriate the word until 1964 when it was deemed unacceptable for Arabs to continue their imperialist colonial ambitions.

The scheme couldn't be more in your face.

My Hebrew is not as good as rylah's, of course, but what Arafart is saying (in Hebrew subtitles) is this: "We want to establish one Arab state--from Morocco to Yemen."

 

[Hollie]

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. (I mean the Arabs who live there, of course. Jews who live there usually have Israeli citizenship.) Virtually all Arabs born in Israel today hold Israeli citizenship, and would not give it up. Some Israeli Arabs are even Zionist, like Mohammed Zoabi, and serve in the IDF. I personally know of one Arab who moved from the West Bank to Israel, but never became an Israeli citizen. He is being deported back to the West Bank, but is fighting fiercely against that.

Mostly today, that is defined as the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are terms of occupation.

What soverign territories controlled by Gaza or the West Bank are occupied?

Stupid question. The definition of occupation is controlled by external military forces.

Your typical sidestep. The question was "What soverign territories controlled by Gaza or the West Bank are occupied?[