Palestine Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is this bizarre idea that Muslim Palestinians all came out of the Arabian Peninsula. It is an idea that ignores snd conflates the spread of a culture (arabization) with the actual movements of people. It is just another tool to deny legitimacy.

But its the spread of the culture which is the problem. That is the problem which indigenous rights are intended to solve and the reason for the existence of indigenous rights -- with or without the movement of people.
What is wrong with the Palestinian culture?

They seem to be normal people except when Israel is attacking them.

Did I say anything was wrong with Palestinian culture? Nope.

But Arab culture has almost completely overrun Jewish culture in the Jewish homeland. The point of indigenous rights, including self-determination, is to preserve the local culture; have it not be overrun.
 
There is this bizarre idea that Muslim Palestinians all came out of the Arabian Peninsula. It is an idea that ignores snd conflates the spread of a culture (arabization) with the actual movements of people. It is just another tool to deny legitimacy.

But its the spread of the culture which is the problem. That is the problem which indigenous rights are intended to solve and the reason for the existence of indigenous rights -- with or without the movement of people.
I am not convinced it is that clear cut. For example, Jewish culture survived the Arabic influence. And for that matter took on aspects of it, to create it’s own flavor right in the Middle East didn’t it? And in the same way those who millennia ago dispersed into Europe took on parts of the cultures they adopted creating, for example the unique and rich Yiddish Jewish culture. Which is the pure indigenous culture exactly that needs to be protected from the spread of other cultures?

Israel is absolutely Jewish and with a Jewish majority. With out question. So it is the dominant culture. They are not in danger of losing their culture short of a catastrophic event.

But there ARE others who are in danger of losing their culture: the Bedouin for example who are indigenous to a portion of Israel and who, like most nomadic peoples around the world now, are truly losing their culture to the onslaught of settled agricultural and urban cultures.

Why is it necessary to insist that any of the native peoples in the region are invaders and colonists. Or falsely claim they all came from the Arabian peninsula? Or claim that those who immigrate from Europe to join their culture in it’s native land are invaders and colonists?

What is the purpose in such emphatic declarations?
 
There is this bizarre idea that Muslim Palestinians all came out of the Arabian Peninsula. It is an idea that ignores snd conflates the spread of a culture (arabization) with the actual movements of people. It is just another tool to deny legitimacy.

But its the spread of the culture which is the problem. That is the problem which indigenous rights are intended to solve and the reason for the existence of indigenous rights -- with or without the movement of people.
What is wrong with the Palestinian culture?

They seem to be normal people except when Israel is attacking them.

Peaceful coexistence maybe? And, more tragically, the ability to coalesce around a unified set of principles aimed at creating a state. They have rights equal to the Jews, but they habitually shoot themselves in the foot rather than push for their rights in a way that will gain them. Every time they do that, they are are giving a gift to the Israeli hard right to deny them those rights. Shooting rockets into civilian centers. Attacking civilians with knives, bombs, vehicles. Killing or punishing their fellow Palestinians who DO try to form collaborative relationships with Jews. The Palestinian hardliners do their people no favors at all.
 
There is this bizarre idea that Muslim Palestinians all came out of the Arabian Peninsula. It is an idea that ignores snd conflates the spread of a culture (arabization) with the actual movements of people. It is just another tool to deny legitimacy.

But its the spread of the culture which is the problem. That is the problem which indigenous rights are intended to solve and the reason for the existence of indigenous rights -- with or without the movement of people.
What is wrong with the Palestinian culture?

They seem to be normal people except when Israel is attacking them.

Did I say anything was wrong with Palestinian culture? Nope.

But Arab culture has almost completely overrun Jewish culture in the Jewish homeland. The point of indigenous rights, including self-determination, is to preserve the local culture; have it not be overrun.

Has it? There is a Jewish majority. Hebrew is the official language, though there is a short sightedness here. Most Arab Israeli’s speak Hebrew, but relatively few Israeli Jews speak Arabic. Jewish holy days are enshrined and the courts, legislature and laws have a strong Jewish flavor.
 
If immigrants are an issue why dont you have a problem with Arabs from other regions who immigrated in for jobs in the 20th century and now call themselves Palestinians?
I didn't say that immigration was an issue.
True...what you said was this: People who move to a country to live separate from the society with an eye to take over the place for themselves are not. (Immigrants)

But I am not aware of any immigrant groups doing that.
 
EIT_K-VW4AIRn-I.jpg
 
If immigrants are an issue why dont you have a problem with Arabs from other regions who immigrated in for jobs in the 20th century and now call themselves Palestinians?
I didn't say that immigration was an issue.
True...what you said was this: People who move to a country to live separate from the society with an eye to take over the place for themselves are not. (Immigrants)

But I am not aware of any immigrant groups doing that.
I am not surprised that you are not. Up until about twenty years ago, Israel's version of history was the only one generally available. Only recently has real history been slowly creeping into public discourse.

Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), born in the Ukraine-USSR, was a member of the World Zionist Organisation. He later founded the Zionist-Revisionist movement, which was the central ideological component of the Likud (which became Ariel Sharon’s Kadima party). He always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. He stated:

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

The Zionist Project - 1948

Even today Israel's settler colonial project continues to build segregated Jewish only settlements in the West Bank and in the territory that is now called Israel. Colonial settlements for over a hundred years have been separate from the Palestinian population.
 
Hugh Fitzgerald says

Nov 1, 2019 at 6:09 pm

And Jews in Europe and America until 1948 would talk about their relatives who were now “Palestinians.”

At the U.N., not a single Arab diplomat prior to 1967 appears to have used the phrase “Palestinian people” or the demonym “Palestinian” to refer to any Arabs. The invention, and dissemination, of the “Palestinian people” was quite an achievement by the Arabs, who had a little help, I believe, from that well-known P.R. firm, the K.G.B.

1939: British White Paper Referred to Jews as “Palestinians”
 
Southern Israel Pummelled by Volleys of Rockets Amid Renewed Gaza Tension
by Algemeiner Staff
icon-video.png


An Iron Dome battery fires an interceptor missile as rockets are launched from Gaza toward Israel near the southern city of Sderot, Aug. 9, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Amir Cohen.

Several volleys of rockets were fired into southern Israel on Friday night from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

A home in the city of Sderot was reported to have suffered a direct hit, and a woman was lightly injured while running to a bomb shelter.



Southern Israel Pummeled by Volleys of Rockets Amid Renewed Gaza Tension
 
I am not convinced it is that clear cut. For example, Jewish culture survived the Arabic influence. And for that matter took on aspects of it, to create it’s own flavor right in the Middle East didn’t it? And in the same way those who millennia ago dispersed into Europe took on parts of the cultures they adopted creating, for example the unique and rich Yiddish Jewish culture. Which is the pure indigenous culture exactly that needs to be protected from the spread of other cultures?

"Pure" indigenous cultures? You are on ugly ground there, to speak of "purity". Terms like that resonate, not in a good way, with Jewish people.

There is no requirement for "purity", nor prohibitions against cultural interaction, and there is no restriction on adapting certain cultural aspects when two cultures are in close proximity. Its obvious that people in a diaspora will adopt specific cultural traits as necessary to function in an entirely different culture. Cultural trade is normal, and not the subject of this post.

The Jewish people are ONE people. There are no real fundamental differences in Jewish culture between Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi. (Though each will argue their food is superior). And I'm seeing lots of pushback in the Jewish community against trying to make those distinctions. It fuels the Tinmores of the world, by suggesting that it is acceptable to divide the Jewish people into three different groups, with three different sets of "rights" (or non-rights, more likely). This is HOW people like Tinmore come to believe that the Ashkenazi are not "real" Jews. The Jewish people are ONE people.

That the Jewish culture managed to survive through all these thousands of years after everything they have been subjected to is a miracle. (And yes, as a religious person, I use that term deliberately).

So it is the dominant culture.
To a certain extent, I both agree and disagree with this. The culture is dominant is a very small piece of territory, true. It is a remarkable achievement for an indigenous peoples. The only indigenous peoples who have lost and then restored their culture in their traditional territory. An example for other indigenous peoples, certainly. First Nations in Canada are travelling this road as well, and I'm very happy to see it. However, the Jewish culture is still non-dominant in the region and very much still under fire, both from external threats and from those who suggest that protective measures, such as special considerations in constitutions, are both unnecessary and morally repugnant.

They are not in danger of losing their culture short of a catastrophic event.
Well, the Jewish people are pretty used to catastrophic events. And there are plenty of people and governments calling for catastrophic events. And plenty of the international community withholding or removing support for the Jewish people and Israel. Or insisting that if the Jewish people or Israel just "changed their ways", then they could avoid their deserved slaughter. Which all feels pretty familiar. So if you think the Jewish people feel safe, you are wrong.

But there ARE others who are in danger of losing their culture: the Bedouin for example who are indigenous to a portion of Israel and who, like most nomadic peoples around the world now, are truly losing their culture to the onslaught of settled agricultural and urban cultures.
I see this as a slightly different issue, being the tension between modernization and traditional lifestyles. This could occur in peoples of the same culture, and isn't necessarily a clash between cultures.
 
What is the purpose in such emphatic declarations?

My take? Each is trying to give their side the superior claim. And each side is trying to delegitimize the other claim by making them the "bad guys" who invaded and colonized.

Everyone arguing on this board who posts regularly is aware of all of the complexities of history, and generally acknowledge those complexities when pressed. (With notable exceptions).

The primary difference between the position claimed by both sides, imo, is that one is exclusionary, and one is a reaction to the exclusion.
 
Even today Israel's settler colonial project continues to build segregated Jewish only settlements in the West Bank and in the territory that is now called Israel.

What?! As opposed to all the rich cultural interaction and mixed communities in Gaza and Arab West Bank?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top