Ok, here are my thoughts. @brb here's a BIG FAT TLDR warning for you Your definition of the territory as 'Arab land' is central to where my debate lines will be drawn. I saw also BRB quoted Mahmoud Zahar who said almost exactly the same: "We are the owner of this area - Arabic area. This is well known as an Islamic area." I'm not sure if other posters realise how important this nuance is, and I will try to explain it in my comments. The central thrust of my argument is that it is disingenuous to force the world to believe in what is basically Pan-Arabism, whilst I (and many) and fundamentally disagree with the belief in the divine Caliphate. Without these two beliefs, I don't see any real merit in the political claim made by the Palestinians. I do see merit in the moral claim, which my comments below don't address. 1) Colonial Practices & Illegitimacy The entire Middle-East is one huge illegitimate bastard-fest of countries fabricated out of thin air during the rewriting of the world order after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and final flourish of British/French Colonialism in the early 20th century (listed below). To raise the question of legitimacy is to throw the entire region into question. It is a series of countries carved arbitrarily out of larger sultanates, kingdoms and empires with lines drawn on maps in conferences thousands of miles away from the people living within those borders. The entire Middle East lacks any semblance of political legitimacy and I would argue that someone who calls into question Israel's legitimacy must also do so for every other country in the region, none of whom apart from Qatar are older than our football clubs. Please note: political legitimacy is not the same as ethnic legitimacy. I am not conflating the two because they are not inevitably linked anywhere in the world. See most modern democratic countries for examples of political legitimacy being granted to people "lacking" ethnic legitimacy. Cf. Southport riots for examples of thugs who don't agree with that point. Qatar - est. 1878 Jordan - est. 1920 Oman - est. 1920 Turkey – est. 1920 Egypt - est. 1922 Iran - est. 1925 (I'll give you 1905 at a stretch) Lebanon - est. 1926 Syria - est. 1930 Iraq - est. 1932 Saudi Arabia - est. 1932 Israel - est. 1948 Yemen - est. 1990 2) The question of Political Contiguity Connected to the above is the question of the amorphous place known as 'Palestine'. Popular chants such as 'From the River to the Sea' have given rise to the illusion that there has always existed a clearly demarcated country populated by a homogenous group of people who have always identified as 'Palestinian'. In reality, there have only been two occasions in all of recorded history that said river (Jordan) and said sea (Med) demarcated a country distinct from its neighbours: The Hebrew Kingdom of Judea and Samaria of the Bible, and then almost two thousands years later the same landmarks were used for basis of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine & Transjordan. For the entire interim, the strip of land 'from the River to the Sea' was subsumed under a much more vast Empire or Caliphate: Roman, Byzantine, Ummayad, Abassid, Mamluk, Ottoman and finally British. In fact, the 'River to the Sea' falsehood is so illogical that even Jordan refused to fully relinquish its political claim over that region as rightfully part of Jordan until 1981. i.e., Jordan was denying the existence of a land "From the River to the Sea" for any party, Israeli or Palestinian, until as recently as 40 years ago. Consider this too: the term 'Palestinian' used in reference to a group of people who were apparently native to that particular area of land only appears in local literature in 1898. Why then? Because a year prior in Basel, the First Zionist Congress convened and agreed that the answer to the 'Jewish question' was a return to Biblical Israel. "Palestinianism" was invented as a response to Zionism. Prior to that, the notion of homogeneity and contiguity didn't exist, nor had history ever given it cause to. I believe that it is therefore impossible to take seriously the claim that native people living in (for example) Jenin in 1947 had any legitimate claim over land in (for example) the Negev. Nothing connected the two at the time. It would be the equivalent of me claiming that Belgium and France are the same because they happen to be next to each other, mostly speak the same language and were once both controlled by Napoleon. 3) Pan-Arabism, the Caliphate and the Ummah. Unless I've read too much into your comment, it seems that you are broadly in agreement that the political and geographic label "Palestinian" never really existed. If it did, it would imply that Palestine is the only country in the Middle-East that deserves to have self-determined borders. As above, no other country in the region enjoys this privilege. All borders were drawn under the watchful eye of any or all of the Ottoman, British and French Empires. The real root of the claim, and one of the reasons why the entire region is so anti-Israel (and will continue to be even if the two-state solution is realised), is either the secular belief in political Pan-Arabism, or in its religious form: the belief in the establishment of a 'Khalifah Rasul Allah', whose lands are sacred Muslim lands and are never to be handed over to or conquered by apostates. According to both ideologies, 'Palestine' must remain an Arab/Muslim country, either for the purpose of Pan-Arabism, or the upkeep of the Caliphate. Both of these feed into and drink from a concept in Islamic tradition that is entirely alien to the Western mind: the unified Ummah that transcends national identity so that all members of the faith see themselves as one People irrespective of their specific ethnicity or nationality. This leads to what I believe is a difficult question: By what measure is legitimacy then granted? Which people are considered 'authentic' Palestinians, if the true underlying goal is the establishment of a vast Arab territory across the same vast piece of land that Palestine was for centuries just one small indistinct part of? What do we make of the fact that the Arab population of the country doubled during the 27 years of British rule, largely due to economic migrants who moved from foreign lands to take advantage of the improvements in technology, medicine and job opportunities that the British brought with them? I don't consider any of those Arabs more 'Palestinian' than the Jewish settlers who arrived in the land before or at the same time, and why should they be? By dint of the fact that they are Arabs and the land is 'Arab land'. Says who? The Ummayads? Does this mean that only Arabs can enjoy independence anywhere in the 7000 miles between Casablanca and Baghdad? By what authority? Should we return Spain to the Arabs, as it was theirs until 1492? Do we look to ethnicity? If that's the case, how far back should we go? I have Jewish friends who visit the graves of their ancestors buried in Israel over 1100 years ago, to pay their respects. Are they to be denied their ethnic connection to the land, just because once upon a time a colonial power exiled them and carted them off to Europe to enjoy a thousand years of persecution? Isn't that exactly what we're saying has happened to the "Palestinians"? What grants one group's claim legitimacy over the other, when both appear identical and neither can be explained without defaulting to history? Do we revert to arguments about self-determination? Same questions - when do you measure from? The idea itself is unsurprisingly extremely modern, entering International Law in 1942. By that time, over half a million Jews were living in Palestine. Did they therefore have the right to self-determination? If not, why not?
As far as I'm concerned, Israel has existed longer than I've been on this planet, but somehow it shouldn't exist because of history, regardless if history is dictated rightly or wrongly. People need to stop living in books and learn to live in peace, whether that book be a map or a bible.
Cliff's Notes edit: 1) 'Palestine' and the "Palestinians' have never existed as a political entity at any point in history. The term was invented a year after Zionism was formally created, as a counterweight to the latter. 2) 'From the River to the Sea' has only been used to describe a distinct country twice in history; once by the Hebrews in Judea and Samaria, and again two thousand years later by the British. 3) The entire middle east was fabricated out of thin air by the Ottomans, British and French in a very short period of time. The region by definition lacks any real political legitimacy, not just Israel. 4) The political argument for the "Palestinians" relies on the belief in Pan-Arabism, which is basically Imperialism, or the Caliph Rasul Allah, which is a belief specific to Islam. Nothing compels anyone who is not Arab or Muslim to agree with these beliefs. 4) Ethnicity is impossible to properly determine. Close to 50% of "Palestinians" emigrated into Mandatory Palestine in the generation before 1948. They arrived just as recently as half a million Jewish immigrants. Archaeology clearly proves that Jews are also ethnic to the region. Granting one group ethnic statehood but not the other is hypocritical. 5) The right to Self-determination didn't exist in International Law until 1942. Why should that right be given to Arab residents and not Jewish ones? The Partition Plan offered it to both. One side accepted, the other rejected. Nowhere else in the middle east was anyone else given a choice. The only reason the British were pressured into offering a choice was the fact that merely 30 years earlier, they'd fabricated a bunch of Arab/Muslim countries out of thin air who suddenly had a political voice. 6) There is definitely a moral issue to deal with, which is the eviction of residents in 1947-48 and the continued use of force until the present day. But moral claims do not necessarily mean that a state should cease to exist. Germany didn't cease to exist after the Holocaust. North Korea is still going despite everything they've done. There are multiple solutions to a moral claim. Israel could agree tomorrow to allow back all families who were evicted and/or fully compensate them for their loss of property (noting that not a single country made such a concession to Jews after the Holocaust). This would not necessarily mean either the end of Israel or the creation of Palestine. It just means that the justice everyone seeks has been reached by other logical means.
Now that the casualties of Hamas and Hezbolla leaders are confirmed it's just a matter of time before Hamas say, to paraphrase, 'Fair cop guv - that's that then, we quit, here's your hostages back... and sorry for any inconvenience..."
British turned up, Arab immigrants came on boats with no papers cos Britain. British couldn't be bothered to do any background on tribal borders so just used a ruler and made up a load of countries. that, allegedly caused a lot of problems (that area has had that problem since it was Sumeria 7,000 years ago). Palestine was a Roman province containing lots of different people, it didn't apply to a single people.
If you could record a puppet show on the topic and upload it I’ll watch at double speed probably if I get round to it.
Looks more like Pieguts and Fosse debating whether Wes Morgan is the greatest title-winning captain of all time or something but thank you.
Hey, I read it and thought it was interesting. Thanks CK. Then again, I spend my free time researching Chinese history so I'm probably the right audience.
I think it's fair to say that, due to the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916, many modern Middle Eastern countries are, by definition. 'arbitrary'. However, we have to assess what the systems were like prior to British/French involvement and afterwards. You're kind of proving my point here - when the League of Nations' mandate system had formalised British and French control over the Middle East, Britain were given mandates for Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, whilst France were gifted Syria and Lebanon. These mandates were, as you mentioned, colonial projects. These territories totally disregarded ethnic, tribal and religious considerations, that caused major instability. As an example, look at Iraq. It was formed by merging three Ottoman provinces with distinct ethnic and religious boundaries (Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds (mostly Sunni)) and that caused issues for a long time. Then you need to look at how territory was divided beforehand compared to afterwards. Under the Ottomans, various groups, including Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Jews (amongst others) coexisted under Ottoman rule. The empire employed the "millet" system, which allowed religious communities a degree of autonomy to govern their own personal status laws and communal affairs. Also, in many parts of the Middle East, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Levant and Mesopotamia, tribal affiliations were crucial. Tribes controlled specific territories and resources, and their influence often extended beyond the formal administrative boundaries set by the Ottoman authorities. People had a shared understanding of what was what and knew which areas were theirs and which were not. Even Pre-Ottomans, despite the changes in political control, there were long-standing social and cultural continuities in the region. Shared religious practices, languages, and cultural traditions helped maintain a sense of identity among the different groups. I understand the distinction between political legitimacy and ethnic legitimacy, but I think it can be intertwined in this context. You can't divorce them from one another. Again, you need to assess how the ethnostate of Israel occured, why the migrations of people occurred in the way it did, how land was snatched and whether it is justified to uproot an entire nation of people based on issues that, not only weren't their fault, but were rooted in tenuous Biblical claims. While the term "Palestinian" as a national identity may be relatively modern, the people living in the region historically referred to themselves based on their local, religious, or broader Arab identities. The concept of a distinct Palestinian identity solidified in the 20th century, particularly in response to the political developments of the time. As you well know, national identities can evolve over time. The Palestinian identity developed in response to historical and political circumstances, including the rise of Zionism and British colonial rule. But if you want to go back as far as possible, Palestinians have roots all the way back to the Canaanites. What's more, the name "Palestine" is derived from "Philistia," referring to the land of the Philistines, an Aegean people who settled in the southern coastal area of the region around the 12th century BCE. Regarding your point about the river Jordan and sed Sea etc, I mean look, various entities have controlled the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and the concept of political boundaries has evolved. And whilst the specific boundaries may not always align with modern nation-state concepts, the region has been continuously inhabited by diverse groups, including Arabs who later identified as Palestinians - this is indisputable. Jordan’s claims and subsequent relinquishment of the WB were influenced by political realities, including the Palestinian national movement and international pressures. Their actions were part of the broader regional dynamics and do not negate the existence of a Palestinian identity or claim. So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with this. The Palestinian claim to the Negev and other areas is based on the historical presence of Palestinian communities, international law, and the right to self-determination. They have a deep-rooted history and culture in land currently being occupied by European colonisers - of which many residents of Israel and Zionists are. I'll say it openly - most of the residents of Israel are not indigenous Jews or Palestinian Jews - they are European or have ancestors that were predominantly European. What right do these Europeans have to this land over the natural population? Your opening sentence to this is slight disingenuous for reasons I've already addressed, but let's move on. Look, I'm not really sure what else to say to you on this. Your questions don't change my stance or make me think differently about anything. Palestinians' claims to the land are based on their long-standing presence and historical connections, not a pan-Arab identity or territorial ambitions. While Jewish people have historical and religious connections to the land, Palestinians have had a continuous and uninterrupted presence in the region for centuries. The displacement of Palestinians during the establishment of Israel in 1948 and (and the sheer scale and brutality conflicts since) have been a grave injustice. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their lands or fled. Why would I ever consider a bunch of settler colonialists as 'legitimate' for the stealing of land in this way and for trying to erase their identity since? Yes, the concept of self-determination became prominent in international law in the mid-20th century - which is a relatively new phenomenon in the context of human history. But by that time, Palestinians had already been living in the region for generations. By 1942, the demographic and political situation in Palestine included a significant Palestinian Arab population with its own national aspirations. The arrival of Jewish immigrants, supported by the Zionist movement, did not negate the existing population's right to self-determination. The fact that over half a million Jews lived in Palestine by that time does not automatically grant them the right to establish a state at the expense of the Palestinian population. Therefore, their right to self-determination should be recognised, including their claims to the land and political sovereignty. Your point about the Arab population growing during British rule doesn't really mean anything to me. Economic migration is a common phenomenon globally, and migrants often integrate into local societies and contribute to the development of a national identity. The main reason for population growth was improvement in living standards under the British Mandate. So the population growth during the British Mandate should be viewed in the context of an indigenous population benefiting from improved conditions, not as evidence of a transient or newly arrived group. And once again, as I've already stated multiple times, we should not ignore the broader context of Palestinian history and identity, which predates British rule and has been shaped by centuries of continuous presence in the region.
No debate ... of course he is ... plucked from the footballing scrapyard known as Nottingham for a mere £500k ...
