The Two Big Myths about the Middle East
-
What really matters as far as “legitimacy” is concerned is what happened at the end of the late Ottoman Empire through the end of WWI. As far as Jerusalem was concerned, Jews and Christians were both minorities, but not small ones. In fact, if combined I believe they represented a majority. (What is the ethnicity of the region’s Christians? Are they descended from the original churches planted from the Jews?) Then both the Jewish and the Moslem populations exploded far beyond reproduction rates. By WWII, almost all of the population on both sides were immigrants. So I don’t think historical legacy works for either side. They are almost all immigrants with historical heritage in the region.
The next factor is International Law. That’s pretty clear. The foundation of Israel is fully based in International Law established by the appropriate authorities.
The final factor is the most basic… Strength of Arms. The simple fact is that Israel has successfully defended and defeated their enemies in multiple wars. Wars have consequences, and they won…
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
If you go back 500 years there's no such thing as Americans. Or the British, for that matter. People make shit up.
That, more or less, is my point.
Everyone looks at historical precedent. The only question really is how far back do you want to go?
You could probably go back tens of thousands of years to the times when Homo sapiens was beating the crap out of Homo neanderthalensis.
@George-K said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
If you go back 500 years there's no such thing as Americans. Or the British, for that matter. People make shit up.
That, more or less, is my point.
Everyone looks at historical precedent. The only question really is how far back do you want to go?
You could probably go back tens of thousands of years to the times when Homo sapiens was beating the crap out of Homo neanderthalensis.
I thought the article you posted was rather distasteful. The phrase "We should not refer to the so-called Palestinians as a real people." has some unpleasant undertones. They see themselves as a real people, as Bach said.
-
@George-K said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
If you go back 500 years there's no such thing as Americans. Or the British, for that matter. People make shit up.
That, more or less, is my point.
Everyone looks at historical precedent. The only question really is how far back do you want to go?
You could probably go back tens of thousands of years to the times when Homo sapiens was beating the crap out of Homo neanderthalensis.
I thought the article you posted was rather distasteful. The phrase "We should not refer to the so-called Palestinians as a real people." has some unpleasant undertones. They see themselves as a real people, as Bach said.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
I thought the article you posted was rather distasteful. The phrase "We should not refer to the so-called Palestinians as a real people." has some unpleasant undertones. They see themselves as a real people, as Bach said.
I didn't read it that way, but of course, that's up to interpretation. I read it as "we should not refer to the Palestinians as A real people, with the emphasis that their ethnicity is questionable.
Again, I'm not disputing what Bach points out, or even agreeing with the article, for that matter - just questioning the history of the region and the populations. As you pointed out, history goes back a long way. The only question is when do you want to start counting? The Mohammedans didn't exist until 700 years after Jesus, and they claim it's their land?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
I thought the article you posted was rather distasteful. The phrase "We should not refer to the so-called Palestinians as a real people." has some unpleasant undertones. They see themselves as a real people, as Bach said.
I didn't read it that way, but of course, that's up to interpretation. I read it as "we should not refer to the Palestinians as A real people, with the emphasis that their ethnicity is questionable.
Again, I'm not disputing what Bach points out, or even agreeing with the article, for that matter - just questioning the history of the region and the populations. As you pointed out, history goes back a long way. The only question is when do you want to start counting? The Mohammedans didn't exist until 700 years after Jesus, and they claim it's their land?
@George-K said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
I didn't read it that way, but of course, that's up to interpretation. I read it as "we should not refer to the Palestinians as A real people, with the emphasis that their ethnicity is questionable.
One might as well say that Londoners aren't real. If only it were true.
I was only joking
-
Myth 2 doesn’t follow from myth 1. Palestine may not have been a ‘state’ in the modern sense but it was a Roman province. You wouldn’t say there are no Puerto Ricans because it’s not a state.
Also, what Bach said.
-
Myth 2 doesn’t follow from myth 1. Palestine may not have been a ‘state’ in the modern sense but it was a Roman province. You wouldn’t say there are no Puerto Ricans because it’s not a state.
Also, what Bach said.
@jon-nyc said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
You wouldn’t say there are no Puerto Ricans because it’s not a state.
You also wouldn't say that Puerto Rico is identical to Connecticut in terms of statehood.
"There is no such thing as Palestine" and "Palestine is no different politically than any other country" are both too extreme to take seriously.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
If you go back 500 years there's no such thing as Americans. Or the British, for that matter. People make shit up.
That, more or less, is my point.
Everyone looks at historical precedent. The only question really is how far back do you want to go?
You could probably go back tens of thousands of years to the times when Homo sapiens was beating the crap out of Homo neanderthalensis.
@George-K true but honestly, Jewish faith has revolved around a return to Zion for two thousand years without any break. The idea that Zionism is just another form of 19 century nationalism arising de novo from nothing but European national renaissance is to rewrite history.
-
@George-K true but honestly, Jewish faith has revolved around a return to Zion for two thousand years without any break. The idea that Zionism is just another form of 19 century nationalism arising de novo from nothing but European national renaissance is to rewrite history.
@bachophile said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
@George-K true but honestly, Jewish faith has revolved around a return to Zion for two thousand years without any break.
My point, exactly.
The idea that Zionism is just another form of 19 century nationalism arising de novo from nothing but European national renaissance is to rewrite history.
And the claim on "Palestine?"
-
@George-K said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
I didn't read it that way, but of course, that's up to interpretation. I read it as "we should not refer to the Palestinians as A real people, with the emphasis that their ethnicity is questionable.
One might as well say that Londoners aren't real. If only it were true.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
@George-K said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
I didn't read it that way, but of course, that's up to interpretation. I read it as "we should not refer to the Palestinians as A real people, with the emphasis that their ethnicity is questionable.
One might as well say that Londoners aren't real. If only it were true.
That same argument is being used in part to justify an invasion, occupation and annexation of sovereign Ukraine and its territory. We are told Ukraine is an artificial construct.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
@George-K said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
I didn't read it that way, but of course, that's up to interpretation. I read it as "we should not refer to the Palestinians as A real people, with the emphasis that their ethnicity is questionable.
One might as well say that Londoners aren't real. If only it were true.
That same argument is being used in part to justify an invasion, occupation and annexation of sovereign Ukraine and its territory. We are told Ukraine is an artificial construct.
@Renauda said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
We are told Ukraine is an artificial construct.
Which is pretty ironic when you consider that Putin comes from the USSR.
-
@Renauda said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
We are told Ukraine is an artificial construct.
Which is pretty ironic when you consider that Putin comes from the USSR.
Indeed, Putin cannot cope with the tragedy of it all.
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/the_two_big_myths_about_the_middle_east.html
Myth 1. The State of Palestine
This so-called state is like Brigadoon, with two exceptions:
a. It never appeared.
b. It refuses to go away.
Neither a country nor a state of Palestine has ever existed.
Myth 2. Palestinians
No state, no nation, no people. Palestine never existed, hence Palestinians never existed, do not exist. Full stop.
Someone with a deeper knowledge of the geopolitics of the region might want to take a deeper look at this article.
I'm curious as to what he got wrong.
@George-K said in The Two Big Myths about the Middle East:
Myth 2. Palestinians
No state, no nation, no people. Palestine never existed, hence Palestinians never existed, do not exist. Full stop.
Today at the UN
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148731?_gl=1bg71ms_gaMjA2OTM4NTgwLjE3MTM0OTE1MTQ._ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*MTcxMzQ5MTUxMy4xLjEuMTcxMzQ5MTU4Mi4wLjAuMA..In a vote of 12 in favour to one against, with two abstentions, the Council did not adopt a draft resolution that would have recommended the General Assembly to hold a vote with the broader UN membership to allow Palestine to join as a full UN Member State.
The draft resolution is among the shortest in the Council’s history: “The Security Council, having examined the application of the State of Palestine for admission to the United Nations (S/2011/592), recommends to the General Assembly that the State of Palestine be admitted to membership in the United Nations.”
For a draft resolution to pass, the Council must have at least nine members in favour and none of its permanent members – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States – using their veto power.
The US voted against it because they said that granting Palestinian full membership would be the same as acknowedging Palestine as a state. Whether or not palestine becomes a state is part of the negotiations between Isreal and Palestine.
I agree with this assessment.
