You are again mixing things up. The bombings happened in Gaza only. There is Gaza, which is along the coast and there is the West Bank, which is inland and on the other side of Israel. The Christians in both Gaza and in the West Bank have been running away for decades because of their treatment at the hands of the Muslims.
Ramallah and Bethlehem are both in the West Bank, not Gaza.
First of all, you do not see many synagogues in "Palestine" because the Arabs destroyed them. When Jordan occupied the Old CIty of Jerusalem in 1948, they tore down synagogues and they even used the grave stones on Jewish graves to build roads and to build toilets. Jews have never done such things. You also find hundreds of synagogue ruins from ancient times. They are everywhere -- even in Gaza.
And the Christians have been running away from Palestine because the Muslims discriminate against them. Bethlehem used to be mostly Christian. Not anymore. Ramallah used to be mainly Christian. Not anymore.
This is not what is going on in Israel. The Arabs are the colonialists, having arrived in the 600s in the Arab Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. They were the invaders. And they converted indigenous peoples wherever they went to Islam or killed them or subjugated them.
This is not what happened. There were always Jews in Hebron and a few Ashkenazi Jews moved there at the beginning of the 1900s but the Mizrahi Jews always lived there. The massacre in 1929 of Hebron Jews was because a rumour was spread that the Jews were going to destroy the mosque on the Temple Mount, a common cry when the leaders wanted Arabs to kill their Jewish neighbours. And the massacre in Tzfat was also because of Jew-hate.
Well written. The argument might still be, “Some are trying, but the jihadists are stronger.” History is replete with heroes who made the decision to be a lone voice. History is manipulated (I believe from Above) that Good will always win out. So far not enough of them are choosing the winning side.
Too bad they can’t or don’t read your post, and others like it. But as you say, ultimately it’s not really our business if they have an awakening or no. We have to take them at their actions and respond accordingly.
While I accept that people are entitled to their own OPINIONS, I also (strongly) hold that they are NOT entitled to their own facts. Those who claim that there are Palestinians have no FACTS to support their allegations. First, the closest historical name to Palestine is Palestina, a name ascribed to the area by the Romans, who were trying to destroy the Jewish nature of the area. That name was never accepted by the Jews or (essentially anyone else) and ceased to exist (I believe) with the end of the Roman empire. And any connections with the Phillistines is ludicrous because they left no genetic descendents.
In modern times, the ONLY internationally recognized document that ascribes any (even mininal) legitimacy to the Palestinian name is the Oslo Accords (1993, I believe). The Accords are essentially worthless and should be declared as dead, null and void, since even the simplest of the obligations by the Islam signatories (the PA, etc), that being removal of the destruction of Israel clause from the PA charter, has not been accomplished. THIRTY ONE (31) years later it remains unaccomplished.
IMHO, there are not now, or have there ever been any Palestinians, and I believe the name should be stricken from all Israeli/Jewish writings and discussions. Not doing so just fosters a fiction.
you are totally missing my point. The argument over their name is silly and not getting us anywhere. They can call themselves Martians and it would still be the same. Claiming to be a people comes with responsibility and agency. If their responsibility and agency means all they want is martyrdom what do I care what they call themselves? I will respond to their martyrdom-seeking behaviours.
Also, the name Palestinians comes first from the Greek word for the Philistines. The Roman word Palestina came afterward and was used differently -- as most people say, to separate the land from association with the Jews. But the word Palestine/Philistine originally referred to a people who disappeared -- so I am saying, is that the fate of today's Arabs who call themselves Palestiniains?
You can strike the name from anywhere you want but that only perpetuates the stupid arguments because they will always say "yes, we are." Again, what do I care what they call themselves. We Jews don't claim the name so they can have it. But, again, when they claim they are a people, they either behave like a people who wants to live or they behave like people who prefer to die if they can kill Jews by doing so. And THAT is what I respond to -- their behaviour, not what they call themselves.
I understand what you are saying—but…BUT…whatever they call themselves they have been given ‘agency’ [Arafat the terrorist treated like a statesman at the WH] and plenty of my tax dollars for nothing but choosing death and carnage. As The Green Prince says of his childhood, “Hate (and) abuse…” Golda’s famous rule: they do not love their children more than they hate us.
They claim to be our victims -- they make that claim all over the place and that is how they and others justify their terrorism. And, with agency, they use it to play the victim. We do not have to play along with them.
In other words, we are not disagreeing, Mariamnae -- I am just saying let us get off this stupid going-nowhere argument about them calling themselves Palestinians and us saying there is no such thing as a Palestinian. What they call themselves is irrelevant. And my essay is trying to explain why what they call themselves is irrelevant.
I hope more and more people stop arguing about the name and just call them on their behaviour.
This is an important discussion. The etymology of "Palestine" does indeed trace directly to the Philistines. Who by the way, G-d wiped off the face of the earth. So, the Arabs who are living in/on lands conquered by Jews, are, well, Arabs. I make an effort in writing not to use the "P" word, but rather Arabs who are living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The days of the "Mandate" are long gone.
Of interest is the Philistines lived in the areas of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath. Several of those cities are extant today. No Philistines therein that I'm aware, mostly Arabs. I agree Sheri, the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza should be given the choice of peaceful citizenship or a ticket to the country of their choice. Of course, all the easy UNRWA money might disappear. So many choices!
Assuming the Torah is the revealed word/will of Hashem (which I do), then through Ishmael, the Arabs were given other lands (Arabian Peninsula?). Let the Arabs dissatisfied with their lot in the lands Hashem promised and then gave to Israel, return to the lands that G-d promised and gave them. They have their own 'twelve 'rulers'. Go for it Arabs.
So then, only Arabs living on land conquered by Israel.
I'm glad you find this discussion important. It certainly has been interesting for me.
I hesitated to open a discussion that I thought might bring me barbs but I decided to do it anyway. And the disagreements expressed here by others helped me refine my own thinking, something I find so satisfying.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the fate of the Philistines becomes the fate of the Palestinians!
Amen. Torah is the word of HaShem. It’s still incredible to me that the Noah Parsha not only begins with Hamas (violence) but by Genesis 10, has also mentioned both Philistines and Gaza.
The solution lies in the following formulation from the Israeli government:
"Okay, you win. We give up. You have beaten us by staying on the land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. With our recognition of your peoplehood and sovereignty in the areas you control, you have officially redeemed the honor of your people.
"We are ready to live alongside you in peace and even help you develop a thriving economy. However, if you think your honor requires anything more, like the annihilation of Israel or the return to land you abandoned, we will sorrowfully have no choice but to war on you until you change your mind, at a guaranteed cost to you of lives of your citizens and lands you now live in. We put the choice before you: peace or war, life or death. Choose wisely."
Whether those living in Gaza and the WB (or call it J&S - let's not get hung up on terminology) consider themselves a "people" I think (respectfully to all that think otherwise) is a linguistic sideshow (perhaps important but not determinative for the conflict). What I think would prove determinative is the concept of victory. Dating back to the 1930's, peace plans have proved useless, economic incentives wasted, and kicking the can down the road deadly. Truly, it is time for something different. In my mind, that does not mean more occupation and more settlements in the WB, but it does mean a focus on stamping out reliance on resistance for a better future. Thus Hamas must be dismantled, the PA put on notice it will be neutered until it actively combats terror in the WB, and the world told explicitly that statehood for those that call them Palestinians is not an entitlement but at least a form of it can be earned if the PA fulfills specified conditions (for which Israel is willing to be a partner with effort and resources) that includes a true partnership in combating terror in all its forms, an end to the PA's vitriolic education system, financial transparency with its government, an end to their request (I refuse to use the word they use) to return, and replacement of UNWRA with an entity dedicated to ending its existence not enlarging it.
I write this not to initiate a discussion of what victory requires but only to introduce the concept of victory, both militarily and socially, as primary over linguistic concerns. And that is why I find Sheri's essay important and thought provoking.
Yes. I agree that victory takes primacy over linguistic concerns. I just spoke with a reserve soldier a few hours ago who described the work they are doing in Judea-Samaria now against terrorists. He says the are doing more than they were before Oct 7th, but it is still not enough to totally crush the terrorists. That is the problem
Since Israel’s restoration of Jewish sovereignty in a portion of their historical homeland, the Arabs were concerned with the “fragility” of the identity of the Arabs of Palestine, as well they might as that identity was an artificial imposition by the League of Nations which created the first ever demarcated territory called Palestine and lasted a mere 30 years.
For centuries under Ottoman control, the locus of political power was Damascus and if those Arabs living in (or moving to) what later became called Palestine identified themselves beyond their clan, it was as South Syrians. In fact, the first use of Nakba was by the Arab Christian nationalist George Antonius in his book “The Arab Awakening” in reference to the severing of Palestine from Syria.
That concern over “fragility” led to the Arab League resolution in the 1950s depriving Arab refugees from Palestine any path to citizenship in member countries in which they then resided - with the exception of Jordan which, for all intents and purposes was East Palestine having been severed from the Mandate of Palestine in 1923. In 1988, Jordan unilaterally revoked their citizenship (with exceptions only for a few well placed or well heeled families).
We even saw an expression of that same concern as justifying Egypt’s sealing of its border with Gaza in the immediate aftermath of October 7.
If a recent poll is to be believed, these concerns appear justified as only some 20% of Palestinians identify primarily as Palestinian as opposed to as a member of a particular clan.
If this is true, then, and somewhat ironically, absent the establishment of a peaceful State of Palestine (which does not seem to be in the cards), the Palestinian cause will - to use Abbas’ term - be “liquidated” to a great extent by allowing the simple expedient of allowing for their voluntary (not forced) emigration from Gaza, Judea and Samaria and their absorption in any Arab states willing to accept them or in which they have resided for decades - the solution for every other refugee in the world and precisely the resolution those Arab countries have stood against since 1949.
A good start would be the removal of their singular hereditary right to “refugee” status, an UNRWA invention and aligning with the mandate of resettlement of the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees.
Those who wish to self-identify as Palestinians remain free to do so. Time will tell how big that group proves to be.
I hope they would dissolve UNRWA and place so-called Palestinian refugees under the auspices of the UNHCR. It will, then, be interesting to see how many will still self-identify as Palestinians.
You are confusing a state with a 'people.' After a 'people' establishes a modern state, they then have a currency. And, in fact, there is a Bank of Palestine since 1960 or thereabouts.
You are again mixing things up. The bombings happened in Gaza only. There is Gaza, which is along the coast and there is the West Bank, which is inland and on the other side of Israel. The Christians in both Gaza and in the West Bank have been running away for decades because of their treatment at the hands of the Muslims.
Ramallah and Bethlehem are both in the West Bank, not Gaza.
You are confusing ancient times with now.
First of all, you do not see many synagogues in "Palestine" because the Arabs destroyed them. When Jordan occupied the Old CIty of Jerusalem in 1948, they tore down synagogues and they even used the grave stones on Jewish graves to build roads and to build toilets. Jews have never done such things. You also find hundreds of synagogue ruins from ancient times. They are everywhere -- even in Gaza.
And the Christians have been running away from Palestine because the Muslims discriminate against them. Bethlehem used to be mostly Christian. Not anymore. Ramallah used to be mainly Christian. Not anymore.
At the time, most of the population that they converted were Jews. Some were Christians. I don't understand your last sentence.
This is not what is going on in Israel. The Arabs are the colonialists, having arrived in the 600s in the Arab Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. They were the invaders. And they converted indigenous peoples wherever they went to Islam or killed them or subjugated them.
This is not what happened. There were always Jews in Hebron and a few Ashkenazi Jews moved there at the beginning of the 1900s but the Mizrahi Jews always lived there. The massacre in 1929 of Hebron Jews was because a rumour was spread that the Jews were going to destroy the mosque on the Temple Mount, a common cry when the leaders wanted Arabs to kill their Jewish neighbours. And the massacre in Tzfat was also because of Jew-hate.
Then you saw wrong. Half of Israel is made up of Jews from Arab countries who, except for Islam, have much the same way of life as the Arabs.
If Wikipedia is your source of knowledge then you are being badly misled. Try reading real books and articles.
They were antisemitic long before —- Hebron massacre in 1929, for one example.
Well written. The argument might still be, “Some are trying, but the jihadists are stronger.” History is replete with heroes who made the decision to be a lone voice. History is manipulated (I believe from Above) that Good will always win out. So far not enough of them are choosing the winning side.
Too bad they can’t or don’t read your post, and others like it. But as you say, ultimately it’s not really our business if they have an awakening or no. We have to take them at their actions and respond accordingly.
While I accept that people are entitled to their own OPINIONS, I also (strongly) hold that they are NOT entitled to their own facts. Those who claim that there are Palestinians have no FACTS to support their allegations. First, the closest historical name to Palestine is Palestina, a name ascribed to the area by the Romans, who were trying to destroy the Jewish nature of the area. That name was never accepted by the Jews or (essentially anyone else) and ceased to exist (I believe) with the end of the Roman empire. And any connections with the Phillistines is ludicrous because they left no genetic descendents.
In modern times, the ONLY internationally recognized document that ascribes any (even mininal) legitimacy to the Palestinian name is the Oslo Accords (1993, I believe). The Accords are essentially worthless and should be declared as dead, null and void, since even the simplest of the obligations by the Islam signatories (the PA, etc), that being removal of the destruction of Israel clause from the PA charter, has not been accomplished. THIRTY ONE (31) years later it remains unaccomplished.
IMHO, there are not now, or have there ever been any Palestinians, and I believe the name should be stricken from all Israeli/Jewish writings and discussions. Not doing so just fosters a fiction.
you are totally missing my point. The argument over their name is silly and not getting us anywhere. They can call themselves Martians and it would still be the same. Claiming to be a people comes with responsibility and agency. If their responsibility and agency means all they want is martyrdom what do I care what they call themselves? I will respond to their martyrdom-seeking behaviours.
Also, the name Palestinians comes first from the Greek word for the Philistines. The Roman word Palestina came afterward and was used differently -- as most people say, to separate the land from association with the Jews. But the word Palestine/Philistine originally referred to a people who disappeared -- so I am saying, is that the fate of today's Arabs who call themselves Palestiniains?
You can strike the name from anywhere you want but that only perpetuates the stupid arguments because they will always say "yes, we are." Again, what do I care what they call themselves. We Jews don't claim the name so they can have it. But, again, when they claim they are a people, they either behave like a people who wants to live or they behave like people who prefer to die if they can kill Jews by doing so. And THAT is what I respond to -- their behaviour, not what they call themselves.
I got your point and I think it was brilliant.
Thanks so much
I understand what you are saying—but…BUT…whatever they call themselves they have been given ‘agency’ [Arafat the terrorist treated like a statesman at the WH] and plenty of my tax dollars for nothing but choosing death and carnage. As The Green Prince says of his childhood, “Hate (and) abuse…” Golda’s famous rule: they do not love their children more than they hate us.
They claim to be our victims -- they make that claim all over the place and that is how they and others justify their terrorism. And, with agency, they use it to play the victim. We do not have to play along with them.
In other words, we are not disagreeing, Mariamnae -- I am just saying let us get off this stupid going-nowhere argument about them calling themselves Palestinians and us saying there is no such thing as a Palestinian. What they call themselves is irrelevant. And my essay is trying to explain why what they call themselves is irrelevant.
I hope more and more people stop arguing about the name and just call them on their behaviour.
This is an important discussion. The etymology of "Palestine" does indeed trace directly to the Philistines. Who by the way, G-d wiped off the face of the earth. So, the Arabs who are living in/on lands conquered by Jews, are, well, Arabs. I make an effort in writing not to use the "P" word, but rather Arabs who are living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The days of the "Mandate" are long gone.
Of interest is the Philistines lived in the areas of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath. Several of those cities are extant today. No Philistines therein that I'm aware, mostly Arabs. I agree Sheri, the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza should be given the choice of peaceful citizenship or a ticket to the country of their choice. Of course, all the easy UNRWA money might disappear. So many choices!
Assuming the Torah is the revealed word/will of Hashem (which I do), then through Ishmael, the Arabs were given other lands (Arabian Peninsula?). Let the Arabs dissatisfied with their lot in the lands Hashem promised and then gave to Israel, return to the lands that G-d promised and gave them. They have their own 'twelve 'rulers'. Go for it Arabs.
So then, only Arabs living on land conquered by Israel.
I'm glad you find this discussion important. It certainly has been interesting for me.
I hesitated to open a discussion that I thought might bring me barbs but I decided to do it anyway. And the disagreements expressed here by others helped me refine my own thinking, something I find so satisfying.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the fate of the Philistines becomes the fate of the Palestinians!
Your last sentence mirrors my own.
If the discussion used a lexicon defined by facts and long standing histories, (absent the "P" word), confusion and nuance would be mostly eliminated.
A Jew would be a Jew and an Arab an Arab. Or, descendants of Jacob and Ishmael. Israelites and Ismaelites. How simple and straightforward.
Amen. Torah is the word of HaShem. It’s still incredible to me that the Noah Parsha not only begins with Hamas (violence) but by Genesis 10, has also mentioned both Philistines and Gaza.
The solution lies in the following formulation from the Israeli government:
"Okay, you win. We give up. You have beaten us by staying on the land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. With our recognition of your peoplehood and sovereignty in the areas you control, you have officially redeemed the honor of your people.
"We are ready to live alongside you in peace and even help you develop a thriving economy. However, if you think your honor requires anything more, like the annihilation of Israel or the return to land you abandoned, we will sorrowfully have no choice but to war on you until you change your mind, at a guaranteed cost to you of lives of your citizens and lands you now live in. We put the choice before you: peace or war, life or death. Choose wisely."
Sounds right
Whether those living in Gaza and the WB (or call it J&S - let's not get hung up on terminology) consider themselves a "people" I think (respectfully to all that think otherwise) is a linguistic sideshow (perhaps important but not determinative for the conflict). What I think would prove determinative is the concept of victory. Dating back to the 1930's, peace plans have proved useless, economic incentives wasted, and kicking the can down the road deadly. Truly, it is time for something different. In my mind, that does not mean more occupation and more settlements in the WB, but it does mean a focus on stamping out reliance on resistance for a better future. Thus Hamas must be dismantled, the PA put on notice it will be neutered until it actively combats terror in the WB, and the world told explicitly that statehood for those that call them Palestinians is not an entitlement but at least a form of it can be earned if the PA fulfills specified conditions (for which Israel is willing to be a partner with effort and resources) that includes a true partnership in combating terror in all its forms, an end to the PA's vitriolic education system, financial transparency with its government, an end to their request (I refuse to use the word they use) to return, and replacement of UNWRA with an entity dedicated to ending its existence not enlarging it.
I write this not to initiate a discussion of what victory requires but only to introduce the concept of victory, both militarily and socially, as primary over linguistic concerns. And that is why I find Sheri's essay important and thought provoking.
Yes. I agree that victory takes primacy over linguistic concerns. I just spoke with a reserve soldier a few hours ago who described the work they are doing in Judea-Samaria now against terrorists. He says the are doing more than they were before Oct 7th, but it is still not enough to totally crush the terrorists. That is the problem
Since Israel’s restoration of Jewish sovereignty in a portion of their historical homeland, the Arabs were concerned with the “fragility” of the identity of the Arabs of Palestine, as well they might as that identity was an artificial imposition by the League of Nations which created the first ever demarcated territory called Palestine and lasted a mere 30 years.
For centuries under Ottoman control, the locus of political power was Damascus and if those Arabs living in (or moving to) what later became called Palestine identified themselves beyond their clan, it was as South Syrians. In fact, the first use of Nakba was by the Arab Christian nationalist George Antonius in his book “The Arab Awakening” in reference to the severing of Palestine from Syria.
That concern over “fragility” led to the Arab League resolution in the 1950s depriving Arab refugees from Palestine any path to citizenship in member countries in which they then resided - with the exception of Jordan which, for all intents and purposes was East Palestine having been severed from the Mandate of Palestine in 1923. In 1988, Jordan unilaterally revoked their citizenship (with exceptions only for a few well placed or well heeled families).
We even saw an expression of that same concern as justifying Egypt’s sealing of its border with Gaza in the immediate aftermath of October 7.
If a recent poll is to be believed, these concerns appear justified as only some 20% of Palestinians identify primarily as Palestinian as opposed to as a member of a particular clan.
https://m.jpost.com/middle-east/article-815793
If this is true, then, and somewhat ironically, absent the establishment of a peaceful State of Palestine (which does not seem to be in the cards), the Palestinian cause will - to use Abbas’ term - be “liquidated” to a great extent by allowing the simple expedient of allowing for their voluntary (not forced) emigration from Gaza, Judea and Samaria and their absorption in any Arab states willing to accept them or in which they have resided for decades - the solution for every other refugee in the world and precisely the resolution those Arab countries have stood against since 1949.
A good start would be the removal of their singular hereditary right to “refugee” status, an UNRWA invention and aligning with the mandate of resettlement of the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees.
Those who wish to self-identify as Palestinians remain free to do so. Time will tell how big that group proves to be.
Yes. Thanks for this.
I hope they would dissolve UNRWA and place so-called Palestinian refugees under the auspices of the UNHCR. It will, then, be interesting to see how many will still self-identify as Palestinians.
I don’t know if Palestinians have a currency or a banking system. Wouldn’t that be essential?
You are confusing a state with a 'people.' After a 'people' establishes a modern state, they then have a currency. And, in fact, there is a Bank of Palestine since 1960 or thereabouts.