Are Palestinians Arabs or Separate?

[HighlyIllogical]

HOT BUTTON ISSUE, FOLKS:

Just a little background on myself: I'm a social liberal, yet an economic conservative. I'm a staunch supporter of Israel and I want to see what others think about it in general.

Big question here: Are the Palestinians distinct from other Arabs?

I would say no-as cultural distinction would be defined by distinction among customs, clothing, religion, language etc. The Palestinians are Muslims (in general!) with ethnicities stemming from Arab nations. Their clothing styles are no different from other arabs, as are their customs, foods etc.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

To gain a better understanding, I suggest you read up on how "well integrated" the Palestinian refugees are in their host countries. They aren't. There is a lot of discrimination against Palestinians. Let me also suggest that within the Middle East there does exist cultural, political, and religious diversity.
Syria and pre war Iraq were both ruled at one point by Baathists regimes. Baathism was a form of fascism imported from France I believe which in the Middle East also represented one of the movements towards the development of an Arab nationalism. It was very secular in comparison to fundamentalist Islamic regimes that we see presently like in Iran. Women typically had more rights in under Baathism than fundamentalist regimes. Egypt for a time was also under a different form of Fascism know as Nassirism for its founder . It was a different Arab nationalist movement from Baathism, though the specifics of both escape me at the moment. Lebanon was ruled by a coalition government, consisting of representation by various factions which allied themselves based upon religion, whether they were Sunni, Shia, Christian (yes, Christian, etc. Representation was based on the amount of individuals in each sect at the time of the formation of the government. This eventually resulted in a imbalance of power, as some groups shrank but did not lose any representation, which led to civil war. The United States and the USSR backed various sides in this war, and the end result was Syria playing a dominant role in Lebanon. Then their are the kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

I apologize if what I have written is a bit indirect. I am hardly an expert on the area. I just hope this shows that the differences are much greater than is appearant.

[lapis]

At 12/27/05 03:35 AM, Nighthawk24us2002 wrote: Syria and pre war Iraq were both ruled at one point by Baathists regimes. Baathism was a form of fascism imported from France I believe which in the Middle East also represented one of the movements towards the development of an Arab nationalism.

I'm not sure about the term 'Fascism', the political ideology behind the Baathist regimes is usually called Arab Socialism which shares the focus on ethnicity with Fascism but also incorporates ideas form Marxism like land reforms and nationalising private industries. Nasr is also considered to an Arab Socialist so it's not that much of a 'different form' of government.

So yes, there are several different political ideologies to be found in the Arab world, varying from religious fundamentalism to secular nationalism, and there are varying religious groups like Sunnis, Shi'ites and Druzes, but they're all still Arabs, including the Palestinians. They speak the same language and descend from the same people. Ukraine and Belarus also have differences regarding their governments but that doesn't mean that the people living there aren't all Slavics.

[HighlyIllogical]

So, if the Palestinians are simply Arabs, then why do they claim the land of Israel as their own? No logical sense in that! There's a Palestinian majority in Jordan, but the Palestinians claim that they don't have their own state! They do! Jordan is their nation.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 12/27/05 11:19 AM, mackid wrote: So, if the Palestinians are simply Arabs, then why do they claim the land of Israel as their own?

I think its to do with resentment towards the Jewish people there, but I don't really know enough about it.

[HighlyIllogical]

There's resentment towards us (Jews) everywhere! Would you guys have a problem if Israel adopted a policy of having everyone take an oath of citizenship at 16 saying that they would serve in the Israeli military (IDF) and if they don't want to take the oath, then they'd be deported? I think it'd be a legal way to move the Palestinians out of israel

[Lidov]

Well, I am going to say this, but don't you think I am saying this just because of the fact that I am an Israeli and so. Palastinains are Arabs, there is really nothing special to make the differ from other Arabs all around the world. It is like asking whether the Egyptians are Arabs, or Syrians. They are all Arabs and they have a shared race, nationalism, historical past and language. Therefor, by defination, the Palastinains are Arabs just like the Egyptians, Syrians, Lybians, Iraqis etc. are Arabs. Not to mention that the fact that the Palastinains weren't as they call themselves today 'Palastinains" until 1947.
The fact that the Palastinains lives in the land of israel doesn't mean that they are not Arabs, it just means that they would like to be differ from them, although they aren't. The Palastinians are not a nation like the other nations (France, Britian, Russia), but a group of Arabs living in Israel. However, this doesn't mean that they shouldn't have their own state, for they don't have the exact same origin as the other Arabs. they deserve a land because of the fact that they lived here (and continue living here) for so long. So the fact that they are Arabs should be mistaked with their right for a land.

[lapis]

At 12/27/05 11:19 AM, mackid wrote: So, if the Palestinians are simply Arabs, then why do they claim the land of Israel as their own? No logical sense in that!

I agree, there is not any logical sense in claiming land which was taken from your grandparents by foreigners and given to immigrants even though your people were a big majority in the land for at least 700 years.

There's a Palestinian majority in Jordan, but the Palestinians claim that they don't have their own state! They do! Jordan is their nation.

26% of the Jordanian population is Palestinian. That's hardly a majority. 12% of the population of New York is Jewish. Does that mean that any Zionist claim about the 'right of existence' of a Jewish state is therefore false, because they already have their own land, namely New York?

[ReiperX]

At 12/27/05 11:19 AM, mackid wrote: So, if the Palestinians are simply Arabs, then why do they claim the land of Israel as their own? No logical sense in that! There's a Palestinian majority in Jordan, but the Palestinians claim that they don't have their own state! They do! Jordan is their nation.

Since the Palestinians were there prior to the formation of Israel, and well, since they didn't migrate out, they were just one day told "hey guess what, you are in Israel now, we are making your laws now."

[elkrobber]

It's strange how after decades of mis-treatment, the opressed decide to become the opressors.

[ReiperX]

At 12/28/05 04:10 PM, elkrobber wrote: It's strange how after decades of mis-treatment, the opressed decide to become the opressors.

Would be so nice if both could actually get along.

[Demosthenez]

At 12/28/05 03:53 PM, lapis wrote: Does that mean that any Zionist claim about the 'right of existence' of a Jewish state is therefore false, because they already have their own land, namely New York?

I laugh, cause its so goddamn true.

South Florida would also be a good place for a Jewish state. All those damned snow birds and retirees seem to like it enough.

[HighlyIllogical]

"Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country."
- King Abdullah, at the Meeting of the Arab League, Cairo, 12th April 1948

"Let us not forget the East Bank of the (River) Jordan, where seventy per cent of the inhabitants belong to the Palestinian nation."
- George Habash, leader of the PFLP section of the PLO, writing in the PLO publication Sha-un Falastinia, February 1970

Hey, guys, let's let the 'Palestinians' and Arabs speak for themselves!

By the way, the word Palestinian is an anomaly. It's a derivation of the word Phillistine and was never used prior to 1948. by the way, it is known that the Philistines, who the Palestinians claim ancestry from through the use of the word Palestinian, while most 'Palestinians' are simply Arab Moslems and Arab Christians kicked out of their home nations.

Jews (as the State of Israel) have more claim to the land than any other group. Legal, moral, ethical, de facto and de jure.

Clearly, Arab Muslims are divided into different subgroups, but they're all Arab Muslims. Jews, however, are all one in the same except for minor minor minor religious differentations, but all Jews are Jews and identify ourselves as such.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 12/28/05 04:05 PM, ReiperX wrote: Since the Palestinians were there prior to the formation of Israel, and well, since they didn't migrate out, they were just one day told "hey guess what, you are in Israel now, we are making your laws now."

Actually, the Palestinians were offered in 1948, over 70% of the land and the Jews assented, but the Arabs wanted all of it, so they went to war and lost. Israel WON and got the land which it had already had in a defacto manner-Jerusalem and the kibbutzim for example, which had a majority of Jews. And then the same thing happens every time. The British established Jordan as a Palestinian state!! Think about it! Why does a supposed ethnicity need another nation when they have Jordan, if you consider the Palestinians separate from all other Arabs, or almost the entire middle east if they're simply Arabs.

[lapis]

I'd give a proper response to your arguments but I really can't figure out where you're going with this. When Israel was founded in 1948 almost all Jews were first, second or third generation immigrants. Muslim arabs had been a huge majority for at least 700 years; there were only Jewish majorities in Tiberias and Tsfat until the start of the Aliyahs. The only claim the Jews had to the land was the fact that they controlled the land some two thousand years ago, when Turkey was inhabited by Greeks and France by Celts.

It doesn't matter how you call the ancestors of today's Palestinians, they were the ones who had been living there and therefore the ones who should have gotten the land when the British left. "They had Jordan as a country" is a pathetic argument. It's like the descendants of the Aztecs claiming California as their new nation while stating that the Americans have no justified claim to the land because they already have the rest of the US as their nation.

Clearly, Arab Muslims are divided into different subgroups, but they're all Arab Muslims. Jews, however, are all one in the same except for minor minor minor religious differentations, but all Jews are Jews and identify ourselves as such.

So? Americans are divided into different subgroups while Jews identify themselves as one group, so therefore parts of the US inhabited by certain subgroups actually belong to the Jews?

Actually, the Palestinians were offered in 1948, over 70% of the land and the Jews assented, but the Arabs wanted all of it

They wanted all of it because they deserved all of it. If someone claims a part of your life savings while they have no justifiable claim to it, then you're not 'greedy' when you refuse to settle with only 70%.

The British established Jordan as a Palestinian state!!

The British were foreign imperialists who took the land in an attempt to lower the Ottoman geopolitical control over the region and they had no right to give the land to migrants because they simply felt like doing so.

[Demosthenez]

At 12/29/05 05:23 PM, lapis wrote: The British were foreign imperialists who took the land in an attempt to lower the Ottoman geopolitical control over the region and they had no right to give the land to migrants because they simply felt like doing so.

1) They took the land to try and draw America into the war and because of apparent sympathy for the Jews. And, well, I guess your right. Cause they could.
2) The Ottomans had almost no control of the Hijaz and Jerusalem for years. Just like Egypt was nominally under Ottoman rule but the British controled it. Local governors were the ones in charge and centralization efforts were failing miserably. And there really was NO Ottoman control anywhere after the war. Even the Young Turks were against Ottomanism.
3) It is interesting Sharif Husayn DID sign over the land to the British. Even after he knew he was getting fucked over. The British I guess do have formal agreement in this area. Even the UN agreed on the state of Israel. Its there, its not going anywhere, debating if it should have been there is a worthless debate.

So, it has happened. It is just like every time in history before the winner has recieved the spoils and a shifting of population groups. The Greeks SHOULD have had much of Anatolia. That never happened. All that ended up happened is Greeks and Muslims being traded from the Balkans and Anatolia to their respective countries. Shit happens.

I really dont care. It is almost 100 years in the past when all it went down. Ancient history. The British and French did screw up the region but its not like the natives did anything great themselves. Im not going to pretend to care who was fucked over. I dont. The Arabs probably were, but whatever. It happens.

It has happened so many times in history I dont care. Population shifts. People are displaced. It happens. Stop complaning. Deal with it.

[lapis]

At 12/29/05 05:46 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: 1) They took the land to try and draw America into the war and because of apparent sympathy for the Jews. And, well, I guess your right. Cause they could.

The British army in Egypt was ordered to go on the offensive against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine. In part this was to support the Arab revolt which had started early in 1916, in part this was to try and acomplish something positive after the years of fruitless battles on the Western Front. (Source)

I'm sure there were plenty of reasons why the British took the land, but I'm sure their sympathy for the Jews was one of the least. Their campaign was focused against the Turks all through Arabia and not just aimed at conquering Palestine for the Jews. They had promised to back the Arab revolt so they were also sort of obliged to intervene.

2) The Ottomans had almost no control of the Hijaz and Jerusalem for years.

That has little relevance to the topic. The Ottomans had formal control over the land (an initial attack by general Murray on Jerusalem even failed miserably) and the British invaded Palestine to hurt the Ottomans, not because they were thinking: "We're bored, let's go find a land for our nice Jewish chums".

And there really was NO Ottoman control anywhere after the war.

No one claimed there was.

3) It is interesting Sharif Husayn DID sign over the land to the British.

The people of Palestine shouldn't have had their lands taken away because some failed leader gave away their land. Could you give me a link about this anyway? A few google searches turned up little about the subject.

It has happened so many times in history I dont care. Population shifts. People are displaced. It happens. Stop complaning. Deal with it.

Look, it's not like I wake up everyday angry at Israel. Like you said: shit happens. But the founding of Israel was nothing better than a crime and I hate it when people try to justify it, especially when their arguments are as lame as the topic starter's. If some random dude makes a topic defending or justifying the Gulags or Japanese forced prostitution in WW2 then I'll also post about it (if I'm in the mood). That's not what I call 'complaining'.

[therealsylvos]

At 12/29/05 05:23 PM, lapis wrote:

:stuff
the answer to your argument is thus. they conquered it. their living their now. it theirs.
other wise americans have no right to live here because the people that got were iiimmmmigggraaannntttsssssso it really belongs to the native americans.
i know many of you will flame my ass for this but yes "might makes right"

[Demosthenez]

At 12/29/05 06:30 PM, lapis wrote: I'm sure there were plenty of reasons why the British took the land, but I'm sure their sympathy for the Jews was one of the least. Their campaign was focused against the Turks all through Arabia and not just aimed at conquering Palestine for the Jews. They had promised to back the Arab revolt so they were also sort of obliged to intervene.

Of course not.

I was mainly adressing the Balfour Decleration. Sorry, I realize looking at my points there is no real coherence to them.

The only reason the British were involved in the region in the first place was because they needed to protect Egypt, Aden, Basra, and Indian intrests. The Russians could and would have knocked the Ottomans out of the war in 1917 if not for the revolution. British involvement was just in the intrests of protection of their territories and, like you pointed out, needed moral victories in light of the stalemate in Western Europe.

My point was the Balfour Delcleration was to help draw America into the war.

The people of Palestine shouldn't have had their lands taken away because some failed leader gave away their land. Could you give me a link about this anyway? A few google searches turned up little about the subject.

Sorry, I totally screwed up here. Sharif Husayn never offically signed anything agreeing to all the British actions but then again the British never offically broke their word to him in what they told him in his correspondences with McMahon. There was an Arab state. There were Arab leaders. A confederation of Arab states were created. Portions of Jordan were not promised. Iraq was in no ways promised. Turkey was in no way promised. Lebanon was in no way promised. Jerusalem was in no way promised.

I read what McMahon wrote to Husayn. It is very ambigious which is likely why he never really boke his word.

Faisal I signed an agreement with Weizmann agreeing to a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That is true and Im positive of this.

[HighlyIllogical]

We also have to know that the Palestinians, during WWII, were Nazi supporters. Namely the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

[Lucky-Mabey]

Palistine is a more specific group of Arabs its the equivilant of people from the UK and Europeans. Or people from Lousiana and Americans its more or less a more pinpoint group in my understanding.

[RedSkunk]

At 12/30/05 12:33 PM, mackid wrote: We also have to know that the Palestinians, during WWII, were Nazi supporters. Namely the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

That seems totally irrelevent here. And you sort of dumb down the debate by simply saying "Palestinians" when you meant Arab Palestinians. There is an ad on the last page of the current Nation, that supposedly refutes "arab myths" about Palestinians, and one mentioned that in WW2, the Jews living in Palestine, who had a brigade siding with the allies, named their brigade the "Palestinian" something or other brigade.

But that is irrelevent. Palestine was never a soveriegn nation before the creation of Israel, sure. But there is evidence of a unique Palestinian identity, starting in the 1800's. Someone said that the word "Palestine" was not used to describe this area before 1948. That's incorrect. The area was indeed referred to as Palestine when it was under Ottoman rule, and during the British Mandate, the people living there were referred to as Palestinians - whether they were Arab or Jewish.

But still, this is beside the point. Whether or not there was a firmly established Arab Palestinian identity before 1948 (and most people including myself would say, no, there wasn't), there certainly is now. The term Palestinian was defined in 1968 as "'those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled' and their descendants through the male line." This is a sufficent definition for me. It is self-evident that this is a unique group by today. They are second class citizens in Israel, the Occupied Territories, as well as the states they were expelled / moved to (ie., Jordan & others). They are a unique group today. This debate seems - to me at least - to be pushed by Zionists looking for a way to deny their right to a homeland. But I don't think it's a very strong argument.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 12/30/05 01:47 PM, red_skunk wrote: Palestine was never a soveriegn nation before the creation of Israel, sure. But there is evidence of a unique Palestinian identity, starting in the 1800's. Someone said that the word "Palestine" was not used to describe this area before 1948. That's incorrect. The area was indeed referred to as Palestine when it was under Ottoman rule, and during the British Mandate, the people living there were referred to as Palestinians - whether they were Arab or Jewish.

Fine, so most of the land was purchased, given or conquered. So it's land that's legally controlled by Israel.

But still, this is beside the point. Whether or not there was a firmly established Arab Palestinian identity before 1948 (and most people including myself would say, no, there wasn't), there certainly is now. The term Palestinian was defined in 1968 as "'those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled' and their descendants through the male line." This is a sufficent definition for me.

Irrelevant. They are simply Arabs. No distinct culture, political or religious views.

It is self-evident that this is a unique group by today. They are second class citizens in Israel, the Occupied Territories, as well as the states they were expelled / moved to (ie., Jordan & others). They are a unique group today. This debate seems - to me at least - to be pushed by Zionists looking for a way to deny their right to a homeland. But I don't think it's a very strong argument.

Not only are these people not a unique group, they are NOT second class citizens. Like all residents, they have basic rights of speech, press, freedom of religion etc. Find me any proof that they're second class. Bullshit is the only thing you're spewing. And, of course, the treatment of gay men is abominable under the PA. They're hung by the neck, shot, tortured etc. There are no legal protections for ANYONE under the PA, only under Israeli law.

[ReiperX]

At 12/30/05 10:31 PM, mackid wrote:

At 12/30/05 01:47 PM, red_skunk wrote: Palestine was never a soveriegn nation before the creation of Israel, sure. But there is evidence of a unique Palestinian identity, starting in the 1800's. Someone said that the word "Palestine" was not used to describe this area before 1948. That's incorrect. The area was indeed referred to as Palestine when it was under Ottoman rule, and during the British Mandate, the people living there were referred to as Palestinians - whether they were Arab or Jewish.

Fine, so most of the land was purchased, given or conquered. So it's land that's legally controlled by Israel.

It was taken away from the people living there and given to the Jews. You'd be a little pissed if I came in, took your house and gave it to a Katrina victim just because they suffered during the hurricane and afterwards.

But still, this is beside the point. Whether or not there was a firmly established Arab Palestinian identity before 1948 (and most people including myself would say, no, there wasn't), there certainly is now. The term Palestinian was defined in 1968 as "'those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled' and their descendants through the male line." This is a sufficent definition for me.

Irrelevant. They are simply Arabs. No distinct culture, political or religious views.

Arabs who's ancestors had been living on that land for hundreds of years. Yes they are Arabian, we call them Palestinian because thats what their certain group is called, its like calling people in Iran Iranian although they are Arabian.

It is self-evident that this is a unique group by today. They are second class citizens in Israel, the Occupied Territories, as well as the states they were expelled / moved to (ie., Jordan & others). They are a unique group today. This debate seems - to me at least - to be pushed by Zionists looking for a way to deny their right to a homeland. But I don't think it's a very strong argument.

Not only are these people not a unique group, they are NOT second class citizens. Like all residents, they have basic rights of speech, press, freedom of religion etc. Find me any proof that they're second class. Bullshit is the only thing you're spewing. And, of course, the treatment of gay men is abominable under the PA. They're hung by the neck, shot, tortured etc. There are no legal protections for ANYONE under the PA, only under Israeli law.

Also many are forced to move either by police/military comming in or a bulldozer/tank simply running over your home. You have Israeli tanks firing into towns and suburbs, and I'm willing to bet many more Innocent people are hurt or killed than the ones that are doing attacks against Israel. I'm not saying that the attacks on Israel by some of them are justified, I don't think they are. But at the same time there are far too many innocents on both sides being killed, mamed, or losing their loved ones. If both sides could actually have equal rights and live peacfully it would be great. But its kinda hard to when your land is taken away from you and you have no say in it.

[lapis]

At 12/30/05 10:31 PM, mackid wrote: Fine, so most of the land was purchased, given

Perhaps legal but moral? If it was given by Ottomans and Brits then one might wonder what right they had to sell or give away the land on which other people are living. There had already been Palestinian Arab protests against Ottoman land sales in the late 19th century ("Though there had already been Arab protests to the Ottoman authorities in the 1880s against land sales to foreign Jews"). There were also protests in 1921 against the Brits:

"Throughout the region, Arabs were angered by Britain's failure to fulfill its promise to create an independent Arab state, and many opposed British and French control as a violation of their right to self-determination.
In Palestine, the situation was more complicated because of the British promise to support the creation of a Jewish national home. The rising tide of European Jewish immigration, land purchases and settlement in Palestine generated increasing resistance by Palestinian Arab peasants, journalists and political figures. They feared that this would lead eventually to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Palestinian Arabs opposed the British Mandate because it thwarted their aspirations for self-rule, and opposed massive Jewish immigration because it threatened their position in the country."

I'm sure some Arabs sold their land to Jews but in those cases I doubt they sold it with the intention of an independent nation being founded on it.

or conquered. So it's land that's legally controlled by Israel.

Conquering land doesn't give you moral ownership. Legal ownership perhaps, because the strongest parties dictate the laws. By that logic Stalin's relocation and mass murder programs were also legal though. One might doubt if they were to be considered justified and to be approved of.

Irrelevant. They are simply Arabs. No distinct culture, political or religious views.

Ridiculous. They differ from other Arabs because of their descendance. Modern day Palestinians are the only Arabs who descend from Arabs who lived in Palestine in 1947/1948, thus making them a distinct ethnic group. Next you'll argue that Jews and Arabs are basically the same people because they all speak semitic languages, descend from the same people and worship one God.

[OdINIzM]

Palersinians are arabs, but with a mix of turks and huns.

[lapis]

At 12/31/05 09:47 AM, OdINIzM wrote: Palersinians are arabs, but with a mix of turks and huns.

I doubt that the Turks intermarried with the locals to an extent where you can call Palestinians Turkish for a part. I can't see how they are related to the Huns in any way, I don't think the Huns ever set foot in the Middle East and the Mongols under Hülegü Khan were beat by crusaders and mamelukes in Palestine.

One more minor correction:

At 12/31/05 03:39 AM, ReiperX wrote: its like calling people in Iran Iranian although they are Arabian.

The Iranians descend from the Persians which were Indo-Europeans whereas the Arabs are a Semitic people. Your point still stands of course but you unfortunately picked the wrong people, Iraqis or Syrians would be a better example :)

[HighlyIllogical]

It's all irelevant. The Palestinians aren't distinct-they have the same culture, religion, dress etc. as other Arabs, so this eliminates the argument of them having a right to a sovereign land as they are some sort of distinct group. Which they're not.

[RedSkunk]

At 12/30/05 10:31 PM, mackid wrote: Fine, so most of the land was purchased, given or conquered. So it's land that's legally controlled by Israel.

I never said anything about Israel's claim to the land, or lack thereof. Aren't we talking about the Palestinian Arabs?

Irrelevant. They are simply Arabs. No distinct culture, political or religious views.

No, that's not true. it's sort of ludicrious for you to sit there, and proclaim a cultural group non-existent. You saying they aren't a group doesn't make it true. I could just as easily say that Zionism is a complete scam. Jews have absolutely nothing in common - the practices between those living in, say, Russia, and those in Ethiopia, are completely disconnected, and the only thing they share in common is the name. But of course, I wouldn't say that, because I'm not interested in the dissolution of Israel. My previous remark about people attacking the Palestinian group purely for political interests seems to be spot on in your case. Palestinians are not Jordanian, they are not Syrian, they are not a part of any other surrounding country or group. They've lived in Palestine, have collectively dealt with problems unique to them, and most importantly, consider themselves Palestinians. Here's a quick wikipedia for your consideration.

Not only are these people not a unique group, they are NOT second class citizens. Like all residents, they have basic rights of speech, press, freedom of religion etc. Find me any proof that they're second class. Bullshit is the only thing you're spewing.

Israel's horrendous treatment of Arab Palestinians (whether in the Occupied Terrorities or Israel itself) is self-evident and common knowledge, so I'll focus on the state of Palestinians who fled to neighboring countries. This link from a pro-Zionist site should do quite nicely. I don't readily carry around "proof" of every single thing I know to be true, so it's just the result of a quick google.

And, of course, the treatment of gay men is abominable under the PA. They're hung by the neck, shot, tortured etc. There are no legal protections for ANYONE under the PA, only under Israeli law.

Completely irrelevant, once again. You should dedicate less time to smearing this "nonexistent group", and more time actually forming a coherent argument. The keyword there is "argument", which means not just repeating something over and over. If the majority of people in the world consider the Palestinians a unique ethnic group, then what exactly is your position based on?

[lapis]

At 12/31/05 11:27 AM, mackid wrote: It's all irelevant. The Palestinians aren't distinct-they have the same culture, religion, dress etc. as other Arabs, so this eliminates the argument of them having a right to a sovereign land as they are some sort of distinct group. Which they're not.

Okay, right. If their only argument was: 'we should get a country because we are a distinct ethnic group' then their claim would be wrong. Not because they aren't different from other Arabs (which they are, due to descendance), but because the argument itself would be lousy. Basques, Inuit and Gypsies are also distinct ethnic groups but they don't get to have their own country either.

The main justification for the Palestinians wanting a sovereign nation on the land is that the land was morally theirs, and not Israeli, by heritage. I haven't seen you counter this.