Talk:Palestine

The book sources
I am no expert and naturally I have not read either book, but it seems to me they are both (judging alone by their title, none of the authors ring a bell) written from a particular POV. Are there better, more neutral sources? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Why I made the latest reversion
There were several edits made to the article which were added without any source and written in such a way as to bias the reader toward one particular viewpoint. I fully understand that RationalWiki has SPOV rather than Neutral POV, but that still doesn't excuse the text that was added here.

What's the problem here? Unsourced statements and between-the-lines innuendo are big problems with these edits, but the biggest problem is that the editor is ideologically-driven to edit the article in favor of one side, in a topic that this community has repeatedly fought over in the past and decided should be neutral (unlike articles on religion or politics). 23:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of an edit that is actually pretty good. I'll restore that right after I hit "save page" here.
 * This edit, on the other hand, is more insidious. Just click the link and read it. The author is trying to bias the article against Palestinians (who he calls "Arabs"), even referring to violent unrest between both sides as a "bloody Arab revolt", in a clear example of racism. The author inserted a bit about "Arab extremism", which, flipped on the other side, would be labelled by everyone as antisemitic ("Jew extremism").
 * I mentioned the author did not use any sources for his additions. Yet immediately after, he shamelessly demands sources be added for claims he personally disagrees with! ("get a source for it if you want it reinserted.") This double standard for sourced material indicates the author is not ready to make sourced, unbiased edits.
 * This edit was over a particularly controversial map, fiercely fought over by many banned editors in the past. Though the addition here was useful, it is biased in favor of the Israeli side. The fact that neighboring states rejected the partition plan is brought up by the author yet again, in an effort to make the reader dislike the countries in question.
 * Um, Palestinians are Arabs, "Arab" is primarily assigned by the language the population speaks, not by ethnicity. It isn't actually a "race" per se at all, even in the sense race exists as a concept. It seems more like you regard Arab as a loaded term and so assume everyone else does too, really, and it's actually technically more accurate since not all Palestinians are Arabs, and it was Arab Palestinians and other non-Palestinian Arabs involved in doing these things (indeed, one of the main groups in the 1936 revolt was the "Arab Higher Committee:" most likely he referred to it as an Arab revolt because that is what historians call it), as part of one of several movements that could be described as "Arab nationalism" in the region over the years. Given the paragraph also uses "zionist" (ie "Jewish nationalist") rather than "Jew" or "Israeli," it seems more like he was trying to be more precise and equal with the language used.
 * And really, you object to naming states that did reject the partition plan, and revert to a version of the map that declares the Israelis guilty of "land theft?" How is that supposed to be less biased? Nog Bogmire (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the idea that language (rather than group self-identity) should be what we use to call people by is ridiculous. To say an Irishman, a Jamaican, an American, and an Australian are all "English" is as equally absurd as pigeonholing all Palestinians under the label "Arab" just because they speak the same language. Never mind the fact that some are Christians rather than Muslims, or that some are Bedouin rather than urbanites. They all speak the same language, so they're ARAB! eyeroll
 * More to the main point, "Arab" is being used as a loaded term here, whether I "regard Arab as a loaded term" or not. Clearly the author is using the term in place of the word Palestinian to bias the opinion of the reader. The author wants the reader to think "oh, Arabs!" in a dogwhistle to make them dislike the Palestinian side here and view them as part of a larger whole.
 * Finally, I did not reject adding more explanation to the caption. Rather, I disagreed with the content and style of what the author added. The author used loaded phrases like "rejected by the Arab side" that implied the Arab side was something more than a disparate group of six countries that agreed on almost nothing else. 23:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Language is how the Arab League defines the Arab world, so now you're trying to argue with Arabs over who Arabs are.
 * And no, it is not being used as a "loaded term." Historians on both sides refer to the 1936 conflict as the Arab Revolt. One of the main parties involved was the Arab Higher Committee, which was the central political body of Arab Palestinians. The Palestinian Arabs identified as Arabs, as did those who came from outside Palestine to support the revolt such as the Society for the Defense of Palestine, who were Sunni Arabs from Iraq. They were part of a larger whole. Stop trying to enforce the present on the past.
 * And it really doesn't matter what the other countries disagreed on if they were all in agreement about that particular thing. Nog Bogmire (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Language is how the Arab League defines the Arab world, so now you're trying to argue with Arabs over who Arabs are." No, I'm arguing with a biased editor over whether Palestinians should be called "Arabs" rather than the more accurate term for them that they call themselves and the Arab League calls them. It's YOU who are arguing this. 00:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "it really doesn't matter what the other countries disagreed on if they were all in agreement about that particular thing." Oh my God, that is one of the stupid things I've ever read. Grouping them all together here is misleading. It implies they had unity, which they didn't. Arab League countries largely did not coordinate their troop movements with one another during the first war, which played a large role in their defeat. And later on, in another war, this group of countries lost because one of them ratted all the others out and told Israel about the plan for surprise attack, allowing the Israelis ample time to prepare for the battle! Syrians hated Egyptians (why they failed to unite), Iraqis hated Syrians (hence the Ba'ath Party split), Syrians hated Lebanese (hence the invasion and diplomatic crises). It's just misleading to say "Arab side did X". 00:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean the "more accurate term" that's less accurate since the revolt had fighters from Syria and Iraq, historians refer to the Arab Revolt as the Arab Revolt, and the main Palestinian political body at the time was called the Arab Higher Committee? The modern Palestinian political identity formed much later than this and was cemented in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988, in the period being talked about, they thought of themselves as Arabs. As I said, you're trying to impose the present on the past.
 * And the second point is you reading things into this that aren't there. The countries that objected to the plan were Arab countries. That's a simple fact. They did have unity: they all did the same thing. Nog Bogmire (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I'm trying to impose the present on the past. Instead I'm trying to use terms that accurately describe who we're talking about. It's not an "Arab state", it's a Palestinian state. What makes it that? Not the ethnicity of the majority living there (it would've contained many Jews, Christians, and Bedouins), but rather the group identity of those people (which namely was "we don't want this Zionist state of Israel to be created on this land, we don't like Jews who came from Europe buying this land and taking over this area). We need to use the right terms here, because terms can be very charged with connotation in divisive conflicts like this one.
 * "The countries that objected to the plan were Arab countries. That's a simple fact." Ok, I want you to do me a favor. Go back to 1946 and ask a Druze from Suwayda what ethnicity he is. Then go talk to a Bedouin herder in the Negev and ask what his race is. Ask the same thing of a Christian in Beirut. Let me give you a hint: they wouldn't have all told you "I'M ARAB!". Maybe that should clue you in as to why distinguishing between different nationalities is important here. 00:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it was not a Palestinian state, at the time it was thought of as an Arab state, and the people thought of themselves as Arabs. The earliest foundational dialogs of Palestinian nationalist thought pre-date the British Mandate, nevermind Zionism. In the The First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations in 1919, it was resolved that "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time" but this fell apart when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The words "Palestinian" and "Arab" are effectively interchangeable at the time being talked about: as late as 1948 at the Jericho Conference, 2,000 Palestinian Arab deligates supported a resolution calling for "the unification of Palestine and Transjordan as a step toward full Arab unity." (They were probably dissuaded from this by Egypt and Jordan fucking them over).
 * What you're trying to do is apply the modern idea of a Palestinian state, distinct from other Arab states, backwards to the 30s, even though some historians place the birth of this concept as late as the 60s with the formation of the PLO, because you think acknowledging Palestine's real, messy history makes it look bad. By all accounts, in the 30s Arab nationalists in Palestine weren't trying to form an independent state of Palestine, their goals were far broader and more to the effect of remaking the fallen Ottoman Empire.
 * Here's how it plays out: up until 1948, Palestinian nationalism is a subset of a greater Arab nationalist movement (hence the "Arab Higher Committee," the assistance from Syria and Iraq in 1936, and Syria hosting their exiled leaders during the same period), with the goal of building an Arab bloc similar to the fallen Ottoman Empire. Then Palestine is defeated and all but destroyed, 700,000 people are expelled in the Nakba, and the remainder are under occupation. Palestinian nationalism of any kind is suppressed, both by Israel and by Egypt and Jordan, Arab countries they thought were their allies in all this. From this, and a new generation of people who never lived in the good ol' days of the Ottoman Empire, comes a new nationalism, from a shattered people who just want to go home. No Pan-Arabism, no empire-restoring, they just want their nation, their Palestine. And then along come people like Arafat who say yes, we, on our own, can defy Israel, we can take our country back with our own hands rather than hoping someone else will give it back to us, and relying on others to do it for us will just get us screwed over again. This is the root of the modern Palestinian desire to make an entirely independent state, and as said, it's comparatively new.
 * Taking this away for your version (which boils their "identity" down to "we are a people because we hate Jews") does nothing more than turn them into an unchanging and extremely negative caricature of a people, purely reactive and without their own hopes and dreams. Referring to them as Palestinians rather than Palestinian Arabs in 1936 is as historically absurd as referring to the Normans as British, the Franks as French, or the Romans as Italians.
 * And good job being unable to tell the difference between one person and an entire country, that really shows you're the right person to be talking about national political identities. You'll find people in any nation who don't identify primarily as the identity that nation has overall: with your logic I also can't say America is a capitalist nation because I could find people in it who are communists. Also Persians aren't Arabs, because their primary language is Farsi, not Arabic. That's why Iran isn't part of the Arab League. Great job totally missing what he's talking about, though! Nog Bogmire (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He was making joke ya doofus Applesauce (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I kind of detected that. Nog Bogmire (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please Tell Me
That this isn't the Second Coming of the I/P clusterfuck. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oy vey, anudda shoah Sorry to necropost but looks like another Waambulance! from the Drama Hq of the world known as Phallestine.   00:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for an additional section
Here's a suggestion for an additional section. I think I'd like some suggestions for improvement. --2601:199:4181:E00:7D87:700E:3D66:3690 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

On a side note
Similarly to Tibet, it is important for people not interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to keep in mind that Palestine was not the peaceful, egalitarian nation that Roger Waters and other pro-Palestinian activists try to portray. It was just another boring, same-old Mediterranean territory, as mentioned at the beginning of "History", and there were conflicts not caused by the Zionists, such as with the Crusades, and violence and terrorism was common among both the Zionists and Palestinian Arabs. Fighting Israel's Zionist propaganda with (often times anti-Semitic) pro-Palestinian propaganda will do nothing to solve the problem in Palestine or create a agreeable peace deal for Israel and Palestine.
 * The writing is of poor quality. Questions a reader may ask themselves: "Who is Roger Waters?" "Who said it was a paradise?" "History, what?" "How are the Crusades relevant?". The section mentions a number of people and concepts without establishing their relevance. 23:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is a (dickish) rock musician who's pro-Palestinian statements border on antisemitism. --2601:199:4181:E00:3C03:FC9A:1CD0:94DC (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The Map and Six Day War
The map implies that Palestine (not the Mandate) was already an independent state and losing land through "theft", which is being dishonest and over simplifying the issue, this is a much better map the first few slides were partition proposals which were rejected by the Arab delegation it is actually the end stage of a plan proposed in 1947 where the Jewish State was largely in control of modern Israel's borders which gradually got smaller as the Arab delegation demanded more territory resulting in the "Palestine" in the first stage of the current map which was also refused and led to the first Arab-Israeli War and the Arab States invading the West Bank and Gaza. When Israel initially declared independence, it largely covered its original proposed borders plus what it managed to take from the invading Arab States.

The "land theft" that would lead to Israel covering the whole of the region is much more complicated. The Six Day War was a preemptive strike on the Arab States with the casus belli being the blockade of the straits of Tirol, which Israel had warned Egypt would be a declaration of war due to being a vital passageway. The crux of the Israeli stance is that because there was never a Palestinian state prior to 1967, the territories cannot be considered occupied according to the 2nd Article of the Fourth Geneva Convention which needs at least "2 Higher Councils" which is why they opt for the term "disputed", Palestine in this case legally can't be occupied because it is a void. Because Israel views the chain of events even before the blockade of Tirol as acts of aggression that made a preemptive war necessary, the Six Day War is seen as a defensive war. The International Court of Justice also states; "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title" which further muddies the legality of this "land theft" (the war itself, not the settlers) the only authority in the West Bank would've been Jordan who had invaded the region in '47 (also worth mentioning the near total annihilation of Jewish and Christian sites in East Jerusalem by Jordan in that period).

The Palestinian argument is based off of Jordan giving up its claims to the West Bank to the PA but the blurry part is that the PA is a completely new entity 27 years separated from the event in question on top of deriving its authority from Israel through the Oslo Accord on top of being given claims that were a result of an invasion and largely unrecognized annexation on Jordan's behalf, this is a very muddy and somewhat convoluted issue that is too simplified even by Rationalwiki's standards.

Unpopular opinion
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bS9wg612lz8 This guy has an unorthodox approach to this conflict. What do you guys think? Based or deranged? Note: This is not my opinion, I just blame the brits and avoid controversies. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs
 * Judging from a brief look at his other videos, he's just a moron. 15:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not asking about his other videos. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs
 * The linked video is so devoid of substance that the only way to wring any info out of it is broader context. And the broader context is that the person who made it is a moron. 16:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)