Talk:History of Palestine
|
|
- They would say that this history writing is only marginally superior to the Biblical history, which has been scientifically disproven yet remain popular as a base for claims to Palestine.
Note that the section does not deal with each the sides' etiological claims, but rather with a historical perspective. Topic-wise, I have heard no serious scholars arguing so far there wasn't a Jewish state in Palestine for much of the 1st millennium B.C. Evidence (archaeological and in the records of other peoples) clearly indicates that there was such a state. If you care to present your argument, please present it fully.
As to the "And that's coming from you. Ha!" part, I think that if you feel that my argumentation is insufficient, you should probably better me by writing better argumentation. --Uri
Is any of the following correct?
- Approximately 720,000 Arabs, encouraged by their leaders to leave, fled from what is now Israel between April and December, 1948.(1) The Arab leaders promised them that they would soon be able to return following Israel's destruction. In some cases the Jews, including Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, urged the Arabs to remain, promising that they would not be harmed.(2) Those who remained became full and equal citizens of Israel, while those who chose to leave went to neighboring Arab states. Instead of welcoming their Arab brothers, and integrating them into the mainstream of their societies, the Arab states kept them in squalid refugee camps and used these Palestinians refugees as political pawns in their fight against Israel. [1] (http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/refuge.html)
--Ed Poor
I'm not sure any of that ethnographic analysis in the second section really belongs in a "History of Palestine" article. It might be better placed in a page more closely related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like that one. In my opinion this article should stick to the political history per se as much as possible, meaning who invaded what when, territorial and monarchial stuff, and downplay the ethnic considerations. -- Branden
The article says Romans restored (rather than introduced) the name Palestine after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Are there any reliable sources for this? -- Cema 14:34 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
The article implies the word Palestinian referred to Arabs in the first half of the XX century, whereas in fact the term Palestinian was at the time applied to anyone living in Palestine, Arab or Jew (or anyone else). I did not see any sources that would indicate this exclusive use before the creation of the state of Israel, after which the word Palestinian was reserved for non-Israeli citizens (almost all Arabs). I understand this is a charged topic; then the factual correctness is even more important, IMHO. Sources, anyone? -- Cema 14:34 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
I propose to delete the passage attributed to "Zahir Muhsein" unless someone can supply evidence that the interview is genuine and not just an extreme view from an unimportant person. There are hundreds of mentions of "Zahir Muhsein" on the web but I can't find a single one that is not merely repeating this "quotation" (though with variations even in the name of the newspaper). It looks to me like "Zahir Muhsein" is unworthy of mention here. Of course the pan-Arab view of things was very common amongst Palestinian Arabs until the middle of the 20th century, but the implication that it is a significant viewpoint in the PLO needs better proof. - bdm
Ok, I found out more about "Zahir Muhsein" and deleted the quote even though it is probably genuine. The problem is that it is highly misleading. Zuhayr Muhsin was the Secretary General of the group Sa`iqa which consisted of mostly of Syrian Ba'athists and was established by the Syrian government in opposition to Fatah. His membership of the PLO was due to pressure from Syria even though his pan-Arab position (i.e. the Syrian position) put him at constant conflict with the mainstream Palestinian nationalists. At one point he even (allegedly) supported Syrian armed conflict against the PLO in Lebanon. In 1979 he was assassinated. So he was indeed a Palestinian with pan-Arab political views but he was not representative of Palestinians generally and certainly not of the PLO.
I don't know why the Meir quotation is there either. What point is being made? Btw, the reference is Sunday Times (London) 15 June 1969. -- bdm
- Over the last thousand years the population of Palestine has comprised various ethnic groups, including Syrian Arabs, Egyptian Arabs, Arab immigrants from the Arabian peninsula, Bedouins, Druze, Jews, Turks, and a smaller number of people from other areas.
This is a very problematic sentence that seems to be constructed simply to deny the existence of an indigenous population. Actually there is no better case for the phrase "Syrian Arab" than there is for "Palestinian Arab", and if we are talking about previous centuries we should remember that Palestine was regarded as a part of Syria for a very long time. So the sentence is not even meaningful. The point that should be made, but isn't, is that the population of Palestine has been predominantly Arab for a long time (prior to the Zionist influx) and a large part of the Arab population had long roots in Palestine. This was especially true of the agricultural class and less true of the middle class (who generally belonged to families with branches all over the middle east).
Another complaint is that the history section at the end is simply the history of Jews in Palestine. That is a worthy subject but it does not qualify as a "History of Palestine". The part between approximately 135 and 1948 should be rewritten in a more balanced fashion. -- bdm
Let's look at OneVoice's addition: "Significant immigration to the area occurred before 1948, Jews from Europe and approximately 200,000 Arabs from the desert which comprised 12% of the Arab population.". The 200,000 claim is "per Morris", according to OneVoice, so we open "Israel's Border Wars" at page 29 to read:
- Some Israeli officials, trying to explain the persistence of the infiltration phenomenon during the 1950s, linked it to the bedouin life-style and to the urbanization and pauperization that had drawn or pushed thousands of rural Arabs to Palestine's burgeoning towns during Ottoman and British Mandate rule. Perhaps as many as 200,000 Arabs had moved, between 1930 and 1945, from the desert to the prospering coastal areas of Palestine and Lebanon. (with citation of Israeli documents dated 1952 and 1954)
- Last sentence of the paragraph was omitted by Zero0000. It reads Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power.
- The line is footnoted as follows: 'The Situation along the Israel-Jordan Border and Proposals to Ameliorate It'. Y. Palmon, undated (emphasis added ), but with a covering note, B. Yakutieli to Rafael, 25 Feb, 1954, ISA PMO 5433/23. See also 'Arab Infiltration into Israel', ed. Z. Ne'eman, Israel Foreign Ministry Research Dept., 10 July[sic] 1952 ISA FM 2474/13 aleph. OneVoice 22:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Those of us who are familiar with OneVoice's style will not be surprised that yet again he is trying to deceive us. Whereas Morris said "perhaps as many as 200,000", OneVoice said "approximately 200,000". Much worse, Morris said "Palestine and Lebanon" but OneVoice dropped off Lebanon. Morris wrote "from the desert to the prospering coastal areas" but OneVoice wrote "to the area [that is, to Palestine]...from the desert" completely ignoring the fact that a large part of the desert was inside Palestine. Beyond these blatant distortions of the text, the paragraph in question is Morris's recounting of the opinions of "some Israeli officials". He doesn't say that he accepts this opinion! Of course Morris (as all historians of the subject) is well aware of the large body of scholarly literature that has established that most of the permanent Arab population movement into the coastal towns during the Mandate period came from the hilly semi-desert regions of what is now called the West Bank. As for the Ottoman period, the coastal towns did not grow particularly in relation to the inland areas at all (see Ruth Kark's study). There's no reason Morris should elaborate on this in his book because it is off-topic; he is just mentioning one Israeli opinion in passing before moving on to things he considers more important. --Zero 02:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000 you left out the last sentence of that paragraph...Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power. The phrase "Some Israeli officials," applies to that one sentence only, not the entire paragraph. Morris does not indicate that Lebanon exerted a magnetic power over these immigrates. Why move from one relatively poor area to another, unless it is a staging ground to move to a relatively prosperous area. We see the same behavior in the migration of Gaza refugees to the relatively prosperous West Bank. OneVoice 13:24, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- "continued to exert" means after 1948. Obviously. --Zero 21:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"continued to exert" refers to the last date in the paragraph: 1945. OneVoice 21:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, can we stop this edit war. I have asked both Stevertigo and UncleEd to take a look. Please join us at the Oasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Arab-Israeli_conflict/Oasis). OneVoice 23:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Page protected because of edit war. -- Viajero 23:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Page editted, Benny Morris's statements deleted by Viajero. Page protected by Viajero OneVoice 23:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- He protected the version prior to the reversion cycle (except for a non-controversial edit). That is what most sysops do. --Zero 00:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Morris on Arab immigration
What's wrong with included Morris's claim?
- One noted historian, Benny Morris, holds that 200,000 Arabs from the desert moved into the coastal areas of Palestine and Lebanon due the relatively prosperous conditions.
Okay, maybe we could change noted historian to "historian". But if that's what the guy really says, it's his POV and he's entitled to it. I say unprotect the article put it back in. --Uncle Ed 20:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ed, please pay attention! Morris did not make that claim at all. He wouldn't make such a stupid claim and the only source OneVoice has does not show him making it. --Zero 22:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, Zero0000 and I both would like to read the following paragraph taken verbatim from Morris's book and decide what it means:
- Some Israeli officials, trying to explain the persistence of the infiltration phenomenon during the 1950s, linked it to the bedouin life-style and to the urbanization and pauperization that had drawn or pushed thousands of rural Arabs to Palestine's burgeoning towns during Ottoman and British Mandate rule. Perhaps as many as 200,000 Arabs had moved, between 1930 and 1945, from the desert to the prospering coastal areas of Palestine and Lebanon. Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power.
The very last line has a footnote attached. The footnote reads as follows:
- 'The Situation along the Israel-Jordan Border and Proposals to Ameliorate It'. Y. Palmon, undated (emphasis added ), but with a covering note, B. Yakutieli to Rafael, 25 Feb, 1954, ISA PMO 5433/23. See also 'Arab Infiltration into Israel', ed. Z. Ne'eman, Israel Foreign Ministry Research Dept., 10 July 1952 ISA FM 2474/13 aleph.
Zero0000, could you check my quoting please. Errors are always possible. I may have made an error. That has happened before in my life. OneVoice 22:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've already explained this. One more time, Morris is describing a theory that was expounded by a few Israeli officials in the 1950s. He introduces that theory in the first sentence and then expands on it in the rest of the paragraph. The last sentence means "According to this theory, the phenomenon of Palestinians entering Israel in the 1950s was similar to the phenomenon of Arabs moving to the coastal plain prior to 1945." The use of the word "Israel" in the last sentence is enough to prove that it is not intended as an explanation of the previous sentence since Israel did not exist before 1948. Rather, it is a repetition of the first sentence and serves to summarise the paragraph.
The footnote applies to the whole paragraph and not only to the last sentence; the officials listed in the footnote are the officials mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. I'm sure this understanding of the paragraph would be shared by anyone with experience of academic historical writing as it is an entirely standard paragraph structure. It is not regarded as necessary to add "according to X" on every sentence.
As for Morris's own opinion of this 1950s theory, he doesn't give it in this paragraph at all. He certainly does not state that he agrees with it, or that he agrees with any of the claims that had been brought in support of it. To infer his opinion you have to read more of the section. His next paragraph begins "But the majority of observers looked to more specific and recent causes." and from the fact that he then forgets the 1950s theory altogether and spends a large part of his book on the specific and recent causes we can infer that he found the 1950s theory unconvincing.
Returning to the sentence about the 200,000, Morris does not clearly indicate whether he believes it or whether he is merely reporting the claim. However, even if he clearly supported it, what would it mean? No distinction is made between "Palestine" and "Lebanon" and no definition of "the desert" is given. Remember that lots of Palestine was desert. It is not possible from this to infer anything quantitative about movement of people from outside Palestine to inside Palestine, which is what OneVoice is trying to do. Actually there is a significant literature on this topic which I partly alluded to above. Nothing in this paragraph suggests that Morris disagrees with the scholarly consensus.
I'm writing this for people like Ed who may wish to understand the issues. As far as OneVoice is concerned, the moment he deliberately distorted the text (as I documented above) he forfeited his right to be treated as one of this group.
--Zero 04:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It sounds like I'm in some sort of group :-) Hooray! I like togetherness...
It also sounds like the opinion cited is not that of Morris but of some former Israeli officials. Should the text say this?
- Morris reports that various Israeli officials asserted in the 1950s that 20,000 to 200,000 Arabs moved to Palestine to enjoy the prosperity the Jews brought to the region?
Or something like this...
- In the 1950s, various Israeli officials subscribed to the theory that 20,000 to 200,000 Arabs had moved to Palestine to enjoy the prosperity the Jewish immigrants brought to the region. (footnote or link to Morris)
--Uncle Ed 16:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll trust you judgement Ed. OneVoice 19:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, but One + Zero = infinite loop
- No, seriously, I think we should work on it a bit more in talk first. Why don't you two discuss it and come to agreement on the wording of the Morris reference? You don't need me for that... --Uncle Ed 20:57, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The mention by Morris is a minor historical footnote that does not belong at all in our article. There are far more detailed analyses of this question that are much more deserving of mention. --Zero 00:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Would you like to add the "far more detailed analyses of this question" ? or choosing not to then to add Morris's material? OneVoice 02:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, would you like to add the material to which you are referring as an alternative to Morris's information OneVoice 15:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Excuse me for butting in, but since this concerns 20th century Palestine maybe it go in British Mandate of Palestine. --Uncle Ed 21:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
template
I've made a little table for the history of Palestine, as I saw this in the pages to split area: Template:History of Palestine
- The articles don't exist yet, so the Template shouldn't be inserted yet, and the articles listed overlap with many articles that do exist. Perhaps you should look over the existing articles first. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 01:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see a need to split it. If the information was arranged in chronological order and redundant/duplicate material removed, it would be half the size and much more understandable. 24.64.166.191 06:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
for nineteen centuries
Someone replaced this sentence and Jayjg restored it: For nineteen hundred years afterwards, the region was subject to successive waves of invaders, each of which left some mark on its people and landscape. I don't like either version. The reason I don't like this one is that it sounds too much like the standard Zionist summary "The Jews were there, then it was a wild place for 1900 years, then the Jews returned." For one thing, the region was subject to successive waves of invaders before AD78 as well and I'm not sure there were fewer of them before than there were after. Of course these 1900 years are expanded on later in the article, but the dismissive way they are treated in the introduction is not right. Probably the introduction should be rewritten to a smaller size, with details left until later. How about an itemised time-line with about 20 steps starting with the earliest known inhabitation and ending in 1948? --Zero 01:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What it was replaced with was even more POV. Your suggestion is good. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 02:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Palestine - a Roman word...
Every source I have ever seen indicates that "Palestine" was a term introduced by the Romans, and not in use before that. Prior to the Roman conquest, the land was Canaan, or Judea & Samaria, but not Palestine. I don't know what source you got this from, and if you're right, then I apologize, but it sounds like the sort of thing that might have been invented (twisted just slightly) so as to give the current Arabs, likely not directly ethnically/genetically related to the Philistines, a stronger claim to the land.
LordAmeth 17:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You should mistrust your sources if they make such elementary errors. As the article states, the name was used by the Greeks at least as early as 500BC. An internet resource unlikely to be spreading Arab propaganda is the Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=31&letter=P). --Zero 23:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River
There is no indication of who "considered" this. Perfect example of "weasel words". Any objection to deleting this? 24.64.166.191 07:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) So I have deleted the sentence: "Nevertheless, the fact that "Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River continues even today to have significance in political discourse." If someone can say who "considered" this (and when) and tell us what this "political discourse" is about I will be interested to read it.24.64.166.191 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Zionists did, and many still do, and it is often brought up in political discource, particularly when people argue that Israel currently occupies only 17.5% of the original mandate.[2] (http://www.hasbara.us/jewish_and_arab_palestinian_refugees.html) Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Palestinians "have not been able to return"
They are perfectly able to return - many live within easy walking distance from their homes. I have changed this to "have not been allowed to return".24.64.166.191 04:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)