Talk:Palestinians/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
DNA Studies
This entire section needs to be overhauled. It does not agree with the individual articles on J2, J1, and probably others. Many statements are uncited.
174.102.212.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
Me too I agree with you this section is manipulated and does not reflect the true articles, also it is not clear at all because it mixed up Jews with Arabs and does not talk clearly about the Europeans-Jews. In addition, this section ignores many other studies' results about the Greek ethnic groups in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.65.61 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Sentence removed for discussion
I removed:
- Although there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine for most of recorded history, almost all Jews with family origins in Palestine prior to the First Aliyah are now Israeli citizens who no longer self-identify as Palestinians or speak Arabic.
The reasons: (1) "Most of recorded history" is a romantic weasel phrase, misleading since "recorded history" began, at a minimum, 2000 years before the first certain existence of Jews. (2) Actually the largest group of Jews residing in Palestine on the eve of the Zionist settlement was Yiddish speaking. (3) The claim "almost all Jews with family origins in Palestine prior to the First Aliyah are now Israeli citizens" is a demographic claim that needs a citation and is probably false. What about the large number who left for places like the USA? (4) The use of the designation "Palestinians" to describe a group of Jews was a Zionist invention. European Zionists started calling themselves that in the late 19th century, often before going to Palestine. This usage persisted until the 1940s and is already mentioned in the article. What is the evidence that pre-Zionism Jewish residents of Palestine ever called themselves Palestinians (other than to accept the designation that the British authorities gave to all residents of the mandate)? If there is evidence about that, it would be fine to include it but only with a good source. (5) Why is the language spoken today by the descendants of this tiny group relevant to this article? Zerotalk 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
DNA gene flow from Africa
The old study in 2003 (A study found that the Palestinians, like Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis, and Bedouins have what appears to be substantial gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa, amounting to 10-15% of lineages within the past three millennia.[97]) is wrong. It is proven now that L3 mtDNA haplogroup have traveled to the middle east 40000 years ago (according to genealogy project at National geographic-see J3) hence L3 is not subsaharan gene flow from recent history. The author hypothised (his premise of the study) that since contemporary jews don't have this L1-L3 then they were probably non existant in the establishment of the original jews in 1500 BC ( this is rediculous, since there is no scientific prof that indeed the contemporary jews are indeed descendents of the ancient jews-to the contrary according to Levy (mosaic of people) most contemporary jewish women are descendents of localized communities in central asia (caucasus and ukraine) who never been in the middle east ever! the same applies to the majority of ashkenazi jews men ( 35% from central asia-30% E3b of the Berber) and the rest J2 (not semitic). the study is racist and should not be mentioned here (racism against the palestinians!)Marioel (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It turned out later that the overwhelming majority 98% of jewish women were not ever in the middle east"
according to abstracts from khazaria.com genetics:
University College London study, 2002
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich. "Dad was out and about, while Mom stayed home." Jerusalem Post (June 16, 2002): 9. Excerpts:
"Data on the Y chromosome indicates that the males originated in the Middle East, while the mothers' mitochondrial DNA seems to indicate a local Diaspora origin in the female community founders.... [Karl Skorecki described the study as] 'very exciting' [and] 'very important'...."
Nicholas Wade. "In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots." The New York Times (May 14, 2002): F1 (col. 1). Excerpts:
"The emerging genetic picture is based largely on two studies, one published two years ago and the other this month, that together show that the men and women who founded the Jewish communities had surprisingly different genetic histories.... A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia, the former Soviet republic, to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men.... The women's genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations.... The new study, by Dr. David Goldstein, Dr. Mark Thomas and Dr. Neil Bradman of University College in London and other colleagues.Marioel (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
51% Claim is Inaccurate Based On Reference
Hi there,
The "51% of inhabitants" needs to be looked into. The source was misinterpreted. The WP article incorrectly includes everyone who doesn't identify themself as Jewish by religion as a Palestinian. Many secular Israelis don't identify with any religion.
The reference article stated:
11.43 million total.
-5.6 million people are Jewish.
-5.83 million people (51%) are not Jewish:
-- 0.32 million [Israeli] people characterized as "other non-Jews."
-- 2.46 million Palestinians in the West Bank
-- 1.55 million Palestinians residing in the Gaza Strip
-- 1.5 million Palestinians who are citizens of the State of Israel
> Total Palestinian: 5.51M/11.43M or 48.206%
> Total Israeli Jews: 5.6M/11.43M or 48.993%
> Total Israelis who do not identify as Jewish or Palestinian: 0.32M or 2.799%
- It's the 0.32M that matters to create the 51%.. Specifically, they are not Palestinians, otherwise they would be mentioned under the other 3 categories which encompass all Palestinian groups.
However, it is unclear what is inside that 0.32M figure. It could be secularized Jews, Israeli Christians who do not identify themselves as Palestinian, potentially Druze. (It is unclear how the Druze are catagorized.)
According to this data, in fact, the opposite is true: the 0.32 are non-Palestinian and hence 5.51M/11.43M are Palestinian, or 48.2%. Both Jews and Palestinians are a minority according to this report. And as a casual reader I felt mislead since that's a pretty important fact and most people don't read the footnotes.
Reading other footnotes, I think they need to be looked into as well or updated.
I'm not a regular so it is not my place to change the text. I'll leave that to the editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.243.199 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"Claim to ancient Canaanite lineage"?!
since when the reality is a "claim",the palestinians ARE Canaanites and putting it as a claim with all those jewish and zionist sources is a proof that its nothing but a try to erase the whole palestinian idenity.....in short that "Claim to ancient Canaanite lineage" section is very biased and unnatural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fad772 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it could be argued that the section slightly underrates the Palestinian claim to Canaanite lineage, however, the very next section contains a lucid description of the genetic evidence. However, to claim that Palestinians are Canaanites is a gross over-simplification. Palestinian stock includes Canaanite, Hebrew, Syrian/Aramean, Arabian, European, East African, etc etc. <eleland/talkedits> 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just regarding this with the origins of Palestinian Arabs and connection to Canaanite lineage, what books would you recommend ? I'm quite interested in this. Thanks. (Marinesuper (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC))
Palestinian people don't exist
Looks call a spade a spade - a distinct "Palestinian people" do not exist. Since when did Wikipedia become political? Why has this article been overlooked by the administration/peer review process? The Arabs living in the West bank considered themselves (until recently i.e. 1990s) a pan Arab nation with roots in Syria - There are plenty of "unbiased" sources on this issue such as Yasser Arafat, Edward Said and Noam Chomsky who can corroborate this. The article needs an overhaul. More RS, more NPOV, less editor bias. --Warm as ice (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's so boring to hear these kinds of political rants from people who refuse to understand that all identities are self-constructed. If you have reliable sources that say that Palestinians do not exist, please bring them to the table, and we can consider including them. But as you can see from the hundreds of sources cited in the article atttesting to the existence of a Palestinian people, those opinions would represent a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and deserve little space. Tiamuttalk 09:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- To what extent can one 'self construct' their identity for it to become recognized as fact? Maybe 40 years worth of propaganda ought to do the trick? The adjective "palestinian" prior to 1948 referred largely to the Jews living in the geographic area known as Palestine - a 200 year old Roman ploy to dissociate any Jewish links to the area.--Warm as ice (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be somewhat misinformed. You might want to read the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Palestine instead. It's quite informative. You can find it via the references in this article. The citation is right next to the sentence in the lead that says 'The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I'. Happy reading. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pages of pages of sources can be provided. It is not wikipedia's job to rewrite history. This article should be AFD'd - clearly two veteran editors won't yield to the newbie--Warm as ice (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Warm as ice, if Palestinian people do not exist, then why did you just change "Arabs" to "Palestinians" at 1929 Hebron massacre? Your type is regrettably common around here. I respectfully suggest you go away. Zerotalk 09:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was done to display the double standards held by some wikipedia editors like yorself [1]. Clearly my edits were going to be reverted. In 1929, the native residents in the area were 'Arabs', suddenly now they're "Palestinians". the article says so . . .--Warm as ice (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is an offence you can get banned for. Keep it up and you will be, that's for sure. Zerotalk 10:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was done to display the double standards held by some wikipedia editors like yorself [1]. Clearly my edits were going to be reverted. In 1929, the native residents in the area were 'Arabs', suddenly now they're "Palestinians". the article says so . . .--Warm as ice (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
<- Warm as ice, it seems to me that your contributions aren't very constructive so far. If you have concrete proposals to improve the article that comply with WP:V then please make them. If you would like to nominate the article for deletion then nominate it. In addition to the Encyclopædia Britannica article you might also benefit from reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you expect from the "administration/peer review process", but someone should probably inform you that Wikimedia Foundation policies regarding Non-discrimination and Code of Conduct do not permit administrators to practice or tolerate harassment, intimidation, or discrimination of project users on the basis of place of origin, nationality, ancestry, or any other legally protected characteristics.
- The US and Israeli governments legally recognize people of Palestinian ancestry. The US State Department advises that Israeli authorities reserve the right to consider as Palestinian anyone who was born in the United States but has grandparents who were born or lived in the West Bank or Gaza. Any such U.S. citizens may be required to travel to Israel using a Palestinian Authority passport, regardless of whether they hold U.S. citizenship. Without a Palestinian Authority passport, these Americans may be barred from entering or exiting Israel, the West Bank or Gaza, or they may face serious delays at the ports of entry. Individuals judged by Israeli authorities to have claim to a Palestinian Authority ID by virtue of ancestry, will be considered subject to Israeli law and to regulations that Israel applies to residents of the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of whether they also hold U.S. citizenship. see International Travel Information for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza
- US Government Civil Rights guidelines explain that discrimination based upon national origin is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Quite a few guidelines cite "Palestinian" as a specific example of national origin. see for example "Palestinian" under the item "National origin" in GUIDE TO CIVIL RIGHTS/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, U.S. Department of Transportation. harlan (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note that Zero has requested admin action to try to nip this in the bud. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
you forgetting about the syro-palestine the Syrian of Palestine
From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name Canaanite civilization were known to be cover what today called (israel) ,Palestinian territory , Syria and Lebanon, and after the philistines invaded 5 city's in gaza coastal the Canaanites of southern Levant become known as Syro-Palestine (Syrians of Palestine) in the Egyptian and Mesopotamia texts and now they are known as the palestinines when did the Saudis became known as Saudis? in 1744 ad what about the Iraqis? they were to be known as Mesopotamian ! and the Saudis the were arab the ancient names have nothing to do with modern one !!
Haplogroup2010 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)haplogroup2010
This article is largely POV , Since when do the khazar theories receive large enough articles with well the same people protecting the misuse of the term palestine and attaching it to the political agenda PLO , this will likely fall on deaf ears and instead of serious constructive good will I might probably take a beating from the usuals (this is why I don't edit much since history shows some but enough reverts of even suspected attempts against certain POVS let alone talk pages though this is newer to me than you) but instead of this article being constructed as an apology to Palestinian (political definition put by the PLO) hijacking provincial terminology of older times and even elaborating in certain quotes that don't add a lot of information for their length this article should anyway at least open up to some neutrality since no , criticism of the distinction or use of the term isn't fringe , it has been expressed my many top political figures and scholars in a way which might or might not be of benefit to your 'cause' and probably be one of the things readers are after. I suggest to bring up a section or remove all criticism for the israeli\jewish one. (not so oddly a lot of the sources there are used here too as far as I remember albit in another angle) , have a good day Shiftadot (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Populations of Palestinian Arab, Palestinian Christian and other
Does anyone have the statistics ? thanks (Marinesuper (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC))
- I'm still hopeful that someone will answwer. Thanks (Marinesuper (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Ucucha 13:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Palestinian people → Palestinians — Since this seems to be the norm for other national ethnic groups that can be easily pluralarised. See, for example, Germans, Russians, Croats, Israelis, Egyptians and Swedes. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The existence of Palestinians as a "people" is a legal status and a notable published fact. The pluralized group might include members of other groups, such as Palestinian Jews, but they do not identify themselves as Palestinians. Members of pluralized groups of national ethnic minorities are not automatically recognized as "peoples", or granted the right of determining their own political status. Only "peoples" are entitled to self-determination in contemporary international law. See Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986, page 170. The ICJ said that Israel had recognized the existence of a "Palestinian people" and referred a number of times to the Palestinian people and its "legitimate rights" in international agreements. The Court said those rights include the right to self-determination. See paragraph 118 of Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [2] harlan (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- weak support, Either that or rewriting most sections shortening quotes and more concise quoting of stuidies this has nothing to do with the nationhood of palestinians unless you are trying to build a case of legitimacy (other than elaborating on culture , history , etc) outside sections that would deal with it.20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talk • contribs)
edit : Tiamuts argument is convincing , though I still think the article is rather hard to read and needs a rewrite. Shiftadot (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This is the name used in official documents issued by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of Palestinians worldwide. There are other articles titled this way, such as Arab people. Palestinians already redirects here, so no problem finding it. Since some editors opposed describing Palestinians as a nation, arguing that it could be confused with nation-state, the use of people was a compromise. Getting some editors to accept describing them as "a people" was a hard won concession that took months. I'd prefer we do not open a can of worms that leads to the downgrading of their status to a random collection of individuals again. Tiamuttalk 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons given above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the word "people" in the current title is not capitalized, it refers to "people" in the sense of "population" not in the sense of "nation". Therefore, I don't see the difference in meaning between "Palestinians" and "Palestinian people". Of course official documents and court rulings are irrelevant here. The existence of ethnic and national groups is not a matter of formal law or diplomacy. It is a bit like saying that a collection of papers is a book rather than a pack of towelettes based on a court ruling and an official letter of recognition. DrorK (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The rights of national ethnic and religious minorities have been under international protection since the Treaty of Berlin. The allocation of territory for a Jewish state was conditioned upon the acknowledgment and acceptance of a Minority Rights Treaty by Israel. The article on the British Mandate points out that, although Israel acknowledged that obligation, legal scholars, including Prof. James Crawford and Prof. William Thomas Mallison, have noted that it failed to comply with the prescribed conditions for the protection of minorities. The ICJ also noted that Israel was interfering with the exercise, by the Palestinian people, of their right to self-determination. One element of the crime of Apartheid is "Denial of Nationality". A study conducted under the auspices of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa recently concluded that Israeli policies and practices violated the Apartheid Convention in that connection. Palestinian nationality is a federally protected characteristic under US law, [3]. I have no idea where you got the false impression that the existence of ethnic and national groups is not a matter of formal law, but you are mistaken. harlan (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's not the place to discuss allegations of israeli apartheidIf you want to condemn israel at least try to do so in a constructive way and not all over. whatever certain international institutions say is not concrete evidence to NPOV facts and allegations of israeli apartheid can't be discussed without the concept of alleged palestinian indistinction. Shiftadot (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how calling this articles "Palestinians" or "Palestinian people" affects in any way the legitimacy of the people of the Palestinian territories. By calling the article about the people of Germany "Germans" we don't deny that they are a people. If we can have Israelis, surely we can have Palestinians. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)Shiftadot, a number of published sources have noted that the official representatives and regional groups that represent the Palestinian people, the PA/PLO/Arab League, have filed a criminal complaint against Israel with the ICC that cited the ICJ Wall case. Several states that filed written statements in that case, such as Lebanon Jordan, and Syria, said that publicly available records in Israel demonstrate that the government of Israel adopted policies to secure all of the territory of the former mandate for itself, and has carried out programs of colonization and ethnic cleansing to implement that objective. They also said that Israel has adopted policies and practices of apartheid in violation of the applicable international conventions. Israel chose not to address those statements in its written statement to the Court. That information certainly is part of any NPOV narrative. It is also relevant to the topic of this article too, the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian refugees. harlan (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support I fail to see what any of this has to do with what Wikipedia calls this group. Wikipedia is not bound by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the ICJ or anyone else. We generally use the plural for page articles about ethnic groups unless disambiguation is required. I see no reason why Palestinians should be treated any differently. The comment about the plural group including minorities who would not necessarily identify as Palestinians could apply equally to Sorbs, Russians, Germans or even to the English people. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support, per Skinsmoke. Let's not burden this decision with poltical overtones; it's a matter of simple adherence to normal English. In fact, if we accepted that such political arguments as those cited by the opposing opinions should be relevant here, that would only be another reason to avoid the term "people", because true or not, it would mean support for an identifiable POV position. But that's not the main point; I'm not supporting this because I have anything against identifying them as a "people", but because I think it's simply irrelevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- You both seem to have misunderstood my argument. It's not a "political" one. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the official representative of the Palestinian people worldwide. It uses the term "Palestinian people" to refer to "Palestinians". I bring this up not because I love the PLO, but because our naming guidelines, particularly those of identity state clearly, "Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use.
* Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." Furthermore, the same guideline says to be as specific as possible, and to, "Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks, gay people, not gays, person with albinism, not albino, and so on." - In short, how Palestinians identify themselves is absolutely relevant to how represent them in our articles. If they use the term "Palestinian people" (and they do), then so should we. Tiamuttalk 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- The "Palestinians" or "Palestinian people" are neither an organisation nor an individual, nor does the PLO have the authority to dictate English grammar on their behalf. Nor do I see that referring to "Palestinians" is in any way considered unacceptable by those people. Nor is "Palestinians" an adjective comparable to "blacks" or "albinos". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Umm, I don't understand your rather narrow application of the guideline's recommendations here. Its clear that the guideline is not restricted to individuals and organizations alone - it also discusses ethnic and cultural groups. I can't see why ethnic groups do not deserve the same sensitivity towards how they identify themselves. Tiamuttalk 21:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I just don't see any evidence that Palestians aren't in fact calling themselves Palestinians. In fact, you yourself referred to them as "Palestinians" just now. It's common English usage, and that's what trumps everything else here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, both are used. But the official name and the name used most often to refer to the Palestinians as a collective, is "the Palestinian people". Its not like it an uncommon name. A google book search for "Palestinian people" gets 3,394 hits, while a regular web search gets 1,620,000. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity surrounding Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians. "Palestinian people" makes the definition of the cultural/national group under discussion much clearer. Tiamuttalk 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Peoples don't have "official names"; that's almost a contradiction in terms (because a people isn't an organised body that could possibly give itself one). In fact, "Palestinian people" isn't a "name" at all. It's a descriptive syntactic phrase. It may – to some – embody a political claim that happens to be officially held by Palestinian organisations. That's a different thing from it being an "official name". Such political claims and related preferences of expression (not "naming") are quite irrelevant to our naming practices. The actual name contained in both title variants is actually one and the same: "Palestinian". As for the rest, Wikipedia goes by simplicity and commonness of expression, not by what is "official". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, both are used. But the official name and the name used most often to refer to the Palestinians as a collective, is "the Palestinian people". Its not like it an uncommon name. A google book search for "Palestinian people" gets 3,394 hits, while a regular web search gets 1,620,000. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity surrounding Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians. "Palestinian people" makes the definition of the cultural/national group under discussion much clearer. Tiamuttalk 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- The "Palestinians" or "Palestinian people" are neither an organisation nor an individual, nor does the PLO have the authority to dictate English grammar on their behalf. Nor do I see that referring to "Palestinians" is in any way considered unacceptable by those people. Nor is "Palestinians" an adjective comparable to "blacks" or "albinos". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- You both seem to have misunderstood my argument. It's not a "political" one. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the official representative of the Palestinian people worldwide. It uses the term "Palestinian people" to refer to "Palestinians". I bring this up not because I love the PLO, but because our naming guidelines, particularly those of identity state clearly, "Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use.
(outdent) Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Despite your rationalizations, there is a "Palestinian people" that is a recognized legal entity and a proper subject of international law. According to the World Court, they are still the subject of "a sacred trust of civilization", and they do not include Jewish or other Palestinian groups that have achieved self-determination. There is no analogy to the German people, English people, and etc. in that connection. They are represented in the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations by the PLO. While Wikipedia is not bound by the ICJ and PLO, it does have articles about notable subjects that reflect significant published viewpoints, even if they happen to be political. harlan (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- (1) How is this remark relevant to the naming issue? I don't see a request to delete the article, merely to make a minor change in its title. (2) There is no official list of peoples, and the world is not made of court rulings. Wikipedia is not a journal of law, but rather a comprehensive encyclopedia. DrorK (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the minor change being proposed will cause some confusion as to the subject of this article. This article deals with the Palestinian people. It does not deal with the subject of Palestinian Jews, if those Jews do not identify as part of the Palestinian people. The term Palestinian people is one used in official fora to discuss the Palestinian population worldwide (see for eg. the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, etc).
- The idea that we should avoid using a term used in official fora to discuss this particular group of people because it is a "political" term, is rather odd. The Palestinian people still lack representation as a state member of the UN (though Palestine) does enjoy observer status there). Using the term by which this people is denoted in official international fora, and the one they use themselves in official documents, is appropriate. Its fits with our naming guidelines and it eliminates any possible ambiguity posed by arguably more common but less precise terms. Tiamuttalk 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, "Palestinian Jews" were referred to as Israelis. Should I check again? Suppose the UN passes a resolution tomorrow saying the Palestinian people doesn't exist, will it have any consequences regarding the people or this article? DrorK (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you should. nableezy - 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Had you read that article yourself, you would have noticed several important points: (1) The term is historical and rarely used in contemporary contexts (2) These Jews never referred to themselves as "Palestinian Jews" but used other terms like "Jews of the Land of Israel" or "Ha-Yishuv". You claimed WP always uses the names used by the people themselves, but here you've brought a contrary example (3) In contemporary use, Palestinians are Arabs, and yet the article you were referring to is not about Arabs, so maybe, per your logic, we should change the definition of the Palestinian people and omit its Arab affiliation. DrorK (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wasnt making an argument, so I dont see how you are arguing with my logic. But good luck. nableezy - 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how the article Palestinian Jew affects this one. Aside from the fact that "Palestinians" and "Palestinian people" are synonomous, a Jewish person who identifies as Palestinian like Uri Davis is surely a member of the Palestinian people to all extents and purposes. You don't how to be Arabic to be Palestinian; you don't have to be Jewish to be Israeli. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wasnt making an argument, so I dont see how you are arguing with my logic. But good luck. nableezy - 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Had you read that article yourself, you would have noticed several important points: (1) The term is historical and rarely used in contemporary contexts (2) These Jews never referred to themselves as "Palestinian Jews" but used other terms like "Jews of the Land of Israel" or "Ha-Yishuv". You claimed WP always uses the names used by the people themselves, but here you've brought a contrary example (3) In contemporary use, Palestinians are Arabs, and yet the article you were referring to is not about Arabs, so maybe, per your logic, we should change the definition of the Palestinian people and omit its Arab affiliation. DrorK (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you should. nableezy - 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, "Palestinian Jews" were referred to as Israelis. Should I check again? Suppose the UN passes a resolution tomorrow saying the Palestinian people doesn't exist, will it have any consequences regarding the people or this article? DrorK (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are employing a false generalization. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled against a man who wanted to have his nationality registration changed from "Jewish" to "Israeli" saying: "There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people." The Court also said "the Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry." See The Impossible Dilemma: Who is a Jew in the State of Israel, by Oscar Kraines, Bloch, 1976, ISBN: 0819703923, page 67. harlan (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but I still don't see how the Palestinian Jew article has any bearing on this one. We have the article Israelis, and naming this article "Palestinians" would seem to create a clear parallel. The Palestinian people are no different really from any other nation when it comes down to it, and generally speaking nationality is a matter of self-identification. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) What clear parallel? Golda Meir claimed she was a Palestinian while she was serving as the Prime Minister of Israel. She also said there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. I don't see any reason to reintroduce that sort of controversy by using an ambiguous name for the article. harlan (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are mixing nationality as in citizenship with nationality as in ethnicity. Israelis are all those who live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship or permanent residency status. They form a community just like the Belgians form a community. Jews are all those who pertain to the Jewish People. An equivalent would be Armenians who live all over the world, but have their center in Armenia. The Palestinians have evolved (in the past 100 years or so) into a people in the sense of ethnicity. Today, a person can live in Brazil and say he is Palestinian and it would sound perfectly normal and comprehensible. I am not sure this was the case during the first half of the 20th century. There is no Palestinian citizenship, because citizenship is given by a state, and currently there is no state called Palestine that can grant citizenships. Coming back to the issue of naming, if we have an article "Israelis" and another one "Jews", and also Armenians, Greeks, what's wrong with "Palestinians"? DrorK (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
what about contemporary components that aren't endearing?
Why is there no mention of contemporary messages within the social fabric that demonize Israel, its citizens, Jews, Americans, etc? There is no shortage of hateful/inflammatory rhetoric and incitement that regularly occurs within the Palestinian society, whether it be cartoons glorifying martyrdom via suicide bombings, dehumanization of Jews through lying about the Holocaust (i.e. libellous statements claiming that it was Jewish/Zionist conspiracy to take over Palestine), etc... These are not subtle or fringe concepts, they permeate much of Palestinian society. As unpleasant as these realities are, ignoring them completely reeks of the typical bias seen in much of Wikipedia. I know my point will never really be addressed, but I wanted to mention it here, anyways - even if it is an exercise in futility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.67.70 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Lead
Can someone take a look at the multple updates ongoing in the lead ? People don't seem to want to use talk for the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
How about a mention in the lead about the use of Palestinian to refer to all its diverse inhabitants, instead of omitting the Jewish inhabitants of 19th century Judea/Palestine? בינה תפארת (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
proposal
The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I, when the word Palestinian referred to all of the land's inhabitants.[1] The Syrian-Palestinian Congress issued the first demand for national independence on 21 September 1921.[2]
- It would be much more accurate to explain that prior to World War I a great many of the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants were not Palestinians. Many of them chose to remain citizens of foreign countries or protégés of one of the foreign consulates. They did that in order to avoid the personal status jurisdiction of the local religious officials (e.g. Hakham Bashi), preserve immunities under the capitulations, or to circumvent application of the immigration and conscription laws. They identified themselves as American, British, German, Austrian, French, and etc., not Palestinian. harlan (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could someone give here a quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica to support the claim that the term "Palestinian" started to refer exclusively to the Arabs ("nationalistic concept") before the WWI? What I found there so far indicates that early in the 20th century it referred to the inhabitants of the region in general (which would include at least some Jews). Also, if a Syrian-Palestinian congress issues a unified nationalistic call, does it mean that "Syrians" and "Palestinians" did not consider themselves to be separate ethnic groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.44.99 (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
49%
Regarding "In this combined area, as of 2009, they constitute a plurality of 49% of all inhabitants,[10]" in the lead, it doesn't seem to be in the article body and it singles out a JCPA estimate for unspecified reasons. Seems like a problem policy compliance-wise (mostly obviously per WP:LEAD). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Little bit of a problem with the term Jew
I am sure I am not the 1st to notice this. but in an article so specific you cannot just say Jew, Which Jew? especially in DNA and genetic studies. And the DNA research on Mizrahi Jews is virtually absent. It seems only to focus on European Jews.So this cannot be left vague because every time you mention Jews are more mixed, it not accurate enough. Specify which Jewish populations are being contrasted against the Palestinian populations as from what I am reading being Jew goes beyond genetics, and I think European Jews look European while Arabs and Mizrahi look more similar to each other.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Zuheir Mohsen quote
Gilabrand has tried to add this outdated and out of context quote by Zuheir Mohsen (from 1977 and sourced to Think Israel) to the lead of the article. I have already reverted twice, explaining that per WP:LEAD, we do not introduce material not covered in the body of the article into the lead. We certainly should not be using exntended quotes from someone who was assassinated in 1979 and represented a pro-Syrian ideology not representative of the Palestinian national movement as a whole.
I have asked that Gilabrand discuss this material here prior to trying to add it to the article here. Other people's thoughts are welcome too. Tiamuttalk 12:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is sourced to Kurdish media & the Dutch paper that carried the quote to begin with. Insisting that this material not appear in the lead is hypocritical in the extreme. There is not a single article having to do with the Israel-Arab conflict that does not contain precisely this kind of material in the lead, and not once, but repeatedly. Tiamut, you are right. This stuff makes you feel uncomfortable. But Wikipedia was not invented to massage egos. If you think it is outdated (which all history is, by definition) you can always bring a nice reliable source (maybe something from al-Qaeda) to show that nobody today agrees with him (or maybe 99.9 percent of the population of the world) (because if they did, they would get their throats cut). --Gilabrand (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- First of all Gila, the quote does not make me "uncomfortable". I've seen it before and recognize it for what it is: an out of context statement made by minor figure who was appointed by the Syrians to head a minor Palestinian faction in Syria and who was assassinated in 1979.
- Second, there is no need for your hyperbolic references to al-Qaeda. Please refrain from provocative WP:SOAPboxing when engaging in a discussion with your fellow editors.
- To the point, my objection to your repeated inclusion of this quote is rooted in policy. It is WP:UNDUE, as it is a WP:FRINGE minority viewpoint, and it does not belong in the WP:LEAD, which is a summary of the article and not a place for you to highlight views that you WP:LIKE, particularly not in the form of an extended quote whose contents are not discussed in any context at all in the body of the article. I would appreciate it greatly if you would self-revert. Tiamuttalk 13:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a "fringe" view. It is part of the PLO charter. "Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Article 14. The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation’s pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of thevanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal." --Gilabrand (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are using primary sources to make misleading WP:OR conclusions. Palestinian identity as its multi-layered nature is discussed in depth in this article using reliable secondary sources. These sources indicate that Mohsen's view is a fringe one. I'm sorry to see you continuing to ignore Wikipedia policies on sourcing and NPOV in pursuit of your preference on how to present Palestinian identity. Tiamuttalk 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Gila, this is nonsense. That is not summarizing anything at all from the article, just placing a single persons quote in the lead without any cause. Removed per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. nableezy - 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a "fringe" view. It is part of the PLO charter. "Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Article 14. The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation’s pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of thevanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal." --Gilabrand (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is sourced to Kurdish media & the Dutch paper that carried the quote to begin with. Insisting that this material not appear in the lead is hypocritical in the extreme. There is not a single article having to do with the Israel-Arab conflict that does not contain precisely this kind of material in the lead, and not once, but repeatedly. Tiamut, you are right. This stuff makes you feel uncomfortable. But Wikipedia was not invented to massage egos. If you think it is outdated (which all history is, by definition) you can always bring a nice reliable source (maybe something from al-Qaeda) to show that nobody today agrees with him (or maybe 99.9 percent of the population of the world) (because if they did, they would get their throats cut). --Gilabrand (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to simply create a subsection about this practice. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that discuss it. Here are a few examples:
- Rosemary E. Shinko, "Discourses of Denial: Silencing the Palestinians, Delegitimizing Their Claims," Journal of International Affairs 58.1 (2004);
- Lawrence Davidson, "Historical Ignorance and Popular Perception: the Case of U.S. Perceptions of Palestine, 1917," Middle East Policy3.2 (1994): pages 125-148;
- Joyce Dalsheim, Settler nationalism, collective memories of violence and the 'uncanny other', Social Identities, Volume 10, Issue 2 2004 , pages 151 - 170;
- Baruch Kimmerling, Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians, Verso, 2003;
- Marcelo Svirsky, "The Desire for terra nullius and the Zionist-Palestinian Conflict," in Paul Patton and Simone Bignall (Eds.) Deleuze and the Postcolonial, Edinburgh University Press 2009.
Even the editors of Yediot Ahronot seem to be getting uncomfortable with the Ministry of Information attempts to work-in shop-worn quotes from Arabs to support the latest-greatest set of talking points. [4] harlan (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Even when ignoring the lacking relevance of this quote, quotes are hardly appropriate in intros anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Palestinian Bureau of Stats put out very ambiguous, confusing and politically charged demographic data!
long unsupported rant
|
|---|
"The total Palestinian population is estimated at approximately 12 million, roughly less than half continuing to live within the boundaries of what was Mandate Palestine, a large area [11] encompassing Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip. In this combined area, as of 2009, they constitute 49% of all inhabitants,[12] some of whom are internally displaced. The remainder, over half of all Palestinians, comprise what is known as the Palestinian diaspora, of whom more than half are stateless refugees, lacking citizenship in any country.[13] Of the diaspora, about 1.9 million live in neighboring Jordan,[14] one and a half million between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter million in Saudi Arabia, while Chile's half a million are the largest concentration outside the Arab world.
"less than half continuing to live within the boundaries of what was Mandate Palestine, a large area [11] encompassing Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip."
"The remainder, over half of all Palestinians, comprise what is known as the Palestinian diaspora, of whom more than half are stateless refugees, lacking citizenship in any country."
"[13] Of the diaspora, about 1.9 million live in neighboring Jordan,[14] one and a half million between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter million in Saudi Arabia, while Chile's half a million are the largest concentration outside the Arab world."
The World Bank documents a 32% artificial inflation in Palestinian Bureau demographic data of Arab people living in Judea and Samaria (The West Bank) - thats a very significant gap when you consider this article gives a weight of 49% "Palestinians" living in Israel. See; http://theettingerreport.co.il/apage/66959.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copytopic1 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Copytopic1 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Ian - your statement is incorrect and perhaps the source of the inaccuracy in the opening paragraph. You state "The terms for the administration of Transjordan as part of the Mandate arrangements were negotiated in 1921 and the details were included in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate document. The territory of Transjordan itself was not included within Palestine." The only legally binding document that can be referred is the Mandate approved by the League in 1922 - i don't believe that document refers to a territory "Transjordan" - in fact i just read it again and you are correct, it does not! Of course Article 25 refers to the Eastern Boundary, therefore it's clear that at the time the Mandate was approved - modern day Jordan (or most of it) was included within Palestine. So you still have not addressed the reasons why you include Jordan as a diaspora number as well as a number within Mandate Palestine...Copytopic1 (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The claim "Transjordan is part of Palestine" is a slogan of Revisionist Zionism that is generally ignored by everyone else. Since the early 1920s, no competent authority has included Transjordan within Palestine for statistical purposes. We are just following the overwhelming majority of professional practice. Zerotalk 11:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Zero - I'm afraid, as much as you would like to, you can't hide, deny, nor ignore the chronological and written facts that make the history here. Despite your desire to modify the legal and binding facts, according to the Mandate, Transjordan is part of Palestine! Oh and by the way who is the 'we' you speak of in your note above?Copytopic1 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Since we're concluding the Mandate incorporated Transjordan, which on September 23 1922 was not a separate 'state', but a "territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east..." let me re-state the question;
"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense; "(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense; "(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan]; the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense [Israel] has, against that prior holder, better title. "As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem." Before i sign off on this point i am trying to understand the relevance of your statement in your previous response - can you enlighten me? "According to biblical sources Moses died beyond the eastern boundary of Israel, on the other side of the Jordan river. "Copytopic1 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Harlan - Not sure any significant history is made by the information you provide. In any event we're off topic, lets get back to the issue: 1.9 million Palestinians in Jordan that you consider to be part of the Palestinian diaspora based on your self proclaimed definition that "Palestine", at its origin pretty much equals modern day Israel, which for your 49% purpose includes the West Bank and Gaza. Harlan you're stating that 1.9 million Jordanians are 'diaspora' Palestinians because your 1922 border definition refuses to admit or even acknowledge that these 1.9 million people may have descended from within Transjordan and Mandate Palestine at that time or at any time up to around 1964 when the PLO defined the meaning of the new 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian' as the West Bank and more than a decade later Gaza, making a lot of people refugees. We should be re-labeling all this; 'Old Palestine/Palestinian' = Mandate Palestine including Transjordan and 'Intermediate Palestine/Palestinian' = Israel including West Bank and Gaza and 'New Palestine/Palestinian' = West Bank and well..perhaps Gaza, not sure. The ambiguity here is palpable and you're caught in its trap! These 1.9m Jordanians are not diaspora - 'Old Palestinian's' or 'Intermediate Palestinians', according to your definition they never were, yet you've defined them as such, without any real legal basis or logic for doing so.Copytopic1 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Harlan - you're off topic again! This is article is not permitted by Wikipedia to be the place for a political debate as to which court has been used or abused by whom to state an opinion based on some evidence before the court that may conflict or agree with Israel's policies or a certain peoples desires with respect to the territory in question. I simply want to know why and on what basis you define the 1.9 million 'Jordanians' as 'Palestinian'? I've asked several times, or perhaps alluded to the question, perhaps i haven't been sufficiently direct so please explain and while you're doing it you'll probably need to distinctly define 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian' for the purposes of your answer. Seems you only offer various opinions in support of a notion that a people have a right to be a people in a land, I have no problem with that, but thats not good enough for this article. Nothing establishes any fact other than Arab people some, even many may descend from Intermediate Palestine (Israel), particularly the territory of the West Bank and later Gaza are occupiers of land in Israel and therefore may have a claim for Citizenship to some place. I guess that begs the question whether Citizenship for people, who wish to be a people, in places like Lebanon or Jordan where the reside presently is offered. Harlan - time for some answers!Copytopic1 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
...and still you refuse to answer even address my question on 1.9 million people!Copytopic1 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Unsupported! i don't think so see http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/MSPS65.pdf and see http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus91.pdf page 36 for a reasonable definition of Palestinian refugee and page 37 for a focus on UNRWA's mixed up definition or attempt to politicize and perhaps page 54 and 63 for a serious consideration as to the ongoing definition of the 1.9m Jordanians that you guys keep identifying as 'Palestinian'. 'Argumentative WP:Synth analysis' that's reflective comment if ever i saw one, see the first support i posted in my opening of this Talk - http://theettingerreport.co.il/apage/66959.php and the verification by Ian using OECD right after that. Obviously touching a few nerves here. Its very clear you guys are politically biased with no intention of adhering to conventional definitions, rather you use UNRWA's unreliable administrative definition as per section 2 of their own document at http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/201006109359.pdf. So, in summary you refuse to recognize that Palestine can't be defined as the source of your estimated 12m refugees and be historical or intermediate Palestine and which includes the source of 1.9m Jordanian citizens who you identify as refugees. If you maintain this position , the Palestinian diaspora reference in the opening paragraph is a statistical joke - do the math!Copytopic1 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"However, the administrative definition of a Palestinian refugee adopted by UNRWA does not correspond with the political definition of Palestinian refugees and displaced Palestinians. It differs, for example, with the definition noted in the statement of the Palestinian delegation at the first meeting of the Refugee Working Group, held in Canada in May 1992, and also in official PLO publications.Different definitions generate different figures. According to the UNRWA definition, less than 50 per cent of an estimated 10.5 million Palestinians worldwide are refugees while, according to a political definition, their number is closer to two-thirds of the total. Whether defined administratively or politically, the refugees nevertheless constitute the bulk of the Palestinian diaspora. If we consider the social definition (self-definition) of most Palestinians, the figure could be even higher. The issue of definition is central to the peace negotiations because of its political consequences, in terms of demography and in relation to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. However, the reality of Palestinian refugees today cannot be read exclusively in juridical terms; their socio-political and symbolic relevance goes well beyond. They have both been symbols of the Palestinian plight and among the main craftsmen of the Palestinian National Movement (PNM)." From UNRWA's site http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/201006109359.pdf - page 10. Harlan - go figure!Copytopic1 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Before 1960 The Only People known as 'Palestinians' .. were JEWS
"Palestinians" [are an] Arab people No one heard of before 1967 before Israeli governments certified this piece of propaganda... As has been noted many times before, prior to 1948, that is before Jews had begun to call themselves Israelis, the ONLY persons known as "Palestinians" were Jews, with the Arabs much preferrring to identify themselves as part of the great Arab nation.
- David Basch
Just as "Americans" never called themselves "Americans" until they decided to separate themselves from foreign control. Arabs and Jews lived together because of Arab hospitality. One of the greatest tragedies in history since the extermination of "American" indigenous people, Rwanda, or the Jewish Holocaust of WWII. It is being slowly perpetrated, bit by bit. It has been going on for decades, even though the UN and most educated inhabitants of the Earth think it is immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.57.6 (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"...Palestine does not belong to the "Palestinians" and never did. They did not even call themselves Palestinians until the middle 1960s. - - - Before that, the word "Palestinian" meant "Jewish," while the local Arabs called themselves simply "Arabs." - - - The creation of the PLO by Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1964 was a brilliant ploy to distort the parameters of the dispute, largely for propaganda purposes. It was inconvenient to have a conflict between 20-odd Arab states with an area 530 times greater than Israel, a population more than 30 times greater than Israel's and enormously richer natural resources. - - -
Far better to invent a "Palestinian" nation that would be the eternal "underdog," - a nation consisting partly of Immigrants from Syria and other Arab countries who came to benefit from the rapidly growing economy Zionist Jews created..."
westerndefense.org
-
- - So before the creation of the State of Israel, who were the Palestinians?
Until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST; the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE; Bank Leumi was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK; the Israel Electric Company was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY; there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC. - - - All these were Jewish organizations. - - - - In America, Zionist youngsters sang "PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE", "PALESTINE SCOUT SONG" and "PALESTINE SPRING SONG" In general, the terms Palestine and Palestinian referred to the region of Palestine as it was. - - - Thus "Palestinian Jew" and "Palestinian Arab" are straightforward expressions. "Palestine Post" and "Palestine Philharmonic" refer to these bodies as they existed in a place then known as Palestine. The adoption of a Palestinian identity by the Arabs of Palestine is a RECENT phenomenon. - - - Until the establishment of the State of Israel, and for another decade or so, the term Palestinian applied almost Exclusively to the JEWS.
oh here comes our history guy and i assume you were living in the 19th century and before right i mean to take western media and anti Arab ones as sources unless you have witnessed that is clearly foolish and just a sign of brainwashing if they are right then all the villages the idf razed was ghost ones right and people working there and living there were also ghosts or what would you call them seriously you need to learn history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.155.180 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC) - Peacefaq
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.185.23 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your theory requires quite a stretch of the imagination. Arabs were the majority. If they were habitual residents of Palestine, they became "Palestinians" by operation of the Citizenship and Naturalization Law of 1925. Another problem is that you are trying to clarify a somewhat abstract idea, by introducing an even more abstract concept. The UNSCOP Commission discovered that the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Moshe Shertok, and Chaim Weizmann couldn't agree on a legal definition of the term "Jew". Weizmann replied that the answer always required a lengthy discussion, and that the results were always suspect. It isn't surprising under those circumstances that the UNSCOP Commission found the term "Jewish national home" had no definite legal meaning.
- The Israeli Knesset has avoided settling that lingering legal question, see How Should a Court Deal with a Primary Question that the Legislature Seeks to Avoid? The Israeli Controversy over Who Is a Jew as an Illustration, Gidon Sapir, Bar-Ilan University, Faculty of Law. If you think they were the real Palestinians, then I suggest you find some WP:RS sources or move your discussion over to Talk:Who is a Jew?. harlan (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- ultimately, palestine is a geographic region, not a nation, at least until the Fatah in the early 1960s, or Al-Husseini in the 20s. palestine was ruled from Makkah for 22 years, and occupied by many different entities until the present day. בינה תפארת (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What "stretch"? Because some Arabs lived there and others came and went, especially under 400 years of Ottoman Rule during which they were just 3 Sanjaks (and for all of histoty previous), there was Palestinian Identity among the changing populace in general? NO. Thus the above. There were some inklings among an elite which are used to Fabricate the main page with 'palestinian people', but there was never really such a thing until the 60's. PALESTINIAN-ISM WAS REALLY ANTI-ISRAEL-ISM, AND AROSE AS A 'NATION' (Or even a personal identity) NOT UNTIL THE 1960's. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes that's exactly right, when the jews came from Russia and Eastern Europe Palestine was completely empty, and flowed with rivers of milk and honey. Later came the Palestinians and they've been try to occupy the land ever since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a general forum for you all to discuss your pet theories about another collective's identity. The reliable sources cited in the article establish that there was some form of Palestinian identity much earlier. Please cease peppering this page with manifestos unrelated to article development. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 10:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
palestinian population
The 1st tempplate says theres 12 million palestinians while the 2nd under demographics says 10 million. Which is it? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot see how either of them could be correct. The numbers both seem to have come from nowhere. Also, on many Census documents, Arab is not listed and we don't fit in with African, Asian (Which commonly refers to East Asians), Caucasian (Although, I guess it's the closest), Hispanic or Pacific Islander options. ☼Ṅạẇạḟ Ṙạṡḥiḍ☼ (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Palestinians and Arabs
Calling the Palestinians Arabs just because they speak Arabic is like calling the Indians English because they speak English. In fact it is playing the Israeli game of trying to make out that the Palestinians are another race, not really belonging in Palestine, whereas the Palestinians are of Semitic origin just as the Israeli Jews claim to be (but are only partly because of all the mixing that took place in the diaspora). Its rather like the South African whites under Apartheid who labelled the blacks 'Bantu', which for them meant a primitive race of savages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.86.189.120 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"Calling the Palestinians Arabs just because they speak Arabic is like calling the Indians English because they speak English".
No it isn't, Arabic is the original language of Palestinians, whereas English is not the original language of the indians. The Palestinians call themselves palestinians because they decided to adopt the name of the region in which they live, not because they identify themselves as a group of people like the jews do.
"In fact it is playing the Israeli game of trying to make out that the Palestinians are another race, not really belonging in Palestine,"
Palestinians identify themselves as arabs, not just the Israelis, so no, it's not "the Israeli game".
"whereas the Palestinians are of Semitic origin just as the Israeli Jews claim to be (but are only partly because of all the mixing that took place in the diaspora)."
How is racial purity even relevant? That's a hypocritical claim on your part considering you were saying that the Palestinians are being singled out with racist principles, and suddenly you are implying. How is the "degree of being Semitic" relevant to being semitic or belonging to a particular region? That's racism. Besides, DNA studies have shown that Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Palestinians and other people in the mediterranean are very closely related.
"Its rather like the South African whites under Apartheid who labelled the blacks 'Bantu', which for them meant a primitive race of savages."
No, it is not. Blacks didn't label themselves 'Bantu', whereas palestinians label themselves arab; Pan-Arabism is one of the main goals behind the Hamas' agenda, to be part of a single big arab nation. Also, analogies to South Africa are pure hyperbole. Cut this "Zionism = Apartheid" analogies which are crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootsielon (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
(talk) -08 July 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC).
- Actually, reliable published sources say they call themselves Palestinians and claim they have the right to determine their own political status like any other legally recognized people. See Article I of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [19] Israelis frequently make the wholly fallacious suggestion that the Palestinians are guests or tourists that should go to some other Arab country. However, the "Arab" nationality does not exist anywhere, except in Israel. See "A racism outside of language: Israel's apartheid" [20] Criminal responsibility can arise from denial of "the right to a nationality" see Article II(3) of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. [21] For an explanation of the applicability of that provision to the situation in Palestine, See Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheied. [22] harlan (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well first of all, the nationality section of the Israeli IDs is long gone. Secondly, they call themselves Arabs. One of the three Arab parties in the Knesset is called "Ra'am Ta'al" - "United Arab List, Arab Movement for Renewal". TFighterPilot (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense, ID Cards and the names of political parties have no effect on a person's nationality as reflected in the Ministry of Interior Population Registry, e.g. [23]. In any event, the League of Arab States, including the State of Palestine, have promulgated the "Casablanca Protocol" which safeguards Palestinian nationality. It is a multilateral international treaty agreement regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Arab States.[24] harlan (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- These treaties are just politics and have nothing to do with Israeli Arabs who at no point claimed that they aren't Arab. I live in Israel, and I see that they refer to themselves as Arabs. You might come from a place where Arab is considered an insult so you can't see how people can call themselves by this name. There are even groups of Beduines and Druze in Israel who reject these terms and insist to be called Arabs. Bring me a source that claims otherwise. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't "come to any place". I see that you employ the shopworn propaganda technique of claiming that the provisions of conventional international law are political. FYI, all of the lawmakers where you live, in Israel, are "politicians". The US State Department says that it is possible for Israeli authorities to consider as "Palestinian" anyone who was born in the United States but has grandparents who were born or lived in the West Bank or Gaza. Any such U.S. citizen can be required to travel to Israel using a PA passport.[25]
- These treaties are just politics and have nothing to do with Israeli Arabs who at no point claimed that they aren't Arab. I live in Israel, and I see that they refer to themselves as Arabs. You might come from a place where Arab is considered an insult so you can't see how people can call themselves by this name. There are even groups of Beduines and Druze in Israel who reject these terms and insist to be called Arabs. Bring me a source that claims otherwise. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've already cited published material from Palestinian sources, including a formal treaty agreement signed by the recognized legal representatives of the Palestinian people and an essay on Israel's laws written by a person of Palestinian descent. Israeli government officials routinely arrest or deport "Palestinians" [26] and claim that non-Jewish citizens are a demographic threat or a fifth column that the state can summarily transfer to the State of Palestine.[27] I notice you are asking for published sources, but don't actually cite any yourself. harlan (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Officials can't arrest or deport anyone, that's what the police is for. Tell me of one Arab who was deported. Tell me of one Arab who was arrested for being Arab. Also, you still gave absolutely no material that suggests that either Arab Israelis or the non Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza reject the term Arab. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Israeli police are state officials. This article mentions that over 4,577 Palestinians had their residency revoked by the State of Israel in 2008 alone.[28] This article says that it is part of a general policy of expulsion.[29] Israeli military officials have even deported Palestinians from the West Bank, although jurisdiction over Palestinians has been transferred to the PA.[30] The Yisrael Beiteinu plan proposed by FM Lieberman calls for the majority of the Palestinians in Israel to be stripped of their citizenship. [31] You still haven't cited any published sources which can be used to improve this article. harlan (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Read your own source Harlan. The haaretz article is about non-citizen Palestinians who live in Jerusalem. "Residency" is not the same thing as citizenship - all Arabs in East Jerusalem are entitled to citizenship but most don't want it, instead preferring to be "occupied." Pilot is right - you can't strip the citizenship of an Israeli citizen, Arab or no Arab. Harlan likes to separate the Palestinian national aspiration with the Palestinian people, as if one is racial and the other political. And FYI, while Israel has never stripped the citizenship of Israeli Arabs, Jordan has revoked the citizenship of thousands of Jordanian Palestinians at the request of the Palestinian National Authority. Israel's policies towards non-citizens is more than consistent with the residency policies of USA and Canada. I know Canada has even harsher residency standards. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikifan12345, a number of reliable published sources say that the violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the population of Palestine. Britannica says many of the inhabitants were either driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or else fled for fear of violence by those forces. Most estimates say that three quarters of a million Palestinians were displaced, and that Israel has subsequently used its citizenship laws to prevent them from returning to their homes or their country of origin.
- Haaretz does not mention that Israel's attempts to extend its laws regarding citizenship and its municipal jurisdiction to Jerusalem, under the provisions of The Basic Law Jerusalem, have been declared illegal. Haaretz/Reuters have explained that deportation of Jerusalem's inhabitants could constitute a war crime. Israel's policies are not comparable to the US or Canada, since they are legally null and void. [32]
- The joint kingdom of Jordan was formed as a result of a union between the central districts of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. King Hussein dissolved the union and recognized the PLO as the provisional government of the State of Palestine in 1988. Jordan recently stripped Palestinian refugees of their Jordanian passports, but that wasn't done at the request of the PNA. It was done in response to Israeli MK's who revived the "Jordan is Palestine" proposal as a final political solution.[33] [34] [35] and [36] harlan (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's nice Harlan, but this has nothing to do with Israel's residency laws. You confused stripping the citizenship of Israeli Arabs with Israel enforcing residency laws. While I won't debate your first paragraph, it has no binding on Arab residents who haven't exercised their right to citizenship in East Jerusalem. And no, the state stripped Palestinians of their citizenship, not passports, according to Human Rights Watch. You should read your sources before googling them (btw, I love the settler propaganda link - I'm sure you consider that reliable XD):
Until early 1970, Palestinians who fled their homeland in the aftermath of the 1948 war with Israel enjoyed full political privilege, including joining the army. But following the civil war, there has been a systematic policy to uproot Palestinians from key political institutions in favor of Jordanians in the East Bank. The Palestinians moved to control the economy through prominent families that owned banks and major enterprises. But with talks over final issues including the future of refugees and borders, the possibility of permanent settlement of Palestinians as well as a desire for a larger piece of the political cake pushed conservative Jordanians to sound the alarm over the “Jordan option,” according to a former minister who did not wish to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue.
- Slightly off topic - but the reality is Jordan has been discriminating against their Palestinian majority for quite some time now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Wikifan12345, the article that I cited did say the Jordanian General's had recommended that Palestinian refugees be stripped of their passports. I consider http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ to be an accurate reflection of the opinions and political objectives of the settlers and their supporters. The Jerusalem Post article you cited quotes both the Human Rights Watch claim that no part of Jordan's law allows the Interior Ministry to withdraw nationality and the responsible Jordanian officials who said they have not actually revoked anyone's citizenship. After the Rabat Summit, the Kingdom made it clear that residents who wished to retain their identity as Palestinians would remain in the country as "guests".[37]
I do not describe Jordan's treatment of Palestinians as discrimination. I've explained on this article's talk page that both Great Britain and the US have shored-up the governing regime (e.g. [38]) and supplied it with arms that have, at times, been used to persecute and suppress the indigenous population. I also mentioned that there was a violent falling-out between the Palestinians and Jordan that led to the dissolution of their political union.[39]
I'm citing what published sources have said. Your personal opinion about the legal enforceability of Israel's municipal laws is irrelevant. A number of sources say that Israel has used its "residency" laws to alter the demographic balance of Jerusalem in "flagrant" violation of Israel's obligations under applicable international laws. harlan (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Harlan, you said Jordan was revoking Palestinians of their passports (false) when they were stripping Palestinians of their citizenship. You made an attempt to spin Israel enforcing residency laws with Israel illegally stripping Arab Israelis of their citizenship. This is patently false. Arabs who live in East Jerusalem are not Israeli - they can be Israeli, some exercise their right to citizenship, but most don't. I can't figure what the original discussion was about - what are you and pilot disputing again? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you can't comprehend the thread or the material in the citations by yourself, perhaps you can get someone (there) to read them for you. harlan (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Polite as always Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently it was about Arabs being called Arabs, which he deemed racist. Once he realized that point was moot he went on to something completely unrelated. TFighterPilot (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I cited published sources which explained that there is no such thing as an Arab nationality in any country except Israel. The author considered that a form of racial discrimination because it isn't applied to "Israeli Arabs" who happen to be Jewish.[40] I also supplied a link to the State Department page which says the government of Israel reserves the right to discriminate against citizens born in the United States, if the person has a Palestinian grandparent from the West Bank or Gaza. I'll be happy to add that information to the article. I notice you still aren't citing any sources. harlan (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Arabs are Arabs. Palestinians are Arabs but so are Jews (originally at least). According to both Arab, Jewish, and British observers during the 20s and early 30s, the majority of Arabs in Palestine considered themselves to be subjects of the Ottoman Empire first, and residents of greater Syria second. The belief that a "Palestine" independent of modern Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc...is rather recent. Even pro-Palestinian historians argue the absolute earliest time a Palestinian national identity was formed began during the Arab revolts, which was a reaction to Jewish self-determination movements and British subjugation. I personally think Harlan actually believes what he says, but the facts simply don't add up. These days you can find token academics who will tell you the Zionists were inspired by racism and desire to uproot innocent Arabs from their lands while torturing those who remained. An easily debatable opinion but totally irrelevant for this discussion. Ultimately, I agree Palestinians now have a legitimate national aspirations and even most hardline Zionists don't dispute this - but ethnically Palestinians are not different than Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese Arabs, etc. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I firmly believe that I'm citing published sources that can be used in the article. You are abusing the talk page by using it as a general discussion forum and to make comments about other editors. There are a number of published sources which dispute the stereotypical claim that Arabs are Arabs. Egypt was not included in the boundaries of Arabia that were discussed by McMahon and Hussein. The "Identity" section of the Egyptians article lists quite a few sources which say the Egyptians are not Arabs. [41] The Palestinians already had legitimate national aspirations before the LoN confirmed the British mandate, e.g. [42] harlan (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Arabs are Arabs. Palestinians are Arabs but so are Jews (originally at least). According to both Arab, Jewish, and British observers during the 20s and early 30s, the majority of Arabs in Palestine considered themselves to be subjects of the Ottoman Empire first, and residents of greater Syria second. The belief that a "Palestine" independent of modern Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc...is rather recent. Even pro-Palestinian historians argue the absolute earliest time a Palestinian national identity was formed began during the Arab revolts, which was a reaction to Jewish self-determination movements and British subjugation. I personally think Harlan actually believes what he says, but the facts simply don't add up. These days you can find token academics who will tell you the Zionists were inspired by racism and desire to uproot innocent Arabs from their lands while torturing those who remained. An easily debatable opinion but totally irrelevant for this discussion. Ultimately, I agree Palestinians now have a legitimate national aspirations and even most hardline Zionists don't dispute this - but ethnically Palestinians are not different than Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese Arabs, etc. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I cited published sources which explained that there is no such thing as an Arab nationality in any country except Israel. The author considered that a form of racial discrimination because it isn't applied to "Israeli Arabs" who happen to be Jewish.[40] I also supplied a link to the State Department page which says the government of Israel reserves the right to discriminate against citizens born in the United States, if the person has a Palestinian grandparent from the West Bank or Gaza. I'll be happy to add that information to the article. I notice you still aren't citing any sources. harlan (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you can't comprehend the thread or the material in the citations by yourself, perhaps you can get someone (there) to read them for you. harlan (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not even about genes (there isn't such a thing as Arab genes), it's about what they consider themselves. One would have a very hard time finding a middle eastern Muslim who doesn't consider himself an Arab. Among the Christians it is very related to political views and country. In Israel the majority of them call themselves Arabs, in Lebanon however, mostly the pro Syrian see themselves as such, while most of the rest cling to the Phoenician identity. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Too much misinformation going on here. An Arab is, by the broadest definition, anyone who identifies as one and speaks Arabic. As for Jews being Arabs, no, only the jews who considers themselves as such. The only "genetic" definition of Arab would be the one that refers to the original Arabs of South Arabia, who many, but not all, Arabs outside the peninsula descent partly from. As for Lebanon, many Christians define themselves as Arabs, which has nothing to do wit being "pro-Syran" in any way, and rightly so, since many have Ghassanid ancestry. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It is related to being pro Syrian as it usually comes with pan Arabism. It's considered left wing in Lebanon. The ones who don't see themselves as Arabs tend to be against Arab influence. You'd see that most Lebanese Forces and Kataeb supporters don't want to be called Arabs, even thought they speak Arabic. TFighterPilot (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Problematic sentences moved here for discussion
Removed for discussion:
- To refer to as "Palestinians" both the native Palestinians of all faiths and the non-native Jewish immigrants alike was consistent with an Orientalist view of all Jews as "eastern" people, also indigenous to that area.<ref>Chad Alan Goldberg, [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~cgoldber/Web%20Class/Goldberg2005a.pdf Politicide Revisited]. University of Wisconsin–Madison</ref> Thus, figures such as Immanuel Kant could refer to European Jews as 'Palestinians living among us'.<ref>'Die unter uns lebenden Palästiner'.[[Immanuel Kant|Kant, Immanuel]],'Anthropologie in pragmatischer hinsicht,' in ''Kant Werke'', Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1968 Bd.10, p.517. I.Kant, ''Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View.'' tr. Robert B. Louden, Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 100 Note 11. The point is remarked on by Chad Alan Goldberg, ''Politicide Revisited'', ibid.</ref>
The first sentence seems to be a commentary on the source, since the source does not mention Orientalism nor (I think) does it mention Jews called "Palestinians" other than the example of Kant. The relevance of the second sentence is unclear. Certainly it does not belong in a paragraph on the British Mandate period since Immanuel Kant lived 1724–1804. At best it is a comment on the European view of Jews in the 18th century (and Kant was an exceptional person even then). Zerotalk 11:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- At best it represents Kant's views of Jews in Europe, since he did not mention non-native Jewish immigrants in Palestine. They self-identified themselves as Romaniot, Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and etc. The Ottomans called them Surgun, Kendi Gelen, and etc - but they were not called Palestinians. harlan (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Splitting discussion
Harlan, you are't responding to my comments. Palestine Betrayed relies on newly declassified resources. You do know the British and Arab states have their records locked up? Hmmm, why is this? the New Historians and Hardcore Zionists have always selected facts that support their view and ignored facts that don't - this is how it works. Karsh argues that the Palestinian exodus was not the result of offensive, racist measures planned by Zionists but a "shared responsibility" going back to the revolts and before. The argument that the Arab states have been fighting Israel over some humanitarian concern for the Palestinian "people" is totally bogus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikifan, this isn't a chat room. No one should be responding to unsourced comments and analysis unless it relates to an improvement to the article. Karsh is a modern-day spokesman who advances the views of the political movement founded by Jabotinsky. I've already cited the specific historical material that I would include in this article from the works of Jabotinsky and Shabati Teveth (Ben Gurion's biographer). I would also include material on the use of propaganda by settler-colonist groups from the works of Docker and Cuthoys, Rapheal Lemkin, Hannah Arendt, and of course Shinko, Davidson, Dalsheim, Kimmerling, & Svirsky. Your only response was an ad hominem attack against all of those authors which suggests they are influenced by petro-dollars.
- I cited authors and editors who identify Palestinians as an ethnic group: Aziz Haidar, Milton Jacob Esman, Itamar Rabinovich, and Nadim N. Rouhana. Your reply was "So What?"
- I believe I've already answered this several times before: Several historians report about the internal US State Department memos which reported on Israeli militia operations and predicted that the Arab armies would enter Palestine. They said the UN would be confronted by a very anomalous and intolerable situation:
"The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the SC in scarcely ten days' time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.
The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack. ... Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3 of USUN's telegram [549], May 2, which has been drawn to your attention. See Memo from Rusk to the Under Secretary of State Lovett, May 4, 1948, Subject: Future Course of Events in Palestine. Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848
- That memo is cited in "The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951", William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.
- On 9 May UN Representative Austin advised the US Secretary of State that the French representative, Mr. Parodi, had called a meeting of the British, Belgian, and American, representatives to discuss the situation regarding possible action which the Security Council might be called upon to take following May 15. He said that as of May 15 they would be faced by declarations of two states of Palestine coupled with the entrance of Abdullah. Regarding the latter, two ideas were current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond his own frontier it might constitute an "act of aggression". The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of the Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to the second theory and thought a conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 946.
- I think those published viewpoints would balance out any additions and analysis you might add to the article from Mr. Karsh. harlan (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so the State Department released a memo saying the Jews were baiting the Arabs into a pointless war - again, so what? The State Department has been Arabist since the founding and protection of Saudi Arabia. It certainly isn't an empirical source. Karsh CITES his sources from numerous documents, including Arab. This article is not about the 1948 war but the Palestinian people. I don't know how you hijacked this discussion over whether the Palestinians are an historic people independent of the Arabs and their identity predates the advent of Zionism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I listed three historians that provide analysis and cite lots of documents too. I suppose I hijacked the conversation when I pointed out that the 1919 Charter of Ahdut Ha'avodah (Unity of Labor) demanded "the transfer of Palestine's land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession." and pointed out that Dirk Moses and others have noted that settler-colonists used propaganda to rationalize the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population; appeal to popular beliefs and intolerance; sow discord (divide and rule); and to misrepresent or deceive others about what was really happening.
- Okay, so the State Department released a memo saying the Jews were baiting the Arabs into a pointless war - again, so what? The State Department has been Arabist since the founding and protection of Saudi Arabia. It certainly isn't an empirical source. Karsh CITES his sources from numerous documents, including Arab. This article is not about the 1948 war but the Palestinian people. I don't know how you hijacked this discussion over whether the Palestinians are an historic people independent of the Arabs and their identity predates the advent of Zionism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Karsh claims that, for the Palestinians, 1948 was a "Self Inflicted Tragedy" (starting on page 230). The founder of Karsh's political movement wrote
Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.
All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall.
- Karsh claims that, for the Palestinians, 1948 was a "Self Inflicted Tragedy" (starting on page 230). The founder of Karsh's political movement wrote
- FYI, The publishers jacket notes explain that Karsch attempts to tell the story from the Arab and Jewish perspectives using Western, Soviet, UN, and Israel documents that were declassified over the past decade and "unfamiliar" Arab sources. 90 percent of the material is from previously published British Foreign Office and the Israeli State Archives. The Arab source material consists of public domain newspaper accounts, journal articles, personal biographies, and other books. harlan (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder ...
Changes to the introduction, and particularly to the first sentence of it, are probably best discussed on talk first. It took months to forge consensus over the wording of the first line.
Also please do not mark edits making changes to the introduction of infobox content as "minor". Thanks. Tiamuttalk 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Potential OR
The sources provided do not discuss Oslo Accords or any inference that its failure led to the Second Intifada. Assuming an editor wrote this without consulting reliable sources, I don't think it should remain in the article. I mean, the Oslo Accords was sighed more than 7 years prior to the Second Intifada. And it did not "fail to bring about a Palestinian state." IF we are going to do original research, than Oslo Accords should be replaced with Camp David Accords because that is what many claim ignited the Second Intifada, though we all know that isn't true.
I know this is a touchy article and I don't feel like meddling, but hopefully some editors will take notice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
saints & tombs
The article wrongly claims tombs & saints are opposed to orthodox islam. While tombs & saints exist all over the muslim world from since the beginning of islamic history. It is 18th century protestant wahabi movement that opposed this. After gaining control they destroyed the tombs in saudi arabia except for the tomb of the prophet of Islam which even today exists and is attached to the mosque in Madinah. Also, using the word "worship" is wrong as no one attributes any form of divinity to the saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.235.210 (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Languages and Religion.
In the Palestinian People info box it states that the only language spoken in the Palestinian Territories is Palestinian Arabic, which is false, they also speak English and Modern Hebrew.
http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/what_language_is_spoken_in_palestine
In regards to Religion, I think we can actually say all of the Religions practiced? Considering that there is and always has been a Jewish community in Palestine living alongside the Christian and Muslim communities. As well as the Druze. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The relationship between Israeli Arab and Palestinian
Maybe it is obvious to most people, but I think we'll all be better off if we can, even somewhat, crystallize the relationship, if any, between the two. I presume it is not a contradiction to say someone is both Israeli and Palestinian. Does anyone have any issues tagging Israeli Arabs as Palestinians and vice versa if there are reliable sources supporting the tagging? -- Avi (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Only problem I can see is if some Israeli Arabs specifically identify as Israeli only, I could imagine there are a bunc of those. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Or if some Palestinians specifically identify as Palestinian only. For example, I'm pretty sure members of Hamas don't self-identify as Israeli-Arab. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Are any Hamas members Israeli citizens? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it, although it is possible. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Muhammad Abu Tir was an Israeli citizen, but had it stripped. -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that all Israeli-Arab groups identify themselves as Palestinians (Druze, Bedouins etc.).Sol (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course they do not all. Many Israeli-Arabs living in Israel who do not have roots from Palestinians do not identify as Palestinians (obviously). For example, khaled abu Toameh says his father is Israeli-Arab while his mother is Palestinian, making him Israeli-Arab Palestinian. Now, Israeli-Arabs with two Israeli-Arab parents probably would not identify as Palestinians. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also for example you have some Christians who fled from Lebanon because of threat by Hezbullah and other Islamic terrorists, who now have kids in Israel... these kids are Israeli-Arabs, no connection to any Palestinians. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Are any Hamas members Israeli citizens? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Or if some Palestinians specifically identify as Palestinian only. For example, I'm pretty sure members of Hamas don't self-identify as Israeli-Arab. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
So someone like Kais Nashef may be properly described as "Israeli-Palestinian" or "Palestinian-Israeli"? -- Avi (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I guess it can be said. Although in Israel he is called Israeli-Arab, not Palestinian. But if he is Israeli citizen and calls himself Palestinian, sure why not. LibiBamizrach (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- This should be decided on a case by case basis, using reiable sources and deferring to how people self-identify. Some Arab citizens of Israel strongly object to beng called Israelis, some don't. Some strongly identify as part of the Palestinian people, some don't. This holds true for Druze and Negev Bedouins as wel. Generalizations won't work here. Each person being considered for a new infobox montage should identify as Palestinian. They can also identify as Israeli or American or whatever else they want to, but sources should be provided to ensure that the Palestinian identification is appropriate. Tiamuttalk 06:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is not just about the montage; this is more general. See Kais Nashef and Talk:Kais Nashef for example. -- Avi (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with Tiamut on this issue. It can only really be handled on a case by case basis but I do think we need some general guides at least for the infobox in cases like this e.g. nationality=Palestinian, citizenship=Israeli or something like that. Here is a real example, Hiam Abbass. It's probably typical. LibiBamizrach legitimately removed some info/cats based on the source cited i.e. no mention of Palestinian although they didn't remove 'is an Arab-Israeli actress' which wasn't WP:V compliant either...transparent case of bias. :) I restored and amended the info based on self identification. The problem is, the article now doesn't say that she has Israeli citizenship (assuming she does) i.e. is treated as an Israeli national when she travels etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Palestinians in Jordan
Where does the source linked to in the table state that there are 4.5 million Palestinians in Jordan? That really doesn't make sense. Cause if you count the "1-2 million" Iraqis in Jordan listed in the page about Iraqis, it really wouldn't leave much Jordanians among its population of 6.3 million. I knew Jordanians were a minority but are they that low in number? UltimateDarkloid (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Very good catch. The article linked as the source says Jordan has 1.9 million Palestinian refugees who are citizens and 120k others who are non-citizens from Gaza and the other source says it might be up to 3.1 million in 2010 but that's an extrapolation. These numbers are for Palestinian refugees in Jordan which UNWRA puts at 1,983,733 as of 2008 or soe. How many Jordanians identify as Palestinians? I'm not sure. Looks like the diff is from this IP.Sol (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
49% in 2009 or 2005?
The second line of the lead section that says "as of 2009, Arabs constitute 49% of all inhabitants" cites a reference from 2005. It seems to me that when the reference was first inserted here it replaced a 2009 reference, however the editor neglected to update the reference date from 2009 to 2005. Whether the updated reference is actually better is an entirely different matter. I'm only asking if we should not change 2009 to 2005 to keep it in synch with the data. --Phiont (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) In fact, the article cited from 2005 presented data collected no later than 2004. The lead section has been edited accordingly.--Phiont (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-biased picture needed
The picture on top of the article is of a "peasant family of Ramallah." When the picture was taken, "Palestinian people" meant people living in Palestine, without political or ethnic connotation. So we don't know what this family is, other than people living in Ramallah. To add the title Palestinian is not sourced. How do you know these people were Arabs, or aren't recent immigrants. On Wikipedia, we avoid controversial topics. An old picture implies that the label, Palestinian, was contemporary to the picture. A new picture doesn't assert that Palestinians are new themselves. But in light of the controversy surrounding the phrase "historical Palestine," putting up an old picture does imply that they are old and were established in their present form at that time. We can all agree that the word has had a shifting definition. Therefore, the picture is an advocate of an opinion. Additionally, the picture includes a description in its image, but includes a second one with the change of "peasant" to "Palestinian," and "of" to "from." I propose removing the image and replacing it with a non-political image of what Palestinian people look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.171.19 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I proposed changing the main picture due to the simplicity of it, to a more diverse Infobox of Notable Palestinians, it is currently being worked on. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive the incessant reminder that fair-use images found on wikipedia, such as that of Edward Said, may not be used in an infobox on wikipedia. The infobox must be restricted to free-use images such as that of Tawfiq Canaan. -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, fair use images will need to be used. Lazyfoxx (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, FREE use images must be used, not FAIR use images. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm on to it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, it's done, if anyone wants some changes done, list them here. A few things that could be problematical is Leila Khled, who might be too controversial to include, but I couldn't find other photos of notable female Palestiians. Edward Said is a child on the photo of him, but I think that's ok, it's still him, and it doesn't hurt to have a child representative. May Ziade was only half Palestinian, but who really gives a damn about percentage. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nicely done regarding use of free images, Funk 8-) -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- What about File:ASHRAWI.JPG? -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- This article is about Palestinians, not Muslims or Christians or Jews or Druze or Bahai or Jainists or Buddhists, no? -- Avi (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I was assuming that Leila Khaled should be the one to be replaced, but on second thoughts she has a very different status today as member of the Palestinian National Council, and quite respected among Palestinians, so it is probably May Ziade who should be replaced, no? What do people think? Khaled is probably the most famous Palestinian female. And this image of Ashrawi might be better, she is not obscured by her hand. [43] FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Claims of Palestinian ancestry in the lead
This sentence suddenly appeared in the intro: "They are descended from Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European Crusaders such as French, Germans, and English." It is solely based on a claim by a single source, Bernard Lewis. There are a few problems with this, first, Lewis is not a geneticist, so lazily listing every single ethnicity that ever set foot in Palestine as the ancestors of all modern Palestinians doesn't cut it, when genetic studies show that the majority of their ancestry is indigenous Levantine with South Arabian as the main foreign element. These claimed ethnicities do not even have unique genetic markers, so why list it as fact? It is way undue weight to the musings of a historian who is pro-Zionist anyway, and would sure as hell like if the Palestinians were a foreign element there. I say remove the sentence from the lead, and if it is to be included anywhere at all, it should be attributted to Bernard Lewis so we don't present it as fact. But if it stays, we should also have a statement in the lead of the Jew article claiming they're descendants of Khazars or some such nonsense. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are sources in the body of the article discussing the various ethnic/cultural groups scientists have linked to Palestinians and one of those could be used. I don't really care what we say, just something about how Palestinians have a very complicated genetic/cultural past, something that hints at the main articles contents (per lead policy). (and let's try not to frame it in the Arabs vs Jews context/related rhetoric, that always brings in the circling editwar vultures and sidetracks everything.) Sol (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well Funk, I added this to the lead of the article in replace of an uncited sentence stating regarding Palestinians, "They are mostly of the Arab ethnicity, with some Bosnian, Circassian, and Samaritan ancestry." Which was not only uncited but inaccurate.
All of the people listed in the Sentence "Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European Crusaders such as French, Germans, and English." have left a genetic imprint on the Palestinian people, but I agree with you, not every Palestinian has descent from all these peoples, for instance, the genetic imprint left by the Crusaders varies extremely depending on Religion as well as which region of Palestine people were from (ie a Muslim Family living near the Negev will probably not have any Crusader admix and instead a decent amount of Arabian/Bedouin admixture. While a Christian family from Acre would probably have a significant amount of Crusader blood.)
I propose we state in the beginning that Palestinian ancestry varies by Region as well as to a lesser extent, religion. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I mentioned earlier, fact is that genetic studies show Palestinians are mainly of indigenous Levantine origin with a large amount of South Arabian admixture. Anything besides that is insignificant. This is very different from mentioning myriads of different ancient peoples, who may or may not have had a genetic impact. If ancestry is to be mentioned in the lead, let's do it with genetic fact, scientific terms and references, not arbitrary ethnic designations and POV schemes thought up by a single biased historian. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I added additional ancestry information with the word "can" in front of it to signify that not all Palestinians descend from every single one of the peoples listed, but depending on region, some can have varying amounts of ancestry from some of the peoples listed. Lazyfoxx (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why is this needed? And why in the intro of all places? It's irrelevant. No other article about a people lists every single ethnicity some members claim to descend from. The genetic info is way more than enough, and most other articles don't even have such info in the intro either. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Notable people for the infobox?
Should we have such here, like on most other articles on nations and such? On the top of my head I can think of these people we have free images of: Mahmoud Darwish, Queen Rania of Jordan, Yasser Arafat, and May Ziade. There are probably many more, but so far these are equal in gender and have diverse backgrounds/occupations. We also have a free image of Edward Said as a child, but that's hardly appropriate, is it? FunkMonk (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's an example of how it could look, based on the Arab and Jew infoboxes: http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8660/65486068.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at this Commons category, I can see there are many more we could use: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Palestine FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone? Current image is a bit too vague, isn't it? FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is critical to remember that we are not supposed to use fair-use images in these templates. The fair-use images are allowed in articles about people for which no reasonable possibility exists that a free use image is available (such as deceased people) but that does not allow us to then re-use those images elsewhere, such as a template. That is an infringement of copyright. -- Avi (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no one suggested that we should use fair use images anywhere, hence "people we have free images of". FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a list of additional Notable Palestinians to be used in the box Funkmonk. Edward Said, Mohammad Bakri, Mahmoud Darwish, Hany Abu-Assad, Ali Suliman, Kais Nashef, Hiam Abbass, Rami Kashou, John Henry Sununu, Ahmed Jibril, Haidar Abdel-Shafi, George Habash. I can research more if needed. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good list, but remember the catch, we ned to have free images of the people we use, so take a look at their pages and see if such are available. What do you think about the example I posted above, by the way? FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Tawfiq Canaan.jpg comes to mind. -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The Collage you posted is exactly what I had in mind in regards to format, Funkmonk. Regarding free images, lots of the people on my list have Photo's on their wikipedia pages now, like Edward Said, Mohammad Bakri, John E. Sununu, etc. I would like to add the main characters from the film Paradise Now who are both Palestinians to the list, but have not found pictures of them (Ali Suliman, Kais Nashef) on Wikipedia... Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Edward Said's image is not free use, it is fair use. Thus, it may not be used anywhere else but his article. Please check the licenses of the images you want to use. -- Avi (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I believe John E. Sununu is American of Lebanese extraction, not Palestinian. His father, John H. Sununu, is Cuban of Lebanese extraction, and not Palestinian either, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, Mohammad Bakri was born in North-East Israel in 1953, per his wikibio, that makes him an Israeli Arab, and not Palestinian. -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The same seems to apply to Ali Suliman, who was born in Nazareth.
- The source brought in the Kais Nashef article says that the producer is Palestinian. It calles Nashef an Israeli Arab. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Kais Nashef#Is Nashef Palestinian? and if you can find a source supporting the article, great! Otherwise, we may need to correct it. -- Avi (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Avi, all of the people I listed fall into the Category of Palestinian. Even if they are Israeli Arab as well. If you look into what a Palestinian is, it states anyone from Palestine, and Palestine includes all of the West Bank, Israel, and the Gaza strip. Therefore Israeli "Arabs" are ethnically the same as Palestinian "Arabs".
In Regards to John E. Sununu, I've read that his mother was of partial Palestinian descent, therefore Sununu is part Palestinian.
Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lazyfoxx, according to your logic, all Palestinians are also Israeli, so should we call them so 8-) ? Regarding Sunnunu, you would have to bring a reliable and verifiable source about Sunnunu, and then we can change the article. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Avi, you wrote that Arabs born in Israel are not Palestinian. This article is on the group of people, not holders of a nationality, and Palestinians born in Palestine (and by Palestine I mean Palestine) do not cease to be Palestinians because they were born in the modern state of Israel. I was born in the US, I am still an Egyptian even if I am also an American citizen. nableezy - 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nableezy. In your case, that would be because your parents are Egyptian. The logical extension of your argument is to say that all Israeli's (those living in Tel Aviv and Be'er Sheva, for example) are Palestinian, because under the Romans, they renamed Iudea to Syria Palestenia. That is a bit of a stretch, I think. I think it safest if we can keep the images to people for whom there is no debate whether they are Palestinian or Israeli, like Tawfiq Canaan. People who today (or historically) live(d) in places clearly referred to as Palestine (and not Iudea, Israel, Lebanon, etc.). I would agree, especially with the recent terming of certain areas in the region as "Palestinian territories", that people who, despite where they live, self-identify as Palestinian (like Ahmed Yassin -- although we sadly have no free-use image of him) should be included as well. My point above is that the people listed by Lazyfoxx above have no sourcing for being Palestinians, and we need sources on wikipedia. Do you disagree, Nableezy? -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good find for Nashef, BTW, two of those sources are clear. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) If Israeli Jews wish to identify themselves as Palestinians they are free to do so, in fact a few do. The Arabs of Palestine still largely identify themselves as Palestinians. "Palestinian" and "Israeli" are not antonyms and there are people that apply both labels to themselves. If there is no source for a person being a Palestinian then obviously we cant say they are Palestinian, I just take objection to the argument you made that an Arab born in the modern state of Israel is not a Palestinian but rather an Israeli Arab. They may be an Israeli citizen, they may also be a Palestinian. nableezy - 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Avi, People with Ancestry in Palestine that are born in Israel are Palestinian as well as "Israeli Arab". all of the People I posted are Palestinian, even if some of them are Israeli Arab, they are still Palestinians by ethnicity and deserve to be represented in this article. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, Nableezy and Lazy. If people self-identify or are identified as Palestinian in reliable sources, that should be OK. But take the Sunnunus for example; they were neither born in Palestine nor does anyone refer to them as Palestinian as far as I know. Same with Bakri, has anyone referred to him as Palestinian? If not, then calling him Palestinian is most probably a WP:OR violation. If he was born, or lives in the territories, it may be covered as WP:CK, otherwise calling him Palestinian solely because he is of Arab descent living in Israel may be OR/SYNTH. As this is a contentious area, I think it prudent to focus on people who will give rise to the least amount of controversy. The best way to prevent controversy is to do what Nableezy did with Nashef—find sources. -- Avi (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Avi, I don't think you understand the concept here, Bakri is of Palestinian descent, not "Arab" proper. Some men and women in Palestine/Israel are migrant Arab workers from other countries who migrated to the area after the foundation of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, they are not Palestinians ancestrally. But Arab is a blanket term that can refer to people from any Arab nation.
Let me give you an example here, if a Man of Basque ancestry is born in Spain, does that make him Spanish? The answer is No, Spanish nationality-wise, but he would be Ethnically Basque because he descends from people who were there before the formation of a Spanish state. Similarly, Bakri may have been born in Israel, but his ancestors were Palestinian, not Israeli, and not "Arab".
If you are still confused just look up Mohammad Bakri on the internet, sources say he is a Palestinian actor, who was born in Israel.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mohammed-Bakri/110160369013501
Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that, but there must be verifiable and reliable sources that state that Bakri is of Palestinian descent, and refer to him as such or quote him self-identifying as such. Otherwise, it is a violation of original research policies even if it is true. That is a fundemental core principle on wikipedia. So, if we can get sources about Bakri, great. Right now, his own website is dead, other reliable sources such as [44], [45] don't mention it, the New York Times article I found calls him Israeli Arab (see [46]and blogs and other self-published sources such as www.webgaza.net or www.democracynow.org are almost always unacceptable as reliable sources. There are other articles out there, some may call him Palestinian, but until we find one that is an issue. -- Avi (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please let me be clear, I have no issue calling him Palestinian on wikipedia, as long as it is within policy grounds. -- Avi (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you understand that but what Nebleezy and I are saying is that the term "Israeli Arab" only refers to Nationality, this is a article about people in the ethnic sense and all indigenous "Israeli Arabs" are Palestinian by ethnic ancestry. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Im not saying that. There may well be Arabs born in Israel who do not identify as "Palestinians". But for those that do identify as Palestinians they can be considered such in this article. But at the end of the day Avi is right, if you want to say somebody is Palestinian get a source saying that person is Palestinian. nableezy - 05:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright look, right here in this interview Bakri states that he is Palestinian.
"because we are Palestinians who are living in Israel, on one side we are Palestinian, on the other side we have citizenship, Israeli citizenship, our identity, you know, not everybody, not for everybody. "
http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/feature.php?id=750
If that isn't proof of what I'm saying I don't know what is...
Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Also here are two sources stating that the main characters from Paradise Now, are Palestinian.
Kais Nashif http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1845700/ Ali Suliman http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/Ali_Suliman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lazyfoxx, firstly, you need to review what a reliable and verifiable source is. Eyeforfilm seems to be a self-published website by a few people (see http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/contact.php) and likely fails muster. Secondly, the fact that the characters in the film being portrayed are Palestinian does not make the actor Palestinian any more than Arnold Schwarzenegger ceases to be Austrian and becomes Cimmerian Hibernian when he portrays Conan the Barbarian. -- Avi (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Avi, I don't know why you're talking in circles with me on this issue, it's obvious that these people are self-identified Palestinians under the Israeli Arab Nationality. It may be a self published website but it was citing an actual interview stating a quote by Bakri. The fact that the two actors from Paradise Now were playing Palestinians is pure coincidence, If you read what I have posted, I clearly did not base my assumption on a movie but rather their birthplaces. Lazyfoxx (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it sounds as if I am repeating myself, but you are clearly missing a core wikipedia policy here. You just admitted that you made an assumption based on their birthplaces. That is a violation of wikipedia's policy against original research, specifically synthesis. I am wikilinking these for you; it is critical that you read them. Failure to comply with wikipedia policies and guidelines is grounds for measures being taken to protect the project which may include loss of editing privileges. You seem to have a lot to contribute; don't have it be sidetracked or refused because you ran afoul of wikipedia's rules. So, if you can find (as Nableezy did for Nashef) a verifiable and reliable source (<-- read this one too!) for someone's being identified as a Palestinian--great. If not, your own analysis based on birth place is unacceptable. -- Avi (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I will read up on the rules, but the only issue I have here is that Ali Suliman and Mohammad Bakri are both Labeled as Israeli-Arabs on Wikipedia without citation. Why can they be listed as Israeli-Arabs without citation but cannot be referred to as Palestinians without citation? That just appears like a double standard to me.
I quote Nebleezy here, "This article is on the group of people, not holders of a nationality, and Palestinians born in Palestine (and by Palestine I mean Palestine) do not cease to be Palestinians because they were born in the modern state of Israel." Lazyfoxx (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed Bakri and tagged Suliman; I'll hunt around and see if I can find anything. -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to open up a discussion about this below so we can get some clarity. -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright so here are sources justifying the double tagging of Bakri and Suliman as Palestinian as well as Israeli Arab. http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/Ali_Suliman http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5558/Bakri-Mohamed-1953.html Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lazyfoxx, it pays to read the sources
. That blurb at the top of http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/Ali_Suliman is from wikipedia (an older version of the page) and so is completely unreliable. As for http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/, is that considered reliable? I don't know -- we can ask at WT:RS. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
![[43]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DrHananAshrawiPalFest2008.jpg){kind=link}
Ok, here's another source for Suliman, read at the bottom of the interview. http://www.noticias.info/archivo/2005/200502/20050217/20050217_48698.shtm Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, should Bakri be included or not? I see he is described as palestinian in the intros of several interviews found on Google, that would indicate his consent. We need two more people to fill up the picture, one more woman would be nice. We have a free photo of Leila Khaled now, but I think that would be too controversial... FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting choice of a convicted murderer to illustrate "notable" Palestinians. What are people supposed to infer from that?--85.65.99.40 (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ^ "Palestine". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-29.
- ^ Porath, 1974, p. 117.