The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BCE occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza. The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century CE in “Syria Palaestina,” designating the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era.
There's a difference between a historical description of the land, and a formal Nation.
Even Mandated Palestine wasn't Palestinian-run, it was British.
It feels like splitting hairs to comment that there was no Palestine pre 1900 because it had a different name. Especially when it was referred to as Palestine by Arabs for like 2000 years, it just wasn't officially a state.
Actually it sounds like a selective retelling of history designed to imply no one had any right to it or feelings of nationalism around it prior to WWII
IIRC Jews have called the land west of the river Jordan Israel for a long time, too, 3000 years or so?
So what do we do, get into a competition to see who can find the oldest historical documents? Or just accept that we have two (or more, really) groups of people that have historical and cultural import around the same region?
And more importantly, can we do that without the constant terrorism? I think we can all agree that terrorism is bad.
Or just accept that we have two (or more, really) groups of people that have historical and cultural import around the same region?
To be honest I don't care about anyones special fucking book. Tracing backwards the land belongs to:
The Palestinian peoples: 1940's-now
The Ottoman Empire: 1500's-1900's
The Christians: 11th century
?: 11c - 63bc
Romans: 63bc
Jewish peoples: 63bc-931bc
So by this whole "history culture" logic I have more of a right to Israel having been raised culturally Christian than the Jewish peoples.
But that's dumb. I'm gonna arbitrarily draw the line 100 years ago and say anyone after that can fuck off. If you have to go further back than great-great-great grandparents then you don't have a claim to it.
We can't even agree on what terrorism is. How can we agree it's bad? Israel using its forces to violently suppress a minority should be called terrorism, but it usually isn't because they're in power. It's also not called terrorism when the US bombs the fuck out of places.
Terrorism is only when those without power use violence. It's a bullshit term designed to incite emotion and not logical understanding.
Most of the major news outlets have picked this up, but their source is just the Hamas government. This at least claims to have talked to someone. Hard to know what's real, but I'm not sure even what resources the major publications have in Gaza. Seems like a dangerous place to be.
It's very, very hard to believe.
What's Israel's strategy with something like that?
If their intent is to murder innocents, there's easier ways to do it with better deniability.
Will be interesting to see what other reporting emerges.
Israel wants to grow until there is no more Palestine and they have uncontested land posession
There was no Palestine in 1900, it was the Ottoman Empire.
They collapsed after a spanking in WW1.
BBC explains it pretty well:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567
no
https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine
There's a difference between a historical description of the land, and a formal Nation.
Even Mandated Palestine wasn't Palestinian-run, it was British.
It feels like splitting hairs to comment that there was no Palestine pre 1900 because it had a different name. Especially when it was referred to as Palestine by Arabs for like 2000 years, it just wasn't officially a state.
Actually it sounds like a selective retelling of history designed to imply no one had any right to it or feelings of nationalism around it prior to WWII
IIRC Jews have called the land west of the river Jordan Israel for a long time, too, 3000 years or so?
So what do we do, get into a competition to see who can find the oldest historical documents? Or just accept that we have two (or more, really) groups of people that have historical and cultural import around the same region?
And more importantly, can we do that without the constant terrorism? I think we can all agree that terrorism is bad.
To be honest I don't care about anyones special fucking book. Tracing backwards the land belongs to:
So by this whole "history culture" logic I have more of a right to Israel having been raised culturally Christian than the Jewish peoples.
But that's dumb. I'm gonna arbitrarily draw the line 100 years ago and say anyone after that can fuck off. If you have to go further back than great-great-great grandparents then you don't have a claim to it.
We can't even agree on what terrorism is. How can we agree it's bad? Israel using its forces to violently suppress a minority should be called terrorism, but it usually isn't because they're in power. It's also not called terrorism when the US bombs the fuck out of places.
Terrorism is only when those without power use violence. It's a bullshit term designed to incite emotion and not logical understanding.
It's really not if you know anything
A sound rebuttal.
Most of the major news outlets have picked this up, but their source is just the Hamas government. This at least claims to have talked to someone. Hard to know what's real, but I'm not sure even what resources the major publications have in Gaza. Seems like a dangerous place to be.
Middle East Eye does have a mostly factual rating from Media Bias Fact Check, with the mostly coming from them not revealing their ownership rather than failing fact checking.