EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 218
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11714 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17700 Posts
| ||
|
Ryzel
United States507 Posts
On February 16 2024 23:56 ChristianS wrote: I mean, skimming through this Wikipedia page it looks like “Palestinian” is an ethnic identity and nationalist movement that first started bubbling up in the 19th century but became particularly pronounced following WW1. Ya know, the same timeline a huge number of ethnic identities and nationalist movements in Europe followed. In fact, wasn’t Zionism on a pretty similar timeline? If that’s accurate, Cerebrate saying people didn’t identify as Palestinian in 1948 is wrong. But more than that, it seems motivated by a desire to imply Palestinian is not a “real” identity (much the same way Russia likes to do with Ukrainians). I mean, I agree that Cerebrate is a respectful and thorough poster and I’m glad he’s here, but that seems worth calling out, no? Edit: Yeah okay, I went and read that one too. TL;DR is basically “Palestine was just a name used by Roman or British conquerors, the local people never thought they were anything but Arabs.” So yes, quite explicitly pushing the “not a real identity” angle. I mean, I’m not particularly well-versed on the history of Palestinian nationalism but even a quick googling reveals stuff like a series of Palestinian Arab Congresses held following WW1 trying to decide what “Palestinian” means and advocate for political autonomy. That’s exactly the kind of thing Germans or Italians or Hungarians were up to in the 19th and early 20th centuries as nationalism became the organizing principle of the world. Seems like it’s as “real” an ethnic identity as any other to me! That article was super interesting to read, thanks! While I agree it's clear evidence the concept of a Palestinian national identity existed somewhere, and that there were attempts to establish said national Palestinian identity by some individuals, the Wikipedia article is more inconclusive on how representative the Congress is of the thoughts/views of the greater Palestinian population. It states that the early delegates were composed of propertied (i.e. rich landowning) individuals, and the proceedings seem heavily influenced by the Husayni clan, whom apparently were themselves a Palestinian dynasty of sorts going back to the Ottoman occupation in the late 19th century. The only lines I saw referencing anything resembling having the mandate of the people are the biographer of a prominent delegate "confirm[ing] this date and that while the delegates were assembling in Damascus for the recalled Syrian National Congress, a large number of Palestinians had already gathered in Damascus and organized themselves into the ‘Palestinian Congress’" at the second Congress, as well as an article about the Husayni clan stating "By the time of the British Mandate the clan had hundreds of members and its several branches encompassed thousands". Perhaps diving more into the sources would clear things up, but at this point I personally feel those two lines by themselves aren't strong enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate that these Congresses were conducted with the mandate of the people, as opposed to a political power grab by elites fighting back against encroachment from foreign powers. Certainly up for debate at the very least though. On February 17 2024 00:38 Acrofales wrote: Palestinian is indeed an ethnicity! More news at 11. I know you're being intentionally terse here, but I wanted to clarify that no one is debating whether or not Palestinians identify themselves as Palestinian today, but whether or not this was widespread among the populace pre-1948. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3177 Posts
I’ve written before in this thread about how I think nationalism had some real downsides and might not have been the best organizing principle for the world. “Nations” are, fundamentally, imagined communities so in some sense none of the extant national identities are “real.” But in the context of someone trying to ethnically cleanse a region called Palestine of a people calling themselves “Palestinians” I’m not gonna have a lot of patience for them arguing “well, ya know, they’re really just ‘Arabs’ and we’re just moving them to a different part of the Arab world.” In that case it’s just a paper-thin rationalization for an amoral conquest. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22952 Posts
On February 17 2024 00:57 ChristianS wrote: Have you read up on any other nationalist movements? They were pretty consistently the result of a few elites getting together and saying “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if there was a thing called Italians [or whatever national identity] and we were autonomous instead of just being a different region controlled by the Austrian empire [or whoever has conquered the region at the time]?” Then they hold Congresses or whatever trying to flesh out the concept and generally get a movement going. Naturally those elites who invested early are expecting to be pretty highly regarded in the new “nation” once things get off the ground, maybe be one of the first few Presidents or something. I’ve written before in this thread about how I think nationalism had some real downsides and might not have been the best organizing principle for the world. “Nations” are, fundamentally, imagined communities so in some sense none of the extant national identities are “real.” But in the context of someone trying to ethnically cleanse a region called Palestine of a people calling themselves “Palestinians” I’m not gonna have a lot of patience for them arguing “well, ya know, they’re really just ‘Arabs’ and we’re just moving them to a different part of the Arab world.” In that case it’s just a paper-thin rationalization for an amoral conquest. To rather understate it! To say I’m not a massive fan of nationalism is somewhat of an understatement, but equally to deny its potency as an influencer and shaper of the world is completely daft. And folks aligning on adopting new identities and new groupings to prevent them being swallowed up by some other group’s particular nationalism, doesn’t really invalidate that identity. It’s still ‘real’, it doesn’t really make it any less arbitrary than the arbitrary thing | ||
|
tankgirl
314 Posts
Just another day on the #1 monkey colony in the observable universe! User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States507 Posts
On February 17 2024 00:57 ChristianS wrote: Have you read up on any other nationalist movements? They were pretty consistently the result of a few elites getting together and saying “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if there was a thing called Italians [or whatever national identity] and we were autonomous instead of just being a different region controlled by the Austrian empire [or whoever has conquered the region at the time]?” Then they hold Congresses or whatever trying to flesh out the concept and generally get a movement going. Naturally those elites who invested early are expecting to be pretty highly regarded in the new “nation” once things get off the ground, maybe be one of the first few Presidents or something. I’ve written before in this thread about how I think nationalism had some real downsides and might not have been the best organizing principle for the world. “Nations” are, fundamentally, imagined communities so in some sense none of the extant national identities are “real.” But in the context of someone trying to ethnically cleanse a region called Palestine of a people calling themselves “Palestinians” I’m not gonna have a lot of patience for them arguing “well, ya know, they’re really just ‘Arabs’ and we’re just moving them to a different part of the Arab world.” In that case it’s just a paper-thin rationalization for an amoral conquest. TBF No I have not. If that’s how ethnic identities typically form then I’ll accept the evidence as conclusive enough. I also agree that debates about the legitimacy of an ethnic identity are pointless in justifying the forcible relocation of anyone. On February 17 2024 03:53 tankgirl wrote: Monkeys killing other monkeys? Just another day on the #1 monkey colony in the observable universe! Poignant. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16175 Posts
On February 17 2024 00:57 ChristianS wrote: I’ve written before in this thread about how I think nationalism had some real downsides and might not have been the best organizing principle for the world. “Nations” are, fundamentally, imagined communities so in some sense none of the extant national identities are “real.” Nationalism eh? https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/pierre-elliott-trudeau-feature I highly recommend this book... https://www.amazon.ca/Towards-Just-Society-Pierre-Trudeau/dp/0670830151 Pierre Elliott Trudeau shaped Canada into a great country while eschewing nationalism at every turn. P.E.T. is the greatest mind of the 20th century. The very high level of economic opportunity given to the average Canadian from ~1950 to 2008 is hard to communicate in a short forum post. A lot of that is due to Pierre Trudeau. His #1 lieutenant went on to become Prime Minister from 1993 to 2003. I'll express the sentiment far more politely so as not to lose the signal due to the white noise. Humans are earth's apex predator. Like other of this planet's elite predators ... they will, on occasion, kill each other. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22952 Posts
On February 18 2024 04:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Nationalism eh? https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/pierre-elliott-trudeau-feature I highly recommend this book... https://www.amazon.ca/Towards-Just-Society-Pierre-Trudeau/dp/0670830151 Pierre Elliott Trudeau shaped Canada into a great country while eschewing nationalism at every turn. P.E.T. is the greatest mind of the 20th century. The very high level of economic opportunity given to the average Canadian from ~1950 to 2008 is hard to communicate in a short forum post. A lot of that is due to Pierre Trudeau. His #1 lieutenant went on to become Prime Minister from 1993 to 2003. I'll express the sentiment far more politely so as not to lose the signal due to the white noise. Humans are earth's apex predator. Like other of this planet's elite predators ... they will, on occasion, kill each other. Let’s not over-egg it eh? Although it does seem interesting nonetheless it’s really, really a stretch in terms of relevance as it pertains to this particular topic. There’s a difference between not actively courting nationalist sentiment, and nationalist sentiment being absent entirely. At a brass tacks level even having the aspiration of making one’s nation great is kind of inextricable from nationalism, regardless of how you pursue that aim. Cheers for the further reading though, in the most earnest expression! Always nice to plug some gaps in one’s knowledge. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16175 Posts
On February 18 2024 05:05 WombaT wrote: Let’s not over-egg it eh? Although it does seem interesting nonetheless it’s really, really a stretch in terms of relevance as it pertains to this particular topic. There’s a difference between not actively courting nationalist sentiment, and nationalist sentiment being absent entirely. that is covered in the book. i'll post a few quotes. also, i'm not sure if you're referring to quebec nationalism or palestinian nationalism or canadian nationalism. Both Quebec Nationalism and Palestinian Nationalism have an element of anti-semitism. The Palestinian nationalism within Canada today also has a strong element of anti-semitism. ( i can provide sources on this if you wish) If one examines Pierre Trudeau's methods of dealing with the ills of nationalism one might find some solid ways to mitigate those negatives today. "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it", Churchill 1948. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22952 Posts
On February 18 2024 06:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: that is covered in the book. i'll post a few quotes. also, i'm not sure if you're referring to quebec nationalism or palestinian nationalism or canadian nationalism. Both Quebec Nationalism and Palestinian Nationalism have an element of anti-semitism. The Palestinian nationalism within Canada today also has a strong element of anti-semitism. ( i can provide sources on this if you wish) If one examines Pierre Trudeau's methods of dealing with the ills of nationalism one might find some solid ways to mitigate those negatives today. "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it", Churchill 1948. I’m referring to nationalism, full stop. Definitionally, aspiring to make your nation great, to outperform its neighbours is nationalism, even if it’s not a particularly harmful form innately. Hence why I’m saying you don’t have to court the worst instincts of nationalism to be doing it. I may read a book about Pierre Trudeau for my own learning, but failing what are the pertinent bullet points that one may take away and apply to this particular scenario? I’m not likely to do it anytime soon, so too, I imagine are much of the thread, so what in broad brush terms is the common ground or applicability here? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17700 Posts
On February 18 2024 06:41 WombaT wrote: I’m referring to nationalism, full stop. Definitionally, aspiring to make your nation great, to outperform its neighbours is nationalism, even if it’s not a particularly harmful form innately. Hence why I’m saying you don’t have to court the worst instincts of nationalism to be doing it. I may read a book about Pierre Trudeau for my own learning, but failing what are the pertinent bullet points that one may take away and apply to this particular scenario? I’m not likely to do it anytime soon, so too, I imagine are much of the thread, so what in broad brush terms is the common ground or applicability here? The takeaways are obviously that Trudeau was a greater mind than Curie, Einstein, Wittgenstein, Turing, Dalí, or any of the other actual great minds of the 20th century. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
edit: It also continues to amaze me to that the US is still funding and supplying Israel when it has had a very well supplied military industrial complex for SEVERAL decades. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21177 Posts
No one should be surprised by the notion that Israel is perfectly happy keeping the war going indefinitely or sacrificing all the hostages so long as it prevents a Palestinian state. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16175 Posts
On February 18 2024 07:09 Acrofales wrote: The takeaways are obviously that Trudeau was a greater mind than Curie, Einstein, Wittgenstein, Turing, Dalí, or any of the other actual great minds of the 20th century. It is tough to compare someone like Turing to Trudeau. He was all theory. Math and Computer Science ain't that important. Lesson #1 is ... there does not have to be a "solution". You can trundle along just fine without one. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22952 Posts
On February 18 2024 07:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: It is tough to compare someone like Turing to Trudeau. He was all theory. Math and Computer Science ain't that important. Lesson #1 is ... there does not have to be a "solution". You can trundle along just fine without one. Yeah can you just explain why you’re going down this tangent rather than not? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FriedrichNietzsche
92 Posts
On February 18 2024 07:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: [....] Math and Computer Science ain't that important [...] are you serious? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22952 Posts
Yes. Maybe he has a point, I don’t know because he never really explains his points. Maybe Justin Trudeau’s da is the greatest genius of the 20th century, and maybe math and computer science aren’t all that important. I don’t fucking know, maybe those are correct or completely and utterly assinine observations. Who knows? The person making said observations gives zero accompanying rationales as to why they are the case so there’s that . | ||
| ||
