Thank to Carol I googled some of the history about fromations in the Arab world prior and during WW-I, here from http://web.macam.ac.il/~ehudr/arab/palestine.doc a condense reference from by Dr. Yair Boymel (In Hebrew), dean of the history department at the Oranim Academic College of Education.
This text describes how the Big Syria idea was a part on pan-Arab idea of the Hashemite family directly linked to Prophet Mohammad. When this idea fail it made the Palestinian separated from other Arab movements that formed into the modern Arab states.
A society like the Arabs of Palestine needed to change their core value to survive as social entity in a rapid changing world (2-3 generations) of the beginning of the 20th century, Values as Palestinian National identity emerge during the years of change in the Arab world.
This Arab Palestinians are now scattered as refugees the world in PA territory and in Israel. The new Palestinian Identity that was not needed in the pre 20th century under a Turkish-Arab role is now essential value for this people to continue exist.
a National state is a new important stage for Palestine development as separate socio-political entity which will enable this young national to be organized as sovereign for their future.
I'll love to read reflection on that.
BTW: This is just a proposal to view this and I do not intend to criticize any other narrative.
--- here quick translation:
When a social group is in quick dramatic change of pace, because of far-reaching political events, which crash their basic values of previous existence, can quickly change the collective world view existence if there is an available alternative . (If there is no alternative, the community are, collectively, disappears in its form earlier.) This is what happened to the residents of Palestine in 1917.
The alternative available for replacing the Islamic Ottoman Empire framework and enable the collective-regional 1300 years-old Islamic existence, was the large-Syrian Arab state that was planned by the Arab National Movement to set up on all the Arab space. under his leadership The Emir Faisal - Faisal as on of the Hashemite family embodied: being into a family directly linked to Prophet Mohammad; and very familiar with Britain; was unacceptable to the people of Arab national movement and (because of all these) leader of Arab Revolt 1916 - 1918 against the Turks.
But after the conquest of Syria by France in -1920 and Polices of League of Nations and the Central Powers -all of them out of Palestine and the Palestinians' ability to influence - canceled the possibility of establishing the creation of the Great Syrian create huge political changes significance and far-reaching, the Palestinians had to make a dramatic change over their thinking about the operation essence of their collective pain and about the political fate of their collective.
Thus, while the Palestinians had to complete two times with the collapse of the natural order of the world (first in -1917: Ottoman - Muslim; -1920 and the other in Arabic - Syrian) for the Zionists the same grades Historic events themselves were the major steps on the way to achieve political aspiration.
During the years 1920 - 1923, present:
1. Cooperation between England and France occupation of the Arab and Turkish territories
2. Failure of Faisal and Hashemite family to establish an large Arab state
3. Political and practical failure of the Syrian Congress to establish state
4. establishment of individual mandates ie: political - geographic separation of Palestine from the rest of the Arab districts.
5. The failure of the ideological notion of Arab unity
6. British Zionist cooperation manifested in Balfour Declaration in charge of the mandate
7. begining of the 3rd wave on jewish immigration (third Aliyah ) - without any limitation on the part of the new government.
The Palestinians felt themselves, the first time since the rise of Islamic ear in the 7th century, Totally isolated, cut off from any larger political framework, they used to live in for 1300 years and in maelstrom struggles of forces and interests that they did not have political power and the culture - styles ability to influence.
During the Great Arab Revolt of 1916, King Hussein’s great-grandfather, Al-Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and King of the Arabs (later he also became known as King of the Hijaz), led the liberation of Arab lands from their domination by the Ottoman Turks. After freeing the lands of Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Syria and the Hijaz, Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah assumed the throne of Transjordan and his second son Faisal assumed the throne of Syria and later Iraq. The Emirate of Transjordan was founded on April 11, 1921, and became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon formal independence from Britain in 1946.
------ BTW: this is not thought in Israeli schools that way:
Sharif Hussein bin Ali (1853-1931)
Emir of Mecca and King of the Arabs, he was the last of the Hashemite Sharifians that ruled over Mecca, Medina and the Hijaz in unbroken succession from 1201 to 1925. Sharif Hussein is best known for launching the Great Arab Revolt in June 1916 against the Ottoman army. During the First World War, the Turkish dominated Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers against the Allies, allowing the Emir of Mecca to seize the opportunity to liberate the Arab lands from Turkish rule by allying himself with the British and the French. His objective in undertaking the Great Arab Revolt was to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Syria) to Aden (Yemen), based on the ancient traditions and culture of the Arab people, the upholding of Islamic ideals and the full protection and inclusion of ethnic religious minorities.
Arab nationalists found in the Hashemite commanders of the Great Arab Revolt the leadership that could realize their aspirations, and thus coalesced around them. Sharif Hussein’s sons Emir Ali, Emir Abdullah (King Hussein’s grandfather), Emir Faisal and Emir Zeid’s forces led the Arab Army against the Turks. While the colonial powers of Britain and France denied the Arabs their promised single unified Arab state, it is nevertheless testimony to the effectiveness of the Great Arab Revolt that the Hashemite family secured Arab rule over all of modern Jordan, most of the Arabian peninsula and Syria.
I suggest to you to read Loosing Syria from the book Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 it is available online to read.
Neri, don't you think that there is something negative about any people finding its national identity in being refugees? For me it has far more serious ramifications, as, by definition, the Palestinian refugee problem can never be resolved, but rather that definition makes it a continuously growing ballooning thorn in everybody's side.
The general problem of refugees, people who have fled the threat of death, as people caught in limbo for whom a home must be found, is one all of us are familiar with. Few realise that Palestinian refugees have a unique, very politicised definition. A Palestinian refugee is anyone who lived in what is today Israel in 1946, and left in 1948 ... and their descendants, in perpetuity.
Here's some of the anomalies this definition can lead to. An Arab lives in Israel in 1946, meets an Australian girl and emigrates to Australia, where he becomes a very wealthy Australian citizen as the result of a falafel factory, lives in the best neighbourhood and sends his children to the best schools. His grandchildren are still Palestinian refugees who qualify for UNWRA aid. Of those who left Israel, the definition simply doesn't differentiate between visitors, illegal immigrants, guest workers, and any other temporary inhabitants, and people who actually left their homes, a strange situation, given that Britain had offered 64,000 jobds for which Arabs poured in from all over. Their Palestinian credentials are simply established by that number ... 1946.
For normal everyday refugees, once you have been settled and found a home, you cease to be a refugee ... but not Palestinians. This makes it an artificially endlessly growing problem. The 600, 000 who left Israel has now blossomed into almost 7 million the world over, perhaps more, some settled as citizens in Western nations like Canada and Britain. In 10 years, regardless of where they're settled and how wealthy they are, there will be over 12 million Palestinian refugees, perhaps including, in the greatest irony, any that have settled in Israel.
If there is a state of Palestine, the idea of people being "refugees" when living peacefully in their own state amongst their own brethren is nothing short of ludicrous, and makes a mockery of the term "refugee" ... it already is ludicrous today, when some Palestinians on the West Bank, say, are simply Palestinians, whilst their cousins next door, perhaps even wealthier with a better lifestyle, are "refugees".
Whatever the reason, I think that after 60 years it's time to abandon this artifice of "refugee" for people who are anything but, and think now in terms of two neighbours sitting side by side ... that would be the greatest contribution for peace there is, as people will hopefully stop blowing up others for "the refugees". Then Fatah sympathisers fleeing persecution by Hamas in Gaza, can claim to be refugees in a way we understand, and they can be helped as real "Palestinian refugees" not the artifice.
I do not know those details as well as you seem to. I am quite sure though that what you write is probably accurate, and that significant numbers of the people with long-ongoing roots in the area have some genetically demonstrable ancestry that is the same as that of many (but not all, of course) of today's Jews.
PS: I do not and never did doubt your personal integrity. :-) .
There is a personal Identity and no one is in position to tell someone else who he experience belong.
These Identity academic discussions must respect the personal experience of each of us.
From my perspective the importance issue is who the Palestinians going to be and not who they were. Zionism used the mythology of ancient jewish kingdom to claim ownership on the territory. we can agree that it is false claim, but we can recognize that many Israelis believe they have a right for the territory for some ancient reasons. If we reject that, we can also reject Palestinian ancient reasons for owning the territory.
The Palestinian people are Arabs, which has different development path then the Europeans. As Arabs who are not having a modern national state, and as the need to find/create a national identity it is up to the Palestinian people to shape their narrative.
In some paradoxical way, the Arab nations do not recognize the Palestinian potential to re-shape the Arab world, The Palestinians has potential to own a state with the capacities of Israel as from economy and connectedness to the world, with all the pain of national breath they will shine in the Arab world as the ones who overcome colonialism and integrated modern state social order. The theory suggest that it is going to be the feminine side of the Palestinians society which will break the cycle of war. I pray for that to come soon.
It is easy for a person who grew up in a modern national state to criticizing the concept of a Nation from humanistic view, and I can see that as trans-nationalism state where one can identify with his/her deep human emotions that has no border. but for many Palestinians there are no conditions to manifest his/her national identity so this is an important development to build Palestine state.
For the Israel side, which is a manifestation of national identity, it is time to move beyond its national core and expand to be more general and this is a hard maneuver for any society, especially a society which experience war as Israel.
as a humanist we must respect the nationalist - they are humans too .
The Shoah (yes Stewart, The Shoah) are "The Naqba" conceptually are rather different. VERY DIFFERENT. Whilst there may well be significant similarities when viewed any one person's perspective, the net effect on any one affected group of people is demonstrably very different. I see the comparison as a (possibly unintended) trivialization or expropriation of The Shoah, and thus morally and intellectually offensive.
I accept Basil that your "The Naqba" and how "Romans made Jews refugees in A.D. 70" analogy, whilst not entirely accurate, is an appropriate and not unreasonable analogy, Both cases are within the normal bounds of the "refugee experience". The difference is that the UN does not NOW have a unique organization devoted to the welfare of the Jews made refugees by the Romans in 70AD. The UN also has NO such unique organization NOW for any other of the 10's of millions of real live refugees.