Talk:Palestinian nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old version vs. new version[edit]

Here is why the older version is not as suitable - and others can comment on the recently revised version similarly. Incidentally, referring to my own ideological POV is irrelevant and uncalled for. If you are reverting solely on that basis, you have not abided by the assume good faith standard.

"several wars have been fought in the region as a means of ending Jewish influence in the region."

1- at least three wars didn't even involve Israel
2- "ending Jewish influence in the region" is strongly POV and also inaccurate, since the wars referred to were against a state.

"A key point of dispute is the percentage of the region that should be allotted to Arabs"

This is original research insofar as it is nonsense. A key point according to whom? There are many key points, but "percentages" isn't one of them.

"Some Arabs, as well as their allies and sympathizers, want 100% of the region to be Arabic, or at least Islamic. They do not believe in and refuse to tolerate a Jewish homeland in Palestine."

Source please?

"Other advocates, primarily Zionists and their allies and sympathizers, claim a Biblical mandate to re-establish the biblical Kingdom of Israel (although such a claim would seem far-fetched, consider that the biblical kingdom encompassed territory all the way to Damascus)."

Again, source please? (For both sentences, again the part in parentheses is blatant OR.

"During and after the establishment of Israel, many Arab refugees were left homeless. Some sold their real estate, while others had their property confiscated."

Very twisted POV. Left homeless? Like a hurricane came through? "Some sold"? Placing "sold" and "confiscated" on equal footing is a vile distortion of fact.

"These refugees remain largely near the Jordan River. On the east bank, they reside in Jordan, which has given them equal rights with other Jordanians. On the West Bank, tempers fume as various nationalist and terrorist groups clamor for the control of any future Palestinian state."

Wildly POV and erroneous. Most refugees are far away from the River. The "Tempers fume" sentence is a vile misrepresentation and again, unsourced original research.

"The proposals for a Palestinian state for this group nearly all dismiss the idea of the group's absorption into Jordan."

They also dismiss the idea of the "group's" absorption into Mongolia. Should we add that as well?

"And a majority of Israelis oppose their absorption into Israel, since such a measure would surely dilute the Jewish majority, while granting voting rights to a group that may seek to vote them out of existence."

This is neutral? Are you kidding me?

"As a compromise between permanent sovereignty and indefinite occupation, the PLO was allowed to establish the Palestinian Authority as a quasi-governmental administration in the West Bank."

BS - that is factually wrong.

Ramallite (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One minor quibble: I don't particularly want anyone to think of this as "Palmiro's version"; it was a quick attempt to replace a very poor, historically inaccurate and POV article with something that could serve as a starting point for a historically rigorous approach to the topic. I feel no particular allegiance to what I wrote and hope that as much of it as possible will be changed, expanded and improved.... Palmiro | Talk 17:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think of it as "Palmiro's version", since you wrote it, and it was, in my view, just as POV as the previous version, if not moreso. "liberation of their lost lands" or even "liberation of Palestine"? Honestly. In the 50s and 60s they had no intention of "liberating" the Gaza Strip or West Bank - it was about replacing Israel with an Arab state. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Did I write "liberation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip"? Palmiro | Talk 22:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed you did not, which is precisely why the exact term "Israel" is more appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I think there is no doubt that Palestine was used in the sense of the entirety of the British mandate in that period, and in talking about the political aspirations of Palestinian nationalists at the time is hardly subject to ambiguity. The use of the term "Palestine" to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is extremely recent, as far as I know. "Israel", by contrast, refers only to the territory under Israeli control after 1949, and while this territory was undoubtedly the main focus of the Palestinian national movement, they thought of all Palestine as their homeland. Palmiro | Talk 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
But in fact, the use of "Palestine" by these movements was not intended to mean all of the British mandate, as I made clear - they had no intention of "liberating" the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but were perfectly happy to have them under Jordanian and Egyptian control. Rather, they intended to conquer Israel. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

so the reason the article was useless uninformative and POV was strange for 1) Jayjg to edit an article that Jayjg knows nothing about...2) for an article that Jayjg edits to be absolutely useless 3) for an article that Jayjg edits to be POV...

  1. some Palestinians were satisfied with Jordanian control (as half of the Jordanian Government were Palestinians, in effect Jordan was under Palestinian control), some were not it all depended on the greater Syria debate ..."happy under Egyptian control" wow that is a large leap from nothing into nothing...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zionism v. Zionist colonisation[edit]

Zionism is an ideology, Zionist colonisation is what was happening in Palestine at the time in question (I don't think this is really disputed, whether you think it was a good thing or a bad is another question) and getting people worried. I think the difference between the two is a difference between an idea and a social process, not between POV and NPOV! That said, it is a very minor point and I'm certainly not particularly concerned about it. Palmiro | Talk 16:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is disputed, as the use of the term "colonization" assumes that the "colonizers" have no connection with the land. If the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees eventually returned to Israel, would they be "colonizing" it? Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. However, the sentiments of those involved are one thing; the real question is, how do we describe this objective process? It is, as far as I can see, the same phenomenon as occurred in Algeria, South Africa or Australia, and historians usually term it colonisation. Of course, it was distinct from these in the motives of those engaged in it and in their views as to their relationship with the place they were colonising. Nevertheless, we should remember that while "colonisation" is viewed as a "bad thing' these days, this wasn;t so when Zionism was first proposed and estanlished itself in Palestine. The fact that colonisation was widely seen as normal at the time in Europe was in fact the context for the acceptance of Zionism. I wonder did Zionist writers use the words "colony" or "colonise" or settler" or "settle", by the way?
I'm not sure that the word "colonisation" implies any particular view of the land being colonised on the part of the coloniser. And also, my impression, from what little I know of the subject, is that the Zionist settlers' romantic vision of the land was focused very much on the future rather than on the past. Palmiro | Talk 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you really think there are "objective" ways of describing these things? "Colonization" is a political term, with political implications. Jews did not return to Israel as "colonies" of their countries of birth, so from an "objective" standpoint it is unlike Algeria, South Africa, or Australia, where people who had no connection to a land settled there as representatives of the mother country. Again, if the Palestinians were ever able to implement their claimed "Right of Return", would those Palestinians be "colonizing" Israel? Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, how do you think it should be described? Were the Pilgrim Fathers in America colonists? I would think so, but they were hardly representatives of their mother country. Perhaps this is another case of a word having different connotations to different people (like proletariat, apparently). As far as Algeria etc are concerned, the objective phenomenon in terms of its effects on the country being colonised/settled/gone and lived in and its land bought up for use by the new immigrants was more or less of the same nature. Palmiro | Talk 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I asked you how those grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) of Palestinian refugees would be described. As for the Pilgim Fathers, they were given grants by their mother country, and were subjects of the crown, in the original 13 colonies. Of course they were colonists. This is not a word that has different connotations in English, this is a word which is being inappropriately applied. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, to answer your question, if they were immigrating from outside Palestine and taking land occupied by native inhabitants with a view to exploiting it, yes, it might indeed be an appropriate term. You might like to take a look at colonization and see the distinction drawn there between that term and colonialism. Now that I have answered your question, perhpas you'd answer mine? Palmiro | Talk 11:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
What is "a view to exploiting it"? I thought you claimed this was an objective thing that has nothing to do with "the sentiments of those involved". Everyone "exploits" the land they own, whether to hunt and fish, grow crops, use it for grazing, use it for parkland, mine it, build houses, build roads, etc. And in answer to your question, I'd characterize it as returning to their native land. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
'Everyone "exploits" the land they own, whether to hunt and fish, grow crops, use it for grazing, use it for parkland, mine it, build houses, build roads, etc.' Well, there's a difference, I think, between living on a piece of land, which is hardly exploiting it, and using it for agriculture or whatever, which is, and the term is hardly subjective. But surely you can do better than "return to their native land"? That's purely ideology. What was the social process involved? Palmiro | Talk 11:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Both "colonists" and "natives" use land for the same purposes, so your distinctions don't make much sense to me. When you talk about "pure ideology" and a "social process involved" about "return to their native land", are you referring to the claim of a "Right of Return" by the great-grandchildren of people who left Palestine in 1948, and whose great-grandparents may themselves have been immigrants to Palestine, or the children or grandchildren of immigrants? Jayjg (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Where did I say they used it for different purposes?! Sometimes I think we don't speak the same language at all! My question was what you call the social process of establishing Zionist settlements, particularly agricultural settlements, in Palestine, if that helps make it clearer. Palmiro | Talk 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(de-indenting) You first, since you've still refused to answer this question directly; if it ever occured, what would you call the "social process" of the settlement of modern day Israel by great-grandchildren of Arabs who left Palestine in 1948, and whose great-grandparents may themselves have been immigrants to Palestine, or the children or grandchildren of immigrants? Please be very explicit in your use of words, so I can understand exactly what you are saying. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. a return
  2. people who set up plantations and have a completely different and foreign culture than the indigenous population are called colonisers...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the first paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph:

The growing weakness of the Ottoman Empire in the last years of the nineteenth century and the years prior to the World War I was accompanied by an increasing sense of Arab identity in the Empire's Arab provinces, most notably Syria, then considered to include both Palestine and Lebanon. While Arab nationalism, at least in an early form, and Syrian nationalism were the dominant tendencies along with continuing loyalty to the Ottoman state, Palestinian politics was marked by certain specificities, largely due to Zionism which was increasingly identified as a threat by Palestinian leaders and the concrete results of which were having a direct impact on Palestinian peasants in particular.

doesn't appear to mean anything, particularly the second sentence. Can someone explain it? Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought this was a blandly standard explanation of the rise of nationalism in the early C20 in the region. I'll try and flesh it out with more specific info and sources later today, if I get the time. Palmiro | Talk 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

maps and facts[edit]

I erased the "maps and facts" section that was added on March 29, 2007. It was a disorganized and biased section in an otherwise quality article. The section does not cite its sources and is rife with factual inaccuracies and agenda-filled historical revisionism. Furthermore, I erased, rather than edited this section, because it did not relate to the rest of the article. With considerable cleanup, this section belongs in the "History of Palestine" or "Palestinian History" article, but it has no place in "Palestinian Nationalism." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

this "quality article" was a bag of sh*t that would damage the health and mental well-being of any reader...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1936-39 great uprising[edit]

This needs to be developed to respect NPoV and accuracy. Alithien 07:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

why develop something that has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism...Oh yes I see you want to POV the article up to Israeli standards...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia standards... Especially the portion of Early history which has several irrelevant sentences mashed together in the same paragraphs, lacks flow entirely, and makes essentially no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I would downgrade its quality for this section

unrelated content[edit]

A very large section titled Palestinian leadership Ties with Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers during World War II has been copied into this article and in another related article. The problem with this content, besides its size, is that it not in any way related to the topic of this article. Nothing in it addresses Palestinian nationalism. Could somebody please explain why this unrelated material belongs in this article? That is of course besides the usual reason of saying "Palestinians=Nazis!!!" as loud and as often as possible? nableezy - 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that perhaps the section is too big. but to say "is that it not in any way related to the topic of this article" is almost ridiculous.

being the most prominent national leader of Palestine arabs, amin al husseini is an essential part of Palestinian national movement. without understanding it, it's impossible to understand any of the events that are taking place from 1948 war until now.

what's really strange is in all the article there is almost no word about the main arab Palestinian leader at that time :Hajj Amīn al-Husayni, and his acts, except a short line about his removal from office.: "In 1948, after Jordan had occupied Jerusalem, King Abdullah of Jordan removed Hajj Amīn al-Husayni from the post of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and banned him from entering Jerusalem." that's really starng. it's like writing an article about Microsoft windows without mentioning bill gates. if someone want to propose a shorter edit, then it's ok with me. if not , I will need to put it beck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talkcontribs) 08:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC) --Jonathango 08:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talkcontribs)

Nothing in the section discusses any Palestinian national movement. Not even one word in it. You are simply copying and pasting the same content from one article into many, regardless of whether or not it is related. What exactly does al-Husayni meeting Ribbentrop have to do with Palestinian nationalism? Give me three sentences in that entire section that discusses Palestinian nationalism. nableezy - 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

hello! see example: Haj Amin Al-Husayni, arrived in Rome on October 11, 1941, and immediately contacted Italian Military Intelligence (Servizio Informazioni Militari, or SIM). He claimed to be head of a secret Arab nationalist organization with offices in all Arab countries. On condition that the Axis powers "recognize in principle the unity, independence, and sovereignty, of an Arab state, including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan", he offered support in the war against Britain and stated his willingness to discuss the issues of "the Holy Places, Lebanon, the Suez Canal, and Aqaba".

this part reveal a mindset of "Naserist-Pan-Arabic" National Identity, contradictory to Palestinian controversial claims that, at that time already was established separate Palestinian national identity. this fact is even more emphasised by the fact that el-husseiny was the Arab-Palestinian national leader of that time. there are much more examples.--Jonathango 19:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Two comments on this user:

  • (1) The user is running the same spurious argument on Talk:Palestinian people
  • (2) The user's account is new and appears to have been used for this single debate.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

this account was opened few months ago. and your argument is not true. --Jonathango 10:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the section that has repeatedly been copied into this article discusses the topic of this article. If your argument is that this section "reveals" the "controversial claims" of the Palestinians and is thus needed then your argument does not reflect the policies of this website. You need sources explicitly tying the content you are attempting to include to the topic of this article, not a thesis that you wish to prove by using whatever material you can find. nableezy - 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

you mean that the section is not in line with the false assumptions and political propaganda of this article? --Jonathango 10:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. What I do know is you have, again, violated the 1RR. And that you have again restored material completely unrelated to the topic of this article. Ill wait till the former issue is sorted out before dealing with the latter. nableezy - 12:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jonathango, to spell out the concerns here in a way you might understand better: this addition seems to raise issue of WP:COATRACK by using a particular issue as a place to hang a political argument (in this case Nazi-baiting Pan Arabism) on an article that is only obliquely related to this issue.
On Wikipedia, we cover the documented work by reliable sources about the topic at hand, which in this case is Palestinian nationalism. If you want to go find reliable sources discussing the relative importance of al-Husseini's opinions and connections to Palestinian nationalism as a whole and present them with appropriate weight compared to other issues in this article, you are welcome to do so. However, merely copying content from one article (to which it is central) to another article peripherally related is inappropriate.--Carwil (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

to carwil

1. why you are not posing similar demands for other material in this article, like the hilarious primordailism section?

2. as you can see in the article itself: popularity among the Palestinian Arabs

"Haj Amin's popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis. When he returned to the Middle East from Europe, Arab leaders hurried to greet him, and the masses welcomed him enthusiastically. It was only after the defeat of 1948 that the need arose for someone to blame. To a certain extent, Haj Amin was chosen as the scapegoat."[1]

Al-Husayni was elected to the presidency of the National Palestinian Council in 1948 even though he was a wanted war criminal at the time. Indeed, Professor Edward Said corroborates al-Husayni's popularity by stating:

This committee [the Arab Higher Committee], chaired by Palestine’s national leader, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.[2]

3. what more than that will make the material relevant in your eyes? 4. I am afraid wikipedia is turning into just another Palywood. promoting Palastenian activists fiction industry.

--Jonathango 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talkcontribs)

Hi Jonathango
1. I've watchlisted this page and was trying to help resolve a conflict. I'm not the Palestinian nationalism handyman, just an interested editor.
2. The point is not whether Hajj Amin al-Husseini is relevant to Palestinian nationalism, but rather what material about him is relevant to an article on Palestinian nationalism.
3. An attempt to provide a balanced assessment of the role of al-Husseini in Palestinian nationalism over the course of his life. Interested readers may follow the wikilink to find out more about him (before, during, and after World War II) at Hajj Amin al-Husseini. One suggested starting point: Philip Mattar's Encyclopedia of the Palestinians whose entry on him runs on 213-216.
4. This spurious statement might be countered by assuming my good faith.--Carwil (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

to Carwill: I don't know you, and therefore I couldn't imply anything about your good faith. you need to understand that Al husseiny was the arab Palestinian leader in the first half of 20th century. lacking any information about him in this article, means - it's just a political bulletin. if you will not find a fair way to resolve this issue , I will need to revert again.--Jonathango 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


This article doesn't make it very clear that before the 1960's, distinctive Palestinian Arab nationalism (as opposed to Pan-Arab nationalism, Pan-Islamic nationalism, Greater Syria nationalism, etc.) was mainly the domain of some theoretical intellectuals and some personally ambitious careerist politicians (who hoped for powerful positions in an Arab state created out of the British Mandate). In early 1948, a very significant number of Arabs in the British Palestine mandate assumed that Palestine would naturally be annexed to whichever Arab country turned out to play the leading role in destroying Israel and expelling the Jews, and many of them weren't too upset by the idea (since they regarded it as a step on the road to Arab unification). AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Primordialism fictitious section[edit]

this whole section is based on nothing but fiction. all sources has no credibility wht so ever, or not connected to the topic. further more - I suspect that the purpose of this section is the denial of well established Jewish heritage and reinventing history, according to best of pallywood methods. I suggest to delete. --Jonathango 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talkcontribs)

Jonathan, there are three sources. Which are not credible or connected to the topic? It seems unlikely that a scholarly book with Palestinian nationalism in the title (Khalidi) qualifies as either.--Carwil (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Some nationalists like to ignore highly-inconvenient historical facts (such as that before 135 A.D. the word Παλαιστινη/Palaestina generally referred only to the southern coastal plain or "Philistia"; that Jund Filastin did not include the Galilee; that during most of the Ottoman period the word Filastin in Arabic was somewhat of an antiquarian or semi-foreign term, used mainly to refer back to the early Caliphates period, or by a few Christians who were influenced by European usages; etc. etc.). However, if the books in which they ignore highly-inconvenient historical facts attain some degree of prominence, then there's no reason why such books can't be mentioned on Wikipedia (though their claims should not be accepted uncritically). AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong sourced, academic material from Israeli Professor Haim Gerber of Hebrew University of Jerusalem added in the form of citing Professor Gerber's academic article " 'Palestine' And Other Territorial Concepts In The 17th Century" link here: Professor Haim Gerber notes the work of 17th century Islamic scholar Khayr al-Din al-RamliKhayr_al-Din_al-Ramli and mostly crucially the section Khayr_al-Din_al-Ramli#Legacy. This is strong evidence and proof that a primordial section is both real and needed and any claims to the opposite are spurious and likely just extreme propaganda of Zionist individuals as evidenced by individuals like user "Jonathango" using terms like "pallywood". --Historylover4 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty thin as it appears in the Wikipedia article, and doesn't really contradict what I said above. That he didn't bother to explain the casually-used term Filastin to his fellow scholars is a long way away from remotely proving that anything like a significant Palestinian self-identity existed at that time (which is historically extremely unlikely). Based on behavior observed well into the 20th century, if you had asked people in Khayr al-Din al-Ramli's time "What are you?", then likely far and away the number one answer would have been "Muslim" or "Christian", followed by the name of their clan or lineage, and the name of their immediate small local district. A semi-antiquated term like Filastin, which was not the name of any Ottoman administrative unit, would have been well down the list... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding more info on specific groups?[edit]

I see that Pro-Palestinian and Palestinian cause probably will be redirected here. As I wrote on the redirection discussion page: Would the information about the different Palestinian groups and the groups in solidarity be allowed in that article, or would it be banished as it has been when people try to write articles about either all such groups or nonviolent groups. (Since obviously articles about violent groups exist, aka Palestinian political violence, List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist, etc. And what about different campaigns like Boycotts of Israel or 2011 Israeli border demonstrations. Wish I had expertise and time to put something in about them, or even put together an article that wouldn't get deleted (as also was List of Palestinian solidarity organizations). Just some encouragement for others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if boycotts of Israel are part of "Palestinian nationalism." As far as I know the Palestinian Authority does not boycott the Israeli economy aside from an informal ban on settlement construction but that really didn't change Palestinians from working in them. WikifanBe nice 23:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That might be more relevant to solidarity groups supporting Palestinian nationalism, which O thnk would be relevant to this article. But someone's got to do it and I'm overloaded myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing lead[edit]

Why is the lead a description of Nationalism: " It also can more generally be compared to the modern idea of "nationalism" which most academics believe had its origins in late 18th century Europe. As "In Europe, before the development of nationalism, people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular leader rather than to their nation. Encyclopaedia Britannica identifies the movement's genesis with the late-18th century American Revolution and French Revolution; other historians point specifically to the ultra-nationalist party in France during the French Revolution. The term nationalism was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder (nationalismus) during the late 1770s. Precisely where and when nationalism emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that surfaced with the French Revolution and the American Revolution in the late 18th century and culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe, for instance the Greek War of Independence."

For a second I thought Palestinian nationalism began in the 18th century, but no - that's just the original philosophy of nationalism origins. I don't think it would look nice to remove the whole paragraph but it seems very misplaced. WikifanBe nice 03:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Subscript text

Well it seems to me that Palestinian nationalism is largely concerned with the aspirations of Palestinian Arabs to establish for themselves an identify as the Palestinian people, with a Palestinian state of their own (same as any other people). If no one objects, I'd like to make that the lede sentence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I object. The word Palestinian, in current usage, is specific to Palestinian Arabs. Your proposed sentence has no sources, and presents a spin on the word Palestinian people that is at odds with the common usage of the term. nableezy - 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then I'll leave it alone. But did you know that Palestinian is a disambiguation page? Depending on context the term Palestinian can also refer to Palestinian Christians or Palestinian Jews. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I did. Palestinian Christians are, like Palestinian Muslims, Arabs (at least mostly). Palestinian Jews is a term rarely used, except by a small segment of the Jewish population of Israel and the Palestinian territories. The term is most often used by non-Zionist Jews like Uri Davis. nableezy - 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you know so much, maybe you can help me identify the various modern inhabitants of Palestine (see also Palestinian identity).
I'm aware of various categories, such as nationality, religion and ethnicity:
  1. Religion:
  2. Ethnicity/Nationality:
It can get a bit confusing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Under the British, everybody in Palestine was a Palestinian. After the founding of the modern state of Israel, the term Palestinian Jew lost its dominant status in normal discourse, being replaced by Israeli Jew. The people that continue to use the term often do so as a way of claiming themselves separate from Israel or even the idea of Zionism. I was unaware of the existence of Palestinian immigration (Israel), thanks for letting me know about that. It is badly mistitled, the Palestinian immigrants to Israel were, prior to the passage of some recent legislation in the last decade or so, Palestinian from either occupied territories, or refugees from surrounding countries, marrying Palestinian citizens of Israel and gaining either residency or citizenship that way. Other than that, Israel does not allow any Palestinian immigration. As far as Israel's Arab citizens, the terminology used is controversial. Israeli Arabs has been preferred by the state, Palestinians of 48 (فلسطينيي ال 48), inside Arabs (عرب الداخل) and a few others have been preferred by the people themselves (or among Palestinians in the occupied territories to refer to the ones within Israel), and recent academic works have been calling them such things as Israeli Palestinians and Palestinians of Israel. Our article title makes a compromise by using Arab citizens of Israel. nableezy - 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Nableezy, I think you are either very smart and informed, or a blowhard. It is so hard to tell! But I agree with the man, wikifan, who said the lead should talk less about Nationalism in general. It is about Palestinian Nationalism. What is this thing, nationalism, is well known. We put a wikilink in the first sentence, if they dont. If they do, we describe the specifics of the Palestinian and his nationalism. Jamussy (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No statements about criticism of Palestinian nationalism?[edit]

Why is it that Zionism (which is just another name for Jewish nationalism) has criticism in it's article, yet Palestinian nationalism doesn't have any? Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The legitimacy of both Palestinian nationalism and Zionism have been equally questioned over the years. I'd say such a section is warranted. Charles Essie (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pan Arabism[edit]

"in opposition of pan-Arabism" is troubling. The claim is not sourced. Also, why is it impossible for someone to call for a pan-Arab state while live in their long-established hometown?? Remove for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Evidence seen in the Jericho Conference, where Palestinian delegates supported a union between Transjordan and Palestine as a step towards full Arab unity source. Doesn't mean that they were willing to give up their place of origin and go live somewhere far away. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palestinian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Z. Elpeleg, The Grand Mufti, p. 106.
  2. ^ Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, eds. Blaming the Victims (London, Verso 201)