The Tragic Story of Palestine - Responding to Arguments and Concerns
Hello, so we've passed the part of the series that is about the establishment of Israel and all the myths surrounding it. Now, it's time to clarify some of the questions, concerns, and arguments. You are free to add your own to the list of things I will respond to here and I will get to respond to them. However, this is about the arguments I found on the internet which seem to be both the best anti-Palestine arguments and the most popular.
"Palestine Didn't Have A President"
Now, there are many versions of this claim. The point of this claim overall remains the same, if Palestine was a country, how come it didn't have a president? Below is a version of this argument:
https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1725025103237337224
This claim shows not only a high level of ignorance of the region's history but of the world as a whole.
First of all, statehood is a concept that is relatively new. You see, from Germany, Britain, Austria, Poland, Russia, Omayad, and Abbasyd, the Ottomans weren't countries, they were empires, kingdoms, and monarchies, this extends to African countries like Ghana, South Africa, and Uganda, basically most of what you see today as countries weren't countries until mid-last century.
This is in the fourth part of the series, statehood or nation states were a new concept. If we're talking about Palestinians lacking the rights for their land and name because they didn't have a president before the establishment of Israel, then we're talking about most countries not having that right either.
Iraq's first president became such in 1958, Egypt in 1953, Ghana in 1960, Uganda in 1962 and that was Walter Coutts, a British man, it wasn't until 1963 that an actual Ugandan became head of state, South Africa's? Nelson Mandela in 1994. South Africa as a country is only a little bit older than I am.
So, the idea globally doesn't hold merit. In fact, a little bit of digging would show that it is a point for Palestine, not against it.
Mandates
That's what was happening during that era. It wasn't like those places decided not to be a country because they didn't want to or didn't see themselves as a country or Palestinians, it is that they couldn't be. All of the Arabic countries mentioned above and many more were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and when it fell, they fell under mandates to the winning side of the First World War.
All of those countries eventually made it out of those mandates, some suffered more than others in the process like Algeria whose independence was dubbed the "Million Martyr Revolution" for obvious reasons. That was just to escape the French mandate. You need to understand that those mandates weren't just mandates, they were plans for long-term control, just like in Central and South Africa.
So, Palestine was like those Arab countries who eventually got their sovereignty except for Palestine, Do you want to guess the reason? Not only that, surrounding countries like Syria and Lebanon got their independence rather quickly making the fact that Palestine did not have a president actually a point against the ones using it.
Lack of Statehood Doesn't Mean Anything
Forget about countries, forget about statehood and let's say that region didn't have a king or a president for hundreds of years and let's pretend those villages and cities coexisted without the need for one, isn't that the vision here? A lack of statehood doesn't mean anything. It doesn't deny those were villages and cities with people living in them. It doesn't deny the massacres and ethnic cleansing.
Even if we assume those places existed without kings, Sultans, or a Caliphate for the entire time, the region is still not for people from Europe to take and decide what to do with it as was voiced by them since 1920 in the Arab Uprising. Doesn't matter how you spin it, that point is moot, pure and simple.
"Why Don't Egypt Take Them?"
This is actually a point that you could google without writing "Palestinians" and would get results related to Palestine, it also applies to Jordan and the entire Arab world. The idea of this argument is that those countries should take Palestinians as Israel goes in and wipes out Hamas. On the surface, it seems to convince people in the West and actually shows the Arabs to be heartless hypocrites. However, there are two direct answers to this question.
They Can't
This answer is simple and direct to the point, those countries can't host MORE refugees because unlike what you have heard, they do have refugees, we have Palestinians here in Iraq. There are refugees in all Arab countries. However, we can't speak of countries hosting refugees, nearly 2.4 million in Gaza's case alone, without speaking of those countries' economic status.
Egypt's unemployment rate is near 10%, Jordan's 20%, Iraq's over 15%, and so on. Those countries also lack the infrastructure to host refugees. Now, don't get me wrong, there are basically racist concerns among a few voices in those countries and a tone of prejudice against Palestinians, but the fact remains the same, those countries are struggling as it is. As we mentioned above, most of these countries are relatively new and had to deal with colonialism not so long ago. Many of those countries are also currently recovering from war as is the case with Iraq, or a civil war as in Syria and Lebanon, or revolutions and internal wars as is the case in Egypt.
To put this in perspective, while it was undoubtedly Jews were getting killed in bulks in the holocaust, European countries were also not hosting Jewish immigrants as I mentioned previously.
Why Should Arabs Trust Israel?
This is an honest question since I believe many Westerners seem to believe Israel more. But, you have to see it from our perspective, the Palestinians' perspective. Why should we trust Israel and its intentions?
Let's take a simple look at the past, in the late 1940s when there 750 thousand Palestinian immigrants, the UN granted them the Right of Return. How many of those people returned to their lands? Zero, in fact, the number of immigrants has increased to 2 million at the lowest estimate, do you think Gaza's 365 square kilometres always had 2 million?
The villages that were massacred by Zionists and Israel later had none of its inhabitants able to return. Tantura and the two mass graves below it became a literal parking lot for Israeli resorts. Over 500 villages were ethnically cleansed and none of its survivors managed to return. So, you tell me, if you were in the Palestinians' shoes, would you trust the Israeli government?
May I remind you of this video?
The woman hasn't even left the vicinity yet and her house was already taken. Bear in mind, that those millions of immigrants have their Right of Return granted by the United Nations and they're still unable to return, the villages have already been demolished, and settlements have already been built over them. Bear in mind, that the video above is two years old, the ethnic cleansing and settlements are STILL happening.
So, knowing this, do you think Palestinians should still leave until Israel "Settles out the Hamas issue"
There are a few arguments, like "The war would end when Hamas leaves", and "Israel is being singled out because it is a Jewish state" and more, and I will get to those in the next part.
Previous Parts
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 1: Tantura
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 2: Protecting The Israel Mythology
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 3: The Israel Foundation Myth
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 4: The "One People" Myth
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 5: The "Zionism is Judaism" Myth
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 6: The "Land Without a People" Myth
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 7: The "Independence" Myth (Chapter 1)
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 8: The "Independence" Myth (Chapter 2)
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 9: The "Independence" Myth (Chapter 3)
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 10: The "Independence" Myth (Final Chapter)
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 10: The "David vs Goliath" Myth (1/2)
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Part 11: The "David vs Goliath" Myth (2/2)
The Tragic Story of Palestine - Final Part: The "Only Democracy in the Middle East" Myth
Follow-up parts
The Tragic Story of Palestine - "It Was A Hamas Base of Operation"
The Tragic Story of Israel
School Lessons From Gaza
Arguably statehood is the worst thing to happen to many nation states. It's such a moot argument. Here they used the terra nullius argument, that the land belonged to no one .. it was an empty land before the British got here. Some Aboriginals argue they don't want to be Australian anyway as that was an imposition in the first place. We have a saying here 'always was, always will be, Aboriginal land' which strikes terror into the heart of the coloniser who fears his own displacement.
That video says it all really.
I think a lot of the arguments are bandied about by people who know the answers, but don't expect people to dig deeper. For example, the one about Egypt not taking refugees. Let alone the fact no one would be a refugee if they werent forcing people out or to flee!
Exactly, I was surprised to see it shared by the Imam of Peace who is supposedly aware of the history of the region. It's basically an updated version of the "A land without a people" slogan.
THAT! I think of them as distracting arguments as they spin in circles to waste time and energy, like this one
Like, are you saying that the massacres are justified because there was a country prior to 70 BC? I am joining a Twitter space tonight just to fully understand this argument as it is simply not making sense to me. So far it seems to mean the land is Jewish by default, which historically, still goes before Judaism, but between 20 generations is the argument saying they're a monolith? Because that sounds pretty anti-semitic.
Finally, there's also this one that I am also attempting to understand it tonight about how this coin and others with Palestine engraved on it yet has Hebrew writing therefore its an argument against Palestine
Like, apologies I guess that the Jews in the area were treated with respect and included as an official language, which is something 20% of Arabs in Israel aren't getting.
Still, I feel it's important to have a response to all these claims and arguments as they seem to be effective at least in many of the Twitter spaces I have been observing.
I've seen the opposite in Threads - whilst there's still a lot of Zionist voices and propaganda, vast majority are really solidly against what's going on and willing to counter the narrative that Israel has the rights it thinks it does because they keep saying they are the chosen people etc etc. I don't tend to go on Twitter - it sounds like a shit show. Most smart people that are willing to do a teeny bit of digging aren't falling for that bollocks. Certainly not anyone I know.
I have seen the thing about the coin but can't see what it proves. I think they would have been a lot better off to allow the Palestinians back onto the land like they were meant to and stop being assholes about it. The two state solution could have worked, but fat chance in hell it will now.
I really like what you did/ are doing here. I am following the streamer Destiny, so I pretty much know the Jewish side of the story and it is quite hard to not be convinced by that.
I will look more into what you posted here and maybe try to argue some stuff, but despite the complexity I think it is still quite simple. The Palestinians would have had a quite easy pathway: swallow your anger, be peaceful and try to make the little land you have left prosper, try to cooperate with the state of Israel or at least some influential Isralis. If you then present your case to the international society you might very easily push Israel into a corner where they have to give in to your demands.
However this is all in the past since October the 7th. The Palestinians gave a blanko check to Isreal to do it the very hard way and they have my blessing. I might actually make a post why October 7th was far worse than 9/11.
Literally been happening for years, there are millions of refugees, displaced, and ethnically cleansed and your response seems to be "If you're a good kid, I will let you have some of your own chocolate". It's not been happening, it has been proven over and over that silence just leads to more lands taken. In fact, it was the silence that eventually led to Hamas' rise. It's literally in the post how Tantura and other massacre survivors' Right of Return is denied. I don't know how you got to your "Just be a good dog" conclusion, but it has been proven to be wrong thousands of times, it's literally being proven wrong every day in the West Bank.
Not sure about worse or definitely "Far worse", but I really don't disagree with the logic here.
I agree the modern state is indeed a relatively new concept historically, only arising within the last 300 years in Europe and its colonies as a result of the enlightenment era. Palestine has been an imperial province up until about a century ago. Imperial political plunder had already deprived many Palestinians of their land, turning many of the people into something akin to serfs. When the land was "bought" by Zionists, it was from these usurpers who held stolen title themselves according to my understanding.