On Death and Palestinian Culture
1st August 2012
While Romney denied on Tuesday that his reference was a criticism about Palestinian culture, Palestinian leaders immediately slammed the comment. Palestinian Authority spokesman Saeb Erakat calling it “a racist statement” that ignores the effect occupation has on the Palestinian economy.
What makes Palestinians a unique race has not been explained. But just imagine the outcry if a sitting government official described Palestinians as developing methods “of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people death has become an industry at which women excel.”
If a passing reference to “culture” set off Palestinian ire, what might they say about an official saying death is a Palestinian “industry?”
In this case, the comment drew no criticism. It came from Hamas MP Fathi Hammad in remarks broadcast on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa television in 2008. According to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Hammad told the enemies of Allah that they “do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its (methods) of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people death has become an industry at which women excel and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.'”
While the ‘Palestinians’ prate about ‘occupation’, they conveniently forget to address the continuing Arab occupation of parts of the Jewish homeland. There are no ‘Palestinians’; they’re Arabs, and if they want their ‘home’ back they should return to Arabia. There’s certainly plenty of room.
August 1st, 2012 at 05:09
“continuing Arab occupation of parts of the Jewish homeland”
So do you believe that Israel should just outright annex the West Bank and Gaza?
August 1st, 2012 at 08:06
They already did, back in 1967. Nobody else would accept it, so they’ve ignored it ever since. Much as you have.
August 1st, 2012 at 09:34
Well, then, why don’t Texans end the occupation of the Commanche homeland and go back to wherever they came from?
August 1st, 2012 at 11:34
What we’d really like is to end Obama’s occupation of Texas.
August 1st, 2012 at 13:46
You already tried that, with tragic results…for you.
Do we have to kick your ass again</i?
August 1st, 2012 at 14:25
With technological and industrial parity, the ass kicked would not likely be Texas’s or any other member of the original Southern confederacy this go round. Besides, I have a feeling there would be a few more states along for the secession ride this time, Indiana, Idaho, and New Hampshire to name a few.
But as to your other post, the irrelevant and off-topic diversion regarding the “Commanche (Sic) homeland” in it’s supposed location in Texas, even here you get the basic facts wrong. The Comanche originally hailed from present-day Wyoming, and only headed South after breaking off from their mother tribe under disputed circumstances. Once in a new land not their own, hey got their hands on horses, and taught themselves how to employ them effectively. Then they basically slaughtered their way to ruling over much of present day Texas and Oklahoma, driving other Indian tribes that had been there for centuries out.
Funny thing, actual facts, eh? Denny strikes out again.
August 1st, 2012 at 14:26
“hey” = “they”
August 1st, 2012 at 14:28
And where do your ancestors hail from, Jakey? ‘Cause it wasn’t here.
August 1st, 2012 at 14:37
“And where do your ancestors hail from, Jakey? ‘Cause it wasn’t here.”
Translation: “I can’t refute what you wrote, so I’ll attempt to change the subject by asking an irrelevant and non-responsive question.”
Every day here is an ongoing update to that burgeoning work, Denny-Speak: a Translator’s Guide.
Funny stuff.
August 1st, 2012 at 22:04
“I can’t refute what you wrote” Refute what? It was an entertaining history story, but it’s just a recitation of factoids which may or may not be true. It didn’t lead to a point, so there is nothing to ‘refute’. (I’m frankly surprised you didn’t take it back to Clovis and/or the Bering landbridge migration…)
It was but a weak attempt at evading my question, which does have a point: Whoever’s homeland it was originally, it wasn’t yours. Somebody took it, and your progenitors–which you seem ashamed of, but never mind–came and settled on it, and it became yours.
The Jews, or their distant ancestors, may have occupied Canaan (which, by the way, they took by force–it wasn’t their homeland originally) in the distant past. But the Palestinians have been living there since at least the 1400’s, so it’s their homeland, too. Arabs they may be, but they are Palestinian Arabs. They are not squatters on the Jewish ‘homeland’.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:31
False, per usual. You obviously know this, and yet post something you know to be false anyway. When I first jumped onto the internet back in the early ’90s, the easy way in which Leftists, particularly those hiding behind the cloak of anonymous internet monikers, would do such a thing – simply post clear distortions & falsehoods – used to gall me. Prior to that, I never much was around folks who so quickly and smoothly resorted to mendacity to score some kind of political “points” in a discussion, or any kind of “points,” come to think of it. Oh, I was no innocent: in life there are always people about who have reputations for telling big whoppers at the drop of a hat, for any number of reasons or motives. But seeing pseudo-savants such as yourself do such routinely, day-after-day, internet post after internet post, I’ve come to realize this pretty much sums up the Left’s modus operandi across the board when “debating” people with whom they disagree, and instead of being galled by it the emotion I experience when encountering it – which is every time I go to a discussion site where liberals are allowed to comment – I simply mark it down as another mildly amusing good reason to have little but contempt for the collective Left, and it’s lockstep-lemmings.
That aside, let’s take this in order:
“Refute what? It was an entertaining history story, but it’s just a recitation of factoids which may or may not be true. It didn’t lead to a point, so there is nothing to ‘refute’.”
Incorrect. It lead precisely to the point that your original irrelevant reply was based upon a false premise, i.e., that current-day Texan’s are somehow occupying “Commanche (Sic) homeland.” You failed to refute or even address this take-down of your absurd irrelevancies in posting that comment in the first place, or anything else related to it.
“It was but a weak attempt at evading my question, which does have a point: Whoever’s homeland it was originally, it wasn’t yours. Somebody took it, and your progenitors–which you seem ashamed of, but never mind–came and settled on it, and it became yours.”
Incorrect: your original question was irrelevant in any event, since what happened in Texas two centuries ago has no bearing on what is currently going on in the mid-east today. But even that “point” was based upon a false premise, as shown. The cute little attempt at baiting by suggesting someone has anywhere suggested they are “ashamed” of their “progenitors” is just icing on that logical-fallacy stacked cake.
“The Jews, or their distant ancestors, may have occupied Canaan (which, by the way, they took by force–it wasn’t their homeland originally) in the distant past. But the Palestinians have been living there since at least the 1400?s, so it’s their homeland, too. Arabs they may be, but they are Palestinian Arabs. They are not squatters on the Jewish ‘homeland’.”
No, it’s not their “homeland.” Yes, they are squatters. No, there is no such thing as a “Palestinian”; it’s a phony construct, as the Lefties like to say, based upon an offhand, contemptuous remark by a long-dead Roman general directed at the Jews, and resurrected literally thousands of years later by propagandists for their shabby cause. The “homeland” of the so-called “Palestinians” is Jordan: the world should be petitioning that state to take home their ancestral kin, not badgering Israel about the matter.
This brings us back to the beginning: you were well-aware when you hit that “Submit Comment” button that you were publishing a mass of irrelevant imbecilities and false statements (as shown), yet you did it anyway. More grist for the rancid mill that is the liberal notion of what it means to “debate” on the internet: distort, obfuscate, gratuitously insult, and just plain make stuff up.
Yep: that about covers it.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:40
Hm…let’s see: Long-winded, check; self-congratulatory, check; avoiding the question, check; sneering, check; personal attacks, check; no point, check. Yep, same old Jakey. Carry on.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:57
Translation: “I can’t refute what you wrote, so I’ll just type up a brief, falsehood-strewn check-list, and pretend I’ve produced some kind of scintillating repartee.”
Yep, same old Denny. Fun stuff.
August 2nd, 2012 at 13:20
“No, it’s not their “homeland.”” Yes, it is.
“Yes, they are squatters.” No, they are not.
“No, there is no such thing as a “Palestinian”” There may not have been before, but there is now. See below.
“The “homeland” of the so-called “Palestinians” is Jordan: the world should be petitioning that state to take home their ancestral kin” You evidently don’t know much about the history of the area.
What is now the West Bank was part of the land allotted to the Arabs under the partition plan that resulted in the creation of Israel in 1948. It was occupied by Jordan during the 1948 war and administerd by Jordan, which annexed it in 1950. Then it was overrun by the Israelis in 1967, who have not annexed if formally; they simply occupy it. In 1988 Jordan ceded all of its governmental rights to the land to the PLO.
During all that, it has been the same people living on the land. First they were Ottomans, then they were part of the British Mandate, then part of Jordan, and now they are their own entity. If they choose to call themselves ‘Palestinians’, you–and all your reactionary ilk–have neither the right nor the authority to say otherwise.
By your reasoning, it’s the Russian, Polish, and German Jews who are the squatters. Perhaps we should be petitioning their countries to take home their ancestral kin.
August 2nd, 2012 at 13:47
You are the one that apparently knows little about the history of the area, your phony attempts to string dates together and distort them into meaning something they do not notwithstanding. That aside, you actually concede the shaky ground (and engage in some more mendacious rhetorical slight of hand) here:
“First they were Ottomans, then they were part of the British Mandate, then part of Jordan, and now they are their own entity””
There is a glimmer of truth in all but that last part – they are not their “own” entity by any historical or factual stretch of the imagination – but even in those glimmers is much obfuscation. They are actually, largely, the descendants of the scut workers the Ottoman Turks imported to dig their ditches and wash their laundry; they are Jordanians, on land that does not belong to them, period. They need to return to their ancestral homelands in Jordan, and the issue will be (largely) resolved as far as the so-called “Palestinians” (who are not “Palestinians and do not deserve to have that recognized as a valid appellation) are concerned, and sensible persons concerned with stating things as they are do not so apply that term, save sarcastically.
But at least you’re finally talking about the actual content of the article posted, instead off chasing phony comparisons between the “Commanches” (Sic) and the Texans. That’s a start, even if, in that start, you once against fumbled the factual ball (per usual).
August 2nd, 2012 at 13:48
“against” = “again”
August 2nd, 2012 at 15:29
There was no Jordan before 1946, so your assertion that they are all ‘Jordanians’ is nonsense.
However or whyever they came, they were living on the land long before the British started importing European Jews to the area. (Wonder if they were just scut worker brought to dig ditches and wash laundry?)
So it is, in fact, their homeland, by virtue of their having lived there for generations before the Israelis ever even thought of settling there.
And your twisted interpretation of the hows and whys of their being there are irrelevant.
August 2nd, 2012 at 15:32
Here’s an extant article I ran across written by a “Jordanian-Palestinian” author that pretty much confirms the ideal status quo ante would be for the so-called “Palestinians”; and while I don’t endorse all it, it’s a better potential solvent to the current woes that continue to bedevil that troubled region, and it’s trouble peoples (it also, incidentally, confirms my view of the historical and factual events there; Denny strikes out again):
http://www.meforum.org/3121/jordan-is-palestinian
-by Mudar Zahran
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2012, pp. 3-12
Some interesting analysis, especially coming from a “Jordanian-Palestinian”: it is too long to post in its entirety here, but the gist is that Jordan itself should become the so-called “Palestinian” homeland – as it should be – with an eye toward encouraging those in Gaza and the West Bank to migrate there. Which, of course (this is my historically and factually correct interpretation, not the author’s), where they belong: they are currently squatting on land that does not belong to them, and need to return to their ancestral home.
August 2nd, 2012 at 15:44
“So it is, in fact, their homeland, by virtue of their having lived there for generations before the Israelis ever even thought of settling there.”
False, on about a dozen (or more) different levels, but we’ll start with a simple few:
1. Israel has been a nation in the region since 1312.
2. There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem and the surrounding environs for well over 3,000 years – that right there puts paid to your false assertion above.
3. It was the Romans who came up with the “Palestinian” business, and they did it to specifically insult the Jews. But if we accept your assertion that there is such a thing as “Palestinians” historically, well, the only conclusion possible is that the “Palestinians” are, in fact, the Israeli Jews. Okay.
4. In point of fact the so-called “Palestinians” didn’t begin to migrate into the area until large number of the Jewish diaspora begin returning to the area – and these same returnees paid fair and square for the land they settled on to the Arabs who enthusiastically sold it to them. Regardless, there were still a good many Jewish folks who’d never left, despite the best efforts of the Romans nearly 2,000 years earlier.
One could go on and on and on in this factual vein, and will if necessary, but just these first four points dismiss your claims to so-called “Palestinian” ownership of land they are squatting on. Bottom line: they need to home, Denny. To Jordan. Everyone wins. End of story.
August 2nd, 2012 at 15:45
“1312” = 1312 B.C., of course.
August 2nd, 2012 at 15:52
Correction bonanza:
“…and while I don’t endorse all of it, it’s a better potential solvent to the current woes that continue to bedevil that troubled region, and it’s troubled peoples (it also, incidentally, confirms my view of the historical and factual events there; Denny strikes out again):”
August 2nd, 2012 at 20:14
“Israel has been a nation in the region since 1312.” False. Israel ceased to be a nation when Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem in 135. From then until 1948, there was no ‘Israel’. There was a Roman province, then a brief Sassinid presence, then the Muslims arrived. So Israel, as a nation, disappeared for some 1,800 years.
“There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem” except between 135 and 638, when the Muslims arrived. And there has also been a non-Jewish presence in and about Jerusalem during all that time. Nothing special attaches to the Jewish presence, as it was not exclusive.
“if we accept your assertion that there is such a thing as “Palestinians” historically” A deliberate distortion of my position. I said nothing about ‘hisorically’, I said they exist now. That’s what they call themselves, so that’s what they are. Whether they existed by that name in the past is irrelevant; they did exist.
“same returnees paid…for the land…to the Arabs” (emphasis added). Caught in your own fabrication. If the Arabs weren’t there first, how could they have sold land to the Jews?
“there were still a good many Jewish folks who’d never left” As there are a great many Palestinians who have never left. And there are a great swaths where there were no Jews at all before the Europeans arrived.
“One could go on and on and on in this factual vein” I’m sure you could go on and on–that never seems to have been your problem–but your ‘facts’ are only half-facts and fabrications. You don’t have a leg to stand on. But you know that, and keep blathering on.
At least you are attempting to actually discuss the issue instead of spewing invective and insults. I give you credit for growing up that much.
August 2nd, 2012 at 20:15
hisorically = historically
August 2nd, 2012 at 23:16
“False. Israel ceased to be a nation when Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem in 135.”
Semantics. That “expulsion” – it was more like a scattering – did nothing to diminish the status of the Israeli people as constituting a nation in the precise sense in which I meant it, i.e., from the year Moses received the Torah. If you actually knew what you were talking about – I notice it took you seven hours of sniffing around on Wikipedia to put together even the semi-coherent mass of silliness composed above – you would have known this by inquiring into the events of 1312 BCE. Not good, Denny! Embarrassment always follows when we err thus.
They lacked a state, and the governing apparatus that goes along with it. They never “disappeared” as a nation*, nor lost their distinct nationhood, despite the diaspora of 135. Jews remained in Jerusalem (though if found as Jews, were expelled or otherwise dealt with); Jews remained in the vicinity of Judea; Jews were even allowed to enter the city as Jews once a year even at the height of the Roman persecution. Hadrian’s death did much to ease their ongoing persecution, though the diaspora did continue.
Denny strikes out again.
“except between 135 and 638, when the Muslims arrived”
Simply false.
” Nothing special attaches to the Jewish presence”
Sez you: history – and actual historians, as opposed to Wikipedia pseudo-savants on the internet – says something quite different.
“Caught in your own fabrication. If the Arabs weren’t there first, how could they have sold land to the Jews?”
No one ever said there was not Arab migration to the area, resulting in Arab settlement and even the owning of land by Arabs. The question on the table was specifically about the so-called “Palestinians,” and whether Gaza and the West bank were their “homelands” (they’re not), and whether they are currently squatting on the ancestral home of the Jewish people (they are). More mendacity and distortion from Denny, who strikes out again.
“As there are a great many Palestinians who have never left”
False: as shown previously, the so-called “Palestinians” were and are, largely, the descendants of the scut workers the Ottoman Turks imported to dig their ditches and wash their laundry. Their presence on that land is a recent phenomenon, in historical terms, and they have no ancestral claims to that land of any significance or rising to the same level of importance that should be recognized over and above that of Israeli Jews. They need to go home, to Jordan, Denny: much good would come of this for that region.
“I’m sure you could go on and on–that never seems to have been your problem–but your ‘facts’ are only half-facts and fabrications. You don’t have a leg to stand on. But you know that, and keep blathering on.
At least you are attempting to actually discuss the issue instead of spewing invective and insults”
This is called “projection.”
Once again, Denny swings for the fences; once again, Denny forgets that this is not baseball, but a matter of historical facts. And he done got none: just raw opinions flavored with a smattering of historical dates, distorted renderings of events, and a Wikipedia-warrior’s internet bravado.
Fun stuff.
*Dictionaries can help, Denny:
“Na´tion
n. 1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock” (all emphases added).
August 3rd, 2012 at 00:22
Ah, I see I missed one inane puzzle-piece in this jumble of absurdity, but what a splendid one it is!:
“A deliberate distortion of my position. I said nothing about ‘hisorically’, I said they exist now. That’s what they call themselves, so that’s what they are. Whether they existed by that name in the past is irrelevant; they did exist.”
(1). False: I gave a precise description of your position, taken to its logical conclusion.
(2). They don’t “exist” now, in any sense, unless applied in the ancient Roman sense to refer to Israeli Jews; those calling themselves “Palestinians” are actually Jordanians, just as illegal immigrants from Mexico are actually Mexicans, not “American Colonists.” Seriously, the so-called “Palestinians” claim to the title “Palestinian” is as logically absurd as an illegal alien setting up shop in Boston, and demanding to be called an “American Colonist” in the 1770 sense of the word.
You simply do not understand the etymology of the word “Palestinian,” Denny; nor the historical facts behind its origins, historical usage, and current misuse by the Jordanians currently squatting in the West Bank and Gaza.
(3). They can “call themselves” anything they wish: doing so does not make it so, as detailed above.
(4). This final sentence is so pitifully self-contradictory, so logically specious, it deserves its own special entry: “Whether they existed by that name in the past is irrelevant; they did exist.”
So, they did exist in the past, but it’s irrelevant that they did so? Ho-kay…uhhh, let’s try to make sense of this hash. So, did they exist in the past, in the Roman sense, and therefore references to modern-day “Palestinians” are really references to modern-day Israeli Jews? Or did the fact that the term “Palestinian” is irrelevant as a modern usage applicable to any actual group of people anywhere on the face of the earth not negate the fact that, at one time, there were “Palestinians” in the Roman sense, i.e., as a term of disparagement directed at the Jewish people by their Roman overlords?
It’s either/or time…
Gee, we’re right back where we started: there is no such thing as a “Palestinian” in the modern, current sense, and hasn’t been for about forever. At the end, Denny sees the light, and by his own confused jumble of thoughts, deciphered for English language work, we finally make progress!
Too, too funny.
August 3rd, 2012 at 06:07
“No one ever said there was not Arab migration to the area, resulting in Arab settlement and even the owning of land by Arabs.”
So your premise is that the land was unpopulated wilderness until the Ottomans imported a bunch of folks to do their laundry? (When do you suppose that all happened, BTW?) Absurd on its face. But you at least concede that the Arabs were there when the European Jews who established the state of Israel were not.
Again, whether the Palestinians existed “in the Roman sense” (What a nonsensical weasal qualifier!) is irrelevant. They are there now, they call themselves Palestinians, and so they are.
You switch back and forth between definitions–and when that won’t serve you arbitrarily re-define–as it pleases you. ‘Nation’ means one thing one time, and another thing another. But let it go. ‘Jew’ is not a nationality, however much you want it to be, any more than is ‘Bhuddist’ or ‘Nestorian’ or ‘Copt’. Therefore, the Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe are not part of any ‘Jewisn Nation’. At best they are ‘Poles’, ‘Russians’, etc., etc., who maintained a peculiar identity; now they are ‘Israelis’. The Jews who remained in the Levant continuously might legitimately claim to constitute a ‘nation’, but they are very few and were far outnumbered by the Muslim populace.
“I gave a precise description of your position, taken to its logical conclusion.” (emphasis added) So you took my stated position, extrapolated it to mean something I didn’t say, and then ascribed the extrapolation (which exists nowhere but in your mind) to me. Utter mendacity. But then, it’s easier to argue against someone when you put words in their mouth.
I do not posit–nor have I–that the Palestinians have any historical antecedant. They are a new phenomenon in the world. But the fact that they are new does not a priori negate their reality.
“So, they did exist in the past, but it’s irrelevant that they did so?” You left out my emphasis. The name is irrelevant, not the existance. They could all have been called ‘shmuckoids’ or ‘widgets’ until recently; it’s utterly beside the point. They call themselves Palestinian now. And so they are. But you believe, through some arcane conservative sympathetic magic, that by denying their name you can somehow wish them out of existence.
“This is called “projection.”” High-school armchair pseudo-psychology is just more blather.
“there is no such thing as a “Palestinian” in the modern, current sense” You talk about ‘modern’ and ‘current’, but your entire argument rests on what does or does not have historical precedent. You don’t even know what point you’re trying to make. Pathetic.
I’m done here. I’ll let you have the last word; I know how much you love it. No need to thank me.
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:33
“So your premise is that the land was unpopulated wilderness until the Ottomans imported a bunch of folks to do their laundry?”
I’ve told you before, Denny: you need to learn to read slower. Or better. Or go for the big enchilada, and combine the two. You also need to quit making stuff up.
“Again, whether the Palestinians existed “in the Roman sense”…is irrelevant.”
Yes, it is. In fact, the entire issue of what it means to be a “Palestinian” hinges upon it. Again: those calling themselves “Palestinians” are actually Jordanians, just as illegal immigrants from Mexico are actually Mexicans, not “American Colonists.” Seriously, the so-called “Palestinians” claim to the title “Palestinian” is as logically absurd as an illegal alien setting up shop in Boston, and demanding to be called an “American Colonist” in the 1770 sense of the word.
Read better. Read slower. Do both.
“They are there now, they call themselves Palestinians, and so they are.”
The Jordanian descendants of the scut workers imported by the Ottoman Turks to dig their ditches and wash their laundry are, indeed, squatting on the ancestral land of the Israeli Jews, and the latter are even willing to let them stay there, if they will put an end to terrorism carried out against the Jewish State in their name; again, they can call themselves the Argonauts if they want – that don’t make so; and so they are not.
“You switch back and forth between definitions–and when that won’t serve you arbitrarily re-define–as it pleases you.”
Simply false.
“Nation’ means one thing one time, and another thing another. But let it go. ‘Jew’ is not a nationality, however much you want it to be, any more than is ‘Bhuddist’ or ‘Nestorian’ or ‘Copt’. Therefore, the Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe are not part of any ‘Jewisn Nation’. At best they are ‘Poles’, ‘Russians’, etc., etc., who maintained a peculiar identity; now they are ‘Israelis’.”
Incorrect: the Jewish nation has continuously existed since 1312 B.C., prior to and independent of any Israeli state, the latter of which simply provided/provides the framework for that same Jewish nation to govern itself. As a matter of historical fact, it is true an Israeli state has not existed or functioned for large chunks of the Jewish nation’s existence, for one reason or another (usually conquest). But the Jewish nation always has.
Further, those Jews who emigrated to Israel, from wherever they came around the world, where always a part of that Jewish nation, as were their ancestors, and as will be their descendants: their actual arrival in Israel and assumption of citizenship made them part of the Jewish state; they never stopped being member of the extended tribe that makes up the Jewish nation, from birth. You’re still not grasping the words on the screen in front of you. Back to that reading principle I told you you should adopt.
“The Jews who remained in the Levant continuously might legitimately claim to constitute a ‘nation’”
Here you finally concede my point, and argue against everything you’ve written prior to this point. Of course, since the facts are on my side, you really had little choice but to slip that concession in, and maintain the slightest shred of credibility: still, laughable stuff.
“But then, it’s easier to argue against someone when you put words in their mouth”
More projection, preceded by a winding string of yada, yada, yada.
“I do not posit–nor have I–that the Palestinians have any historical antecedant”
*Ahem*:
“So it is, in fact, their homeland, by virtue of their having lived there for generations before the Israelis ever even thought of settling there.”
Indeed, your entire line of argument prior to this has been precisely the opposite, and predicated on same.
“a priori”
Poseur alert.
“The name is irrelevant, not the existance.”
Except, you have expended a good deal of effort in this thread attempting to prove the exact opposite: arguing against yourself again, Denny. That’s getting to be a habit.
“They could all have been called ‘shmuckoids’ or ‘widgets’ until recently; it’s utterly beside the point. They call themselves Palestinian now. And so they are”
Asked & answered, to coin a phrase.
“You talk about ‘modern’ and ‘current’, but your entire argument rests on what does or does not have historical precedent. You don’t even know what point you’re trying to make.
Simply false, as any reasonable observer strolling through this train-wreck logic of yours readily sees. Also, projection. Again.
“Pathetic.”
Indeed.
“I’m done here.”
You’ve been “done here” pretty much since you began, as the historical facts are simply not on your side; better luck next time, Denny. You might wanna find a better cause to be wrong about, incidentally. Pro tip.