ThePolymath 📚

There is no nobility in ignorance

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@Historycourses Funny this appears on my feed, I was about to start reading this book I just ordered: https://t.co/mq6qSKpfQi

[Joel Berry @JoelWBerry]

As far as I’m concerned, Palestinians have lost their right to self determination, self government, territory, and national identity. Force the Arab states to take them. Split the population between Egypt, Qatar, Syria, Iraq, and the rest, and end the entity altogether.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@AyOdeh اسكت يا قطعة القذارة، يجب ترحيلك مع المجرمين الذين تحتفل بهم

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@jordanbpeterson @mohammed_hijab “We don’t care about death, we love death.”

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@DrewPavlou “Anyone you don’t like becomes Jewish” is a good observation, there is a book that traces the history of it.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@RimaHas Qui exactement?

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS

History of Distinct Identities in the Levant
In ancient times, the Levant was a cradle of civilizations, a veritable crossroads that beckoned various groups to settle and flourish. Phoenicia, primarily present-day Lebanon, was home to master mariners and traders. Contrary to a monolithic view of Phoenicia as a unified state, it actually consisted of a collection of independent city-states like Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. Each of these maritime hubs was a separate entity, governed by its own royal lineage, worshipping its specific pantheon, and oftentimes speaking dialectal variations. Even though they shared a common cultural backdrop, epitomized by their unique alphabetic script and seafaring prowess, they never coalesced into a unified Phoenician 'nation'—a notion that was more an external label from Greek historiography than an internal identity.

Syria, another focal point of the ancient Levant, had a variegated history rooted in its multicultural and multiethnic populace. From the Canaanites and Amorites to the later influence of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, and Byzantine empires, Syria was a melting pot of diverse traditions and religious practices. Various capitals like Damascus and Aleppo became epicenters of learning, trade, and power, each contributing to a multifaceted Syrian identity that was far from homogeneous.

Transjordan, which encompasses modern-day Jordan, parts of Southern Syria, and parts of Northern Saudi Arabia, also harbored its share of ancient societies. Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites were among the early settlers, each carving out their own realms in this geographically varied landscape. Their territorial enclaves were often delineated by natural fortifications, such as mountains and valleys, which fostered a strong sense of localized identity.

Egypt stood distinct due to its unique geographical attributes. Enclosed by vast deserts and nourished by the Nile, it developed a civilization that, although frequently engaged with its Levantine neighbors, retained a singular cultural identity. This distinction was cemented by a long line of native dynasties and unique religious and sociopolitical systems, notably exemplified by the Pharaohs and their centralized state apparatus.

Islamic Conquests and Medieval Periods
The medieval era marked a transformational phase, particularly with the onset of the Islamic conquests. While the Islamic Caliphates, from the Umayyad to the Abbasid and the Fatimid, brought a semblance of religious and administrative unity, they did not erase the unique characteristics of each region. In Syria and Egypt, the Islamic empires adopted many administrative and architectural practices from their Byzantine and Coptic predecessors, respectively. Transjordan, meanwhile, became an important crossing point for pilgrimages and trade between the Arabian Peninsula and Greater Syria, thereby maintaining its relevance while absorbing Islamic influences.

Sykes-Picot Agreement: Artificial Boundaries
The waning years of the Ottoman Empire served as a prelude to European imperial ambitions. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 is emblematic of this colonial intercession. Far from a benign administrative exercise, this British-French agreement imposed a European conception of statehood and territoriality on a region with pre-existing socio-cultural demarcations. Notably, this division laid the foundation for modern Lebanon as a Christian-majority state—a decision that further exacerbated religious divisions within the Levant.

Rise of Nationalism in the 20th Century: Striving for Independence
The 20th century ushered in revolutionary waves of nationalism, often spurred by the political and intellectual elites who had studied in European capitals. Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq became battlegrounds for competing visions of statehood, ranging from pan-Arabism to localized nationalism. This era marked a departure from the traditional sectarian or tribal identities towards a broader, yet territorially confined, sense of nationhood.

PALESTINE

Palestine presents a peculiar case in the quest for nationhood in the Levant. With its population largely constituted of Arab families whose roots often extend across the artificial borders into Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, Palestine's path to statehood has been less straightforward. Its unique position has been further complicated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Historical Background of Palestine

Palestine has long been a crossroads of civilizations, religions, and empires—from Byzantines and Romans to Ottomans. However, its history is deeply intertwined with the Jewish people, who according to biblical accounts, settled in ancient Canaan. They established the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, contributing significantly to the region's cultural and religious landscape, such as the construction of the First Temple in Jerusalem. These kingdoms faced invasions and exiles, but their legacies are integral to modern Judaism. The land underwent various phases of foreign rule, eventually becoming part of the Roman Empire, which renamed it "Syria Palaestina" to distance it from its Jewish roots.

The idea of a unified, independent Palestinian state was not something that evolved naturally from its history. During the Ottoman rule, for example, what we now call Palestine was administratively fragmented into different districts, integrated into a larger, relatively decentralized empire. Identity was often tied to locality—village, clan, or religious community—rather than a broader national sense of belonging. Therefore, any initial inertia towards statehood needs to be viewed against this historical backdrop, which was marked by administrative fragmentation and a multiplicity of localized identities.

The Impact of Colonialism

The entry of the British into Palestine post-World War I, through the establishment of the British Mandate, introduced new terminologies and geographies. Territories were redefined, borders were drawn, and identities were often externally imposed. These new geopolitical realities forced the local populations to navigate a spectrum of loyalties and identities, which until then had been largely shaped by more immediate social and religious fabrics.

Comparative Nationalism

When we look at neighboring entities like Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, the journey towards statehood and nationalism, although not devoid of complexities, followed a simpler trajectory. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which artificially divided much of the Middle East between British and French spheres of influence, did provide a pathway for these entities towards eventual statehood. Whether it was the Hashemite dynasty finding a new throne in Jordan or the unique confessional system institutionalized in Lebanon, these states began crystallizing around nascent national identities relatively earlier in the 20th century, although not without their own sets of challenges and internal divisions.

Palestinian Identity

In contrast, Palestine’s Arab populations found themselves in a far more nebulous situation. Nationalism, as a concept and aspiration, was imported into Palestine as a response to external challenges—firstly, against the British Mandate and secondly, against the migration of Jews who were often viewed as intruders. The resistance was not for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state per se, but against these external forces that were upsetting the existing socio-political equilibrium.

The Role of the Grand Mufti

We have to mention Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was a pivotal religious and political leader among Palestinians, wielding considerable influence over public opinion and societal norms during his tenure. During the tumultuous years leading up to and including World War II, al-Husseini forged a dark alliance with Nazi Germany, motivated by mutual anti-Semitic convictions. This alliance extended beyond mere diplomatic maneuvering; it involved active collaboration such as propagandist radio broadcasts and even meetings with Adolf Hitler. Al-Husseini's engagement with Nazi ideologies served to inflame an already existing animosity toward Jews within certain factions of the Arab population, transforming it into an uncompromising and ideologically charged form of hatred. This heightened animosity contributed to the radicalization of elements within the Palestinian populace, perpetuating a cycle of distrust and violence that made peaceful coexistence increasingly untenable. It left a lasting legacy that has continued to pose significant challenges for peaceful reconciliation between the two communities.

The Reactive Origins of Palestinian Identity (1948-1967)

In the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the establishment of the State of Israel, the urgency for crafting a unified, singular Palestinian identity surged, albeit under circumstances that could be best described as reactive and externally conditioned. Contrary to a widespread but simplistic perception, the primary objective of the neighboring Arab states that entered the war against Israel was not the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Instead, their motivations were rooted in a broader rejection of the Jewish presence, which was seen as an affront to the Arab character of the land, and by extension, an assault on their own geopolitical interests and prestige.

This is not to say that the absence of a Palestinian state was inconsequential to these Arab countries. However, their military intervention was more in alignment with ousting what they considered an intrusive entity, rather than the proactive establishment of Palestinian sovereignty. For instance, Jordan aimed to annex parts of the territory that had been allocated to the Arab state by the United Nations' partition plan, and Egypt had its own geopolitical calculations, including maintaining its leadership role in the Arab world.

Consequently, the Arabs living in Palestine found themselves caught in a crossfire of competing nationalisms and regional ambitions. The Arab states' initial failure to defeat Israel left them stateless and substantially contributed to the Palestinian refugee crisis. Palestinian identity emerged not as a proactive articulation of shared culture, history or aspirations, but rather as a reactive construct. This identity was significantly shaped by the ongoing struggles they faced. It came into being as a response to existential threats, forming around ideas of resistance and a yearning for return.

The period up to 1967, which witnessed the Six-Day War, was formative in shaping the identity of Palestinians and the attitudes of Arab states towards Israel. The early era was typified by a reactive form of nationalism among Palestinians, an identity largely formulated in opposition to external pressures, most notably the establishment of Israel and the subsequent displacement of Palestinians from their homes. This reactive identity wasn't particularly conducive to galvanizing international support or fostering productive dialogue because it was intrinsically defensive and oppositional, rooted more in what Palestinians were against—namely, displacement and occupation—rather than a coherent vision of what they were for, such as a concrete outline for statehood or governance.

Yasser Arafat and the Proactive Transformation of Palestinian Identity

Amid these changing regional dynamics, Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) played a pivotal role in transforming the Palestinian cause from a reactive to a more proactive endeavor. Arafat understood the importance of symbolism and the power of narrative in building a national identity. Under his leadership, the PLO adopted a distinct Palestinian flag and engaged in a concerted effort to standardize and disseminate a unique Palestinian lexicon aimed at fostering a separate national consciousness. Arafat deftly employed these symbols and language of collective memory and trauma to rally Palestinians around shared emblems of nationhood, transcending the localized identities tied to specific villages or religious communities that had characterized Palestinian identity up until that point. His efforts gained momentum when the Arab League recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" in 1974, effectively divorcing Palestinian identity from the Khartoum Resolution's "Three No's" of 1967—no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

CONCLUSION

The modern conception of Palestinian national identity has been largely shaped by a series of external circumstances and geopolitical events, rather than by a natural or internally-driven evolution toward nation-statehood. Prior to the late 19th century, the region we now know as Palestine was marked by a diversity of localized identities and affiliations, often centered around villages, clans or religious communities, and lacking a unified national consciousness. The concept of a Palestinian state was non-existent, being more an administrative division within broader empires than a geopolitical entity aspiring for independent nationhood.

However, the landscape began to shift dramatically with the onset of geopolitical changes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The arbitrary divisions of the Middle East by external powers, most notably after World War I, created artificial boundaries that did not necessarily correspond to the existing ethno-religious or tribal divisions. Additionally, the influx of Jewish immigrants under the British Mandate, buoyed by the Zionist aspiration for a homeland, acted as a catalyst in the forming of a Palestinian nationalism. The increased Jewish immigration led to heightened land disputes and conflicts, forcing the Arab population to re-evaluate and redefine their collective identity in contrast to the incoming immigrants.

Moreover, the independence and formation of neighboring Arab nation-states further complicated matters. As these newly independent nations began to assert their sovereignty, the Palestinians found themselves without a state, largely because their Arab neighbors initially showed limited interest in the establishment of a Palestinian state. This vacuum led to the necessity for the Palestinians to organize politically, exemplified by the formation of groups like the PLO, to assert their claims for self-determination.

Thus, the modern Palestinian identity emerged not out of a long-standing, internally-driven quest for statehood, but as a complex response to a series of external circumstances, including arbitrary regional divisions by foreign powers, an influx of Jewish immigrants with national aspirations over a stateless land and a shifting geopolitical landscape that included the independence of neighboring Arab countries. In essence, the Arabs in Palestine did not initially seek to form a nation-state as they didn't see themselves having a distinct identity; rather, the concept was imposed upon them by a set of highly consequential external circumstances.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@stclairashley Spot on

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

PALESTINIAN MARXISM

The Palestinian cause, with its history of conflict and struggle for self-determination, intersects significantly with Marxist ideology.

Marxism, an economic and political ideology conceived by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, advocates for the overthrow of capitalist systems and frames societal structures as a struggle between the oppressor (bourgeoisie) and the oppressed (proletariat), aiming to establish a classless society with communal ownership of production. It evolved to influence global liberation movements.

Marxism's adaptation across different regions, notably in post-colonial nations, has been utilized as a lens to interpret and respond to imperial and colonial influences. This ideological shift from economic class struggle to broader anti-imperialist resistance is crucial to understanding Marxism's role in the Palestinian cause.

During the mid-20th century, Marxism became a beacon for various anti-colonial movements across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In these regions, Marxist ideology was used to fit the context of national liberation struggles.

For the Palestinian movement, Marxism offered not just an economic critique but a comprehensive framework for resistance. Its narrative of struggling against oppressive structures appealed to those confronting what they saw as an occupation and colonization by Israeli forces. This ideological adoption was part of a larger trend where liberation movements worldwide sought to align themselves with socialist principles as a means to oppose Western imperialism and forge a new identity rooted in self-governance and independence.

Palestinian Factions and Marxist Influence

Within the Palestinian liberation movement, factions such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) explicitly embraced Marxist ideology. The PFLP, a secular, Marxist-Leninist organization, saw the Palestinian struggle through the lens of international class struggle and anti-imperialism. This secular and socialist orientation, which contrasts with religiously oriented factions like Hamas, emphasizes the diversity within the Palestinian movement and the influence of global leftist ideologies.

Islamic Marxism, a unique blend of Islamic thought and Marxist principles, also found resonance within some Palestinian factions. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt initially displayed an inclination towards socialist principles, blended with Islamic teachings. This ideological stance, while distinct from orthodox Marxism, shared the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial ethos that characterized Marxist liberation movements. The integration of Islamic values into socialist frameworks reflected the attempt to contextualize Marxist ideology within the socio-political realities of the Arab world.

This blending of ideologies paved the way for extremist factions to emerge, adopting a hybrid ideology that combined elements of Marxist resistance with radical Islamic teachings. These factions justified their terrorist acts as part of a broader struggle against perceived oppression and imperialism, aligning with Marxist principles of overthrowing oppressor systems. Such justifications were used to legitimize violent actions, which they deemed necessary in the fight against Western influence and local regimes perceived as puppets of imperialist powers.

Palestinian Identity

The contours of Palestinian national identity as recognized today have been sculpted by Yasser Arafat's leadership and the infusion of Marxist ideology. Arafat's role at the helm of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was pivotal in unifying various Palestinian factions, previously fragmented by differing goals and methods. This unification process was undergirded by Marxist philosophy, emphasizing class struggle and resistance against perceived oppression. Such an ideology provided a common platform that transcended the traditional religious and factional divides within Palestinian society.

However, this shaping of identity under Marxist precepts, while unifying in one aspect, has embedded certain critical issues in the fabric of Palestinian nationalism. The adoption of a Marxist narrative transformed the Palestinian struggle into a broader fight against oppression, pivoting around continual resistance as its core. This reframing was instrumental in creating a sense of unity, but it also entrenched a combative stance as the cornerstone of Palestinian identity.

This constant emphasis on resistance, influenced by Marxist ideology, has had profound implications. It fostered a reactive identity, one that primarily defines itself in opposition to external factors, particularly the Israeli state. In doing so, it risked oversimplifying the complex socio-political dynamics of the region into a binary struggle. Moreover, this identity, steeped in a narrative of perpetual struggle, has hindered the development of alternative visions for the future of Palestinian society that are not predicated on conflict.

The International Left's Support

The international left's support for the Palestinian cause is partly rooted in this Marxist-influenced narrative of liberation and resistance. Leftist groups worldwide, particularly those influenced by socialist and communist ideologies, have historically viewed the Palestinian struggle as part of a broader fight against Western imperialism and colonialism. This viewpoint has led to widespread support among leftist organizations and individuals for Palestinian self-determination and opposition to Israeli policies.

This support overlooks all of the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, neglecting important historical facts and reducing it to a simplistic binary of oppressor vs. oppressed. This reductionist view is a product of the Marxist heritage in liberation movements, which frames conflicts in terms of global power dynamics and class struggle.

"Decolonize" Narratives

The "decolonize" narratives, heavily influenced by Marxist and postcolonial theories, similarly frames conflicts in terms of moral binaries, creating an environment where resistance against perceived oppressors is seen as a justifiable and necessary means of achieving liberation. The rhetoric of decolonization, with its emphasis on dismantling existing power structures, justifies extreme measures in pursuit of liberation goals.

The logic inherent decolonization narratives — that oppressed groups have the right to resist by any means necessary, including violence — raises concerns about potential genocidal outcomes. This logic, when taken to extremes, escalates to violence and societal upheaval, reminiscent of historical genocides where one group sought to completely eliminate another based on perceived oppression.

An example of "decolonization" rhetoric by explicit genocidal aims, such as those initially outlined in Hamas' charter calling for the complete eradication of Israel, often escape critical scrutiny under the broad banner of resistance. Such radical objectives are dismissed or even legitimized by some, under the argument that they are a form of resistance against oppression. The lack of widespread condemnation for explicitly violent and genocidal rhetoric reflects a concerning aspect of how decolonization narratives are simply covers for extreme and destructive agendas

Peace Prospects

The crystallization of Palestinian identity, influenced by Marxist narratives of liberation and resistance, poses inherent challenges to achieving peace and coexistence with Israel. This identity, shaped in opposition to perceived oppression, tends to solidify confrontational attitudes, making reconciliation a complex endeavor. The focus on a continuous struggle for liberation completely limits the space for compromise, as any form of concession is seen as a betrayal of the foundational principles of their cause. Additionally, such a narrative justifies extreme actions in the name of resistance, which complicates efforts to build trust and engage in peaceful negotiations.

With Palestinian identity so deeply intertwined with a narrative of unyielding resistance and opposition, it begs the question: Is the pursuit of peace a lost cause, doomed by an ideology that views compromise as betrayal?

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@Dr_Morbius_ @spectatorindex When exactly was this “inception” you’re talking about?

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS

History of Distinct Identities in the Levant
In ancient times, the Levant was a cradle of civilizations, a veritable crossroads that beckoned various groups to settle and flourish. Phoenicia, primarily present-day Lebanon, was home to master mariners and traders. Contrary to a monolithic view of Phoenicia as a unified state, it actually consisted of a collection of independent city-states like Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. Each of these maritime hubs was a separate entity, governed by its own royal lineage, worshipping its specific pantheon, and oftentimes speaking dialectal variations. Even though they shared a common cultural backdrop, epitomized by their unique alphabetic script and seafaring prowess, they never coalesced into a unified Phoenician 'nation'—a notion that was more an external label from Greek historiography than an internal identity.

Syria, another focal point of the ancient Levant, had a variegated history rooted in its multicultural and multiethnic populace. From the Canaanites and Amorites to the later influence of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, and Byzantine empires, Syria was a melting pot of diverse traditions and religious practices. Various capitals like Damascus and Aleppo became epicenters of learning, trade, and power, each contributing to a multifaceted Syrian identity that was far from homogeneous.

Transjordan, which encompasses modern-day Jordan, parts of Southern Syria, and parts of Northern Saudi Arabia, also harbored its share of ancient societies. Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites were among the early settlers, each carving out their own realms in this geographically varied landscape. Their territorial enclaves were often delineated by natural fortifications, such as mountains and valleys, which fostered a strong sense of localized identity.

Egypt stood distinct due to its unique geographical attributes. Enclosed by vast deserts and nourished by the Nile, it developed a civilization that, although frequently engaged with its Levantine neighbors, retained a singular cultural identity. This distinction was cemented by a long line of native dynasties and unique religious and sociopolitical systems, notably exemplified by the Pharaohs and their centralized state apparatus.

Islamic Conquests and Medieval Periods
The medieval era marked a transformational phase, particularly with the onset of the Islamic conquests. While the Islamic Caliphates, from the Umayyad to the Abbasid and the Fatimid, brought a semblance of religious and administrative unity, they did not erase the unique characteristics of each region. In Syria and Egypt, the Islamic empires adopted many administrative and architectural practices from their Byzantine and Coptic predecessors, respectively. Transjordan, meanwhile, became an important crossing point for pilgrimages and trade between the Arabian Peninsula and Greater Syria, thereby maintaining its relevance while absorbing Islamic influences.

Sykes-Picot Agreement: Artificial Boundaries
The waning years of the Ottoman Empire served as a prelude to European imperial ambitions. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 is emblematic of this colonial intercession. Far from a benign administrative exercise, this British-French agreement imposed a European conception of statehood and territoriality on a region with pre-existing socio-cultural demarcations. Notably, this division laid the foundation for modern Lebanon as a Christian-majority state—a decision that further exacerbated religious divisions within the Levant.

Rise of Nationalism in the 20th Century: Striving for Independence
The 20th century ushered in revolutionary waves of nationalism, often spurred by the political and intellectual elites who had studied in European capitals. Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq became battlegrounds for competing visions of statehood, ranging from pan-Arabism to localized nationalism. This era marked a departure from the traditional sectarian or tribal identities towards a broader, yet territorially confined, sense of nationhood.

PALESTINE

Palestine presents a peculiar case in the quest for nationhood in the Levant. With its population largely constituted of Arab families whose roots often extend across the artificial borders into Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, Palestine's path to statehood has been less straightforward. Its unique position has been further complicated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Historical Background of Palestine

Palestine has long been a crossroads of civilizations, religions, and empires—from Byzantines and Romans to Ottomans. However, its history is deeply intertwined with the Jewish people, who according to biblical accounts, settled in ancient Canaan. They established the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, contributing significantly to the region's cultural and religious landscape, such as the construction of the First Temple in Jerusalem. These kingdoms faced invasions and exiles, but their legacies are integral to modern Judaism. The land underwent various phases of foreign rule, eventually becoming part of the Roman Empire, which renamed it "Syria Palaestina" to distance it from its Jewish roots.

The idea of a unified, independent Palestinian state was not something that evolved naturally from its history. During the Ottoman rule, for example, what we now call Palestine was administratively fragmented into different districts, integrated into a larger, relatively decentralized empire. Identity was often tied to locality—village, clan, or religious community—rather than a broader national sense of belonging. Therefore, any initial inertia towards statehood needs to be viewed against this historical backdrop, which was marked by administrative fragmentation and a multiplicity of localized identities.

The Impact of Colonialism

The entry of the British into Palestine post-World War I, through the establishment of the British Mandate, introduced new terminologies and geographies. Territories were redefined, borders were drawn, and identities were often externally imposed. These new geopolitical realities forced the local populations to navigate a spectrum of loyalties and identities, which until then had been largely shaped by more immediate social and religious fabrics.

Comparative Nationalism

When we look at neighboring entities like Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, the journey towards statehood and nationalism, although not devoid of complexities, followed a simpler trajectory. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which artificially divided much of the Middle East between British and French spheres of influence, did provide a pathway for these entities towards eventual statehood. Whether it was the Hashemite dynasty finding a new throne in Jordan or the unique confessional system institutionalized in Lebanon, these states began crystallizing around nascent national identities relatively earlier in the 20th century, although not without their own sets of challenges and internal divisions.

Palestinian Identity

In contrast, Palestine’s Arab populations found themselves in a far more nebulous situation. Nationalism, as a concept and aspiration, was imported into Palestine as a response to external challenges—firstly, against the British Mandate and secondly, against the migration of Jews who were often viewed as intruders. The resistance was not for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state per se, but against these external forces that were upsetting the existing socio-political equilibrium.

The Role of the Grand Mufti

We have to mention Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was a pivotal religious and political leader among Palestinians, wielding considerable influence over public opinion and societal norms during his tenure. During the tumultuous years leading up to and including World War II, al-Husseini forged a dark alliance with Nazi Germany, motivated by mutual anti-Semitic convictions. This alliance extended beyond mere diplomatic maneuvering; it involved active collaboration such as propagandist radio broadcasts and even meetings with Adolf Hitler. Al-Husseini's engagement with Nazi ideologies served to inflame an already existing animosity toward Jews within certain factions of the Arab population, transforming it into an uncompromising and ideologically charged form of hatred. This heightened animosity contributed to the radicalization of elements within the Palestinian populace, perpetuating a cycle of distrust and violence that made peaceful coexistence increasingly untenable. It left a lasting legacy that has continued to pose significant challenges for peaceful reconciliation between the two communities.

The Reactive Origins of Palestinian Identity (1948-1967)

In the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the establishment of the State of Israel, the urgency for crafting a unified, singular Palestinian identity surged, albeit under circumstances that could be best described as reactive and externally conditioned. Contrary to a widespread but simplistic perception, the primary objective of the neighboring Arab states that entered the war against Israel was not the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Instead, their motivations were rooted in a broader rejection of the Jewish presence, which was seen as an affront to the Arab character of the land, and by extension, an assault on their own geopolitical interests and prestige.

This is not to say that the absence of a Palestinian state was inconsequential to these Arab countries. However, their military intervention was more in alignment with ousting what they considered an intrusive entity, rather than the proactive establishment of Palestinian sovereignty. For instance, Jordan aimed to annex parts of the territory that had been allocated to the Arab state by the United Nations' partition plan, and Egypt had its own geopolitical calculations, including maintaining its leadership role in the Arab world.

Consequently, the Arabs living in Palestine found themselves caught in a crossfire of competing nationalisms and regional ambitions. The Arab states' initial failure to defeat Israel left them stateless and substantially contributed to the Palestinian refugee crisis. Palestinian identity emerged not as a proactive articulation of shared culture, history or aspirations, but rather as a reactive construct. This identity was significantly shaped by the ongoing struggles they faced. It came into being as a response to existential threats, forming around ideas of resistance and a yearning for return.

The period up to 1967, which witnessed the Six-Day War, was formative in shaping the identity of Palestinians and the attitudes of Arab states towards Israel. The early era was typified by a reactive form of nationalism among Palestinians, an identity largely formulated in opposition to external pressures, most notably the establishment of Israel and the subsequent displacement of Palestinians from their homes. This reactive identity wasn't particularly conducive to galvanizing international support or fostering productive dialogue because it was intrinsically defensive and oppositional, rooted more in what Palestinians were against—namely, displacement and occupation—rather than a coherent vision of what they were for, such as a concrete outline for statehood or governance.

Yasser Arafat and the Proactive Transformation of Palestinian Identity

Amid these changing regional dynamics, Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) played a pivotal role in transforming the Palestinian cause from a reactive to a more proactive endeavor. Arafat understood the importance of symbolism and the power of narrative in building a national identity. Under his leadership, the PLO adopted a distinct Palestinian flag and engaged in a concerted effort to standardize and disseminate a unique Palestinian lexicon aimed at fostering a separate national consciousness. Arafat deftly employed these symbols and language of collective memory and trauma to rally Palestinians around shared emblems of nationhood, transcending the localized identities tied to specific villages or religious communities that had characterized Palestinian identity up until that point. His efforts gained momentum when the Arab League recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" in 1974, effectively divorcing Palestinian identity from the Khartoum Resolution's "Three No's" of 1967—no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

CONCLUSION

The modern conception of Palestinian national identity has been largely shaped by a series of external circumstances and geopolitical events, rather than by a natural or internally-driven evolution toward nation-statehood. Prior to the late 19th century, the region we now know as Palestine was marked by a diversity of localized identities and affiliations, often centered around villages, clans or religious communities, and lacking a unified national consciousness. The concept of a Palestinian state was non-existent, being more an administrative division within broader empires than a geopolitical entity aspiring for independent nationhood.

However, the landscape began to shift dramatically with the onset of geopolitical changes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The arbitrary divisions of the Middle East by external powers, most notably after World War I, created artificial boundaries that did not necessarily correspond to the existing ethno-religious or tribal divisions. Additionally, the influx of Jewish immigrants under the British Mandate, buoyed by the Zionist aspiration for a homeland, acted as a catalyst in the forming of a Palestinian nationalism. The increased Jewish immigration led to heightened land disputes and conflicts, forcing the Arab population to re-evaluate and redefine their collective identity in contrast to the incoming immigrants.

Moreover, the independence and formation of neighboring Arab nation-states further complicated matters. As these newly independent nations began to assert their sovereignty, the Palestinians found themselves without a state, largely because their Arab neighbors initially showed limited interest in the establishment of a Palestinian state. This vacuum led to the necessity for the Palestinians to organize politically, exemplified by the formation of groups like the PLO, to assert their claims for self-determination.

Thus, the modern Palestinian identity emerged not out of a long-standing, internally-driven quest for statehood, but as a complex response to a series of external circumstances, including arbitrary regional divisions by foreign powers, an influx of Jewish immigrants with national aspirations over a stateless land and a shifting geopolitical landscape that included the independence of neighboring Arab countries. In essence, the Arabs in Palestine did not initially seek to form a nation-state as they didn't see themselves having a distinct identity; rather, the concept was imposed upon them by a set of highly consequential external circumstances.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@TuckerCarlson This is like when Candace said that Muslims have to live in the Muslim quarter in Jerusalem, same level of knowledge

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@ostrachan @RHelfenbein That’s right

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

The Abuse of 'Christ is King'

The Groyper Movement, characterized by far-right extremism with Nick Fuentes at their forefront, has strategically co-opted the Christian phrase 'Christ is King' to advance their agenda. This religious declaration, traditionally signifying Jesus Christ's spiritual sovereignty, has been twisted by the Groypers to propagate their anti Jewish and nationalist ideologies. They use it to mask extremism with religious language, echoing a dark historical misuse of Christianity to justify Jew hatred and to imply cultural and religious superiority.

Distinguishing genuine from malicious use of 'Christ is King' depends on context. When used by well meaning Christians, it reflects deep spiritual reverence, embodying the core tenets of Christian faith. However, the Groypers' usage, particularly in political contexts involving Jews or Israel, is laden with antisemitic tropes, indicating clear ulterior motives.

Popular influencers and political commentators, including Andrew Torba and Kanye West, have also subtly and not so subtly, endorsed Groyper ideologies by using 'Christ is King.' This tacit endorsement, acting as a nod to extremists while maintaining a public image, normalizes far-right ideologies and blurs the line between genuine religious expression and extremist rhetoric.

Furthermore, the Groyper Movement employs a defensive tactic when their intentions in using 'Christ is King' are questioned. They often frame any criticism or questioning of their use of the phrase as an attack on Christian values, positioning themselves as defenders of Christianity and accusing critics of being anti-Christian. This deflective strategy complicates efforts to challenge their underlying antisemitic and nationalist ideologies and confuses people not familiar with them.

The Groypers' co-option of 'Christ is King' represents a profound disrespect for the essence of Christian teachings. This misuse contradicts the biblical commandment against using God's name in vain and highlights the need for Christians and others to stand against manipulations of religious language. The true spirit of religious teachings promotes peace and respect for all humanity, counteracting division and hate.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@TheLaurenChen You have amassed a nice groyper following Lauren

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@RealCandaceO You know what you’re doing

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

The Abuse of 'Christ is King'

The Groyper Movement, characterized by far-right extremism with Nick Fuentes at their forefront, has strategically co-opted the Christian phrase 'Christ is King' to advance their agenda. This religious declaration, traditionally signifying Jesus Christ's spiritual sovereignty, has been twisted by the Groypers to propagate their anti Jewish and nationalist ideologies. They use it to mask extremism with religious language, echoing a dark historical misuse of Christianity to justify Jew hatred and to imply cultural and religious superiority.

Distinguishing genuine from malicious use of 'Christ is King' depends on context. When used by well meaning Christians, it reflects deep spiritual reverence, embodying the core tenets of Christian faith. However, the Groypers' usage, particularly in political contexts involving Jews or Israel, is laden with antisemitic tropes, indicating clear ulterior motives.

Popular influencers and political commentators, including Andrew Torba and Kanye West, have also subtly and not so subtly, endorsed Groyper ideologies by using 'Christ is King.' This tacit endorsement, acting as a nod to extremists while maintaining a public image, normalizes far-right ideologies and blurs the line between genuine religious expression and extremist rhetoric.

Furthermore, the Groyper Movement employs a defensive tactic when their intentions in using 'Christ is King' are questioned. They often frame any criticism or questioning of their use of the phrase as an attack on Christian values, positioning themselves as defenders of Christianity and accusing critics of being anti-Christian. This deflective strategy complicates efforts to challenge their underlying antisemitic and nationalist ideologies and confuses people not familiar with them.

The Groypers' co-option of 'Christ is King' represents a profound disrespect for the essence of Christian teachings. This misuse contradicts the biblical commandment against using God's name in vain and highlights the need for Christians and others to stand against manipulations of religious language. The true spirit of religious teachings promotes peace and respect for all humanity, counteracting division and hate.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@RealCandaceO It just happens that most of them commenting it towards Jews are groypers with timelines filled with Hitler memes

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@JustLuai Qui se ressemble s'assemble

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@DrewPavlou Undeniably so, this war was also not to create a Palestinian state but to prevent a Jewish one. Jordan would’ve loved to get all of the land for itself.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@JustLuai Most deny it

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

ZIONISM IN THE QURAN

At the heart of Islamic belief lies the Quran, Islam’s holy book, revered as the literal word of God (Allah) as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. Within this sacred text, the concept of Allah supporting the Jewish claim to the land of Israel, often overlooked in mainstream discourse, find its roots.

The Quran contains verses that at times support the Jews and veneer them and at other times, exhibit hostilities with examples of sanctioned killing. This dual representation of Jews has led to a sort of cognitive dissonance amongst Muslims regarding their stance towards them. In general, their attitude essentially boiled down to the current relationship with the Jews; during times of good relations, emphasis is put on verses that praise them, whereas in times of tension, focus shifts to hostile verses, justifying any actions against Jews as divinely mandated.

The Quranic Narrative

In the context of the Jewish claim to the land of Israel, two specific Surahs (chapters) of the Quran - Al-Ma'idah and Al-Isra - become particularly pertinent. These Surahs converge on the narrative of the Children of Israel and their promised land by Allah, a narrative central to both Islamic and Jewish traditions.

Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:20-21): This Surah narrates Moses urging the Children of Israel to enter the Holy Land assigned by Allah. The verse explicitly states, "O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you." This directive transcends a mere historical account; it embodies a divine command, clearly articulating Allah's will regarding the relationship between the Children of Israel and the land.

Surah Al-Isra (17:104): Reinforcing this connection, Allah proclaims, "And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, Dwell in the land, and when the promise of the Hereafter comes, We will bring you forth in [one] gathering." This verse not only reaffirms their right to inhabit the land but also signifies a profound gathering, linking the Children of Israel to the land in both historical and eschatological narratives.

The Conditional Clause in Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:32)

Deeper insight emerges from Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:32), famously cited for its emphasis on the sanctity of life. The full verse reads: "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for spreading mischief in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."

The latter part introduces a conditional clause: "unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land." This segment is crucial; it implies a divinely sanctioned authority vested in the Children of Israel to uphold justice within the land. In this context, "the land" is the land of Israel. This demonstrate that the Quran acknowledges a divine mandate for the Children of Israel to govern the land, maintaining order and justice.

Al Aqsa and Its Political Context

After examining the Quranic narrative, it becomes evident that historical interpretations have evolved and adapted in response to changing socio-political landscapes. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has profoundly impacted the Muslim world's perception of Quranic verses. This conflict has led to an emphasis on verses critical and hostile towards Jews. The shift can be understood against pan-Arabist sentiments or a broader sense of solidarity within the Ummah (global Muslim community).

Constructed in the 7th century, the Al-Aqsa Mosque stands on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This location was historically the place where the two Jewish temples, known in Hebrew as "Beth Hamikdash", were once located and is referred to in the Quran as "Bet Al Maqdis" when translated in Arabic, albeit encompassing more that this location.

The significance of Al-Aqsa within the Islamic world grew over time, particularly due to its association with the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey and Ascension (Isra and Mi'raj). Although the Quran does not explicitly name Al-Aqsa, it refers to a "farthest mosque," which Islamic traditions identify with Al-Aqsa. However, the Al-Aqsa Mosque as a physical structure was built after the death of Prophet Muhammad, during the Umayyad Caliphate and he could not have actually visited it. This historical fact fuel debates within Islam if the "farthest mosque" is a metaphorical or spiritual concept, having ramifications on its relative holiness.

The modern Palestinian identity, mostly due to the efforts of Yasser Arafat, strategically used religious symbols as political tools to garner international Muslim support, as a perceived affront to holy sites should anger all of the Ummah. This deepened the negligence the explicit Quranic verses on the land of the Children of Israel mentioned earlier and amplified focus on hostiles ones.

The Waqf Contradiction

"Waqf" is a term in Islamic law that refers to a religious endowment, typically involving donating a property or land for religious, educational, or charitable purposes. Once a property is declared as a waqf, it is considered inalienable; it cannot be sold, inherited, or otherwise transferred, and is meant to be used for the benefit of the community in perpetuity. The concept of waqf is rooted in Islamic tradition and is seen as a way to earn perpetual rewards (sawab) for the donor after their death. Because of that, some believe that places that were once governed by Muslims and made holy should be conquered back, with Israel and Spain (Al Andalus) as clear examples.

Examining the Islamic concept of waqf in relation to Israel shows a contradiction with the Quranic narrative about the Children of Israel, as some Muslims believe that large parts of Israel, including Jerusalem, are waqf lands and therefore cannot be ruled by non Muslims (Kafirs). The Quran, specifically in Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:20-21) and Surah Al-Isra (17:104), explicitly assigns the Holy Land to the Children of Israel. This narrative is central to Islamic theology, with the Quran considered the literal word of God and the primary source of Islamic law. The waqf, involving dedicating land for religious or charitable purposes, developed post-Quranic revelations.

Applying waqf to counter the Quran's statements about the land's divine assignment to the Children of Israel contradicts the Quran itself. In Islamic jurisprudence, where consistency with the Quran is crucial, any later legal concepts or interpretations must align with its teachings. Therefore, the application of waqf that contradicts the Quran's narrative raises theological and legal concerns, suggesting a departure from Quranic consistency in Islamic law.

Early Muslim Leader Support

In the early 20th century, some Muslim leaders were keen on coexisting and sharing the land with the Jews, whom they acknowledged had clear and important historical links to it.

King Abdullah I's engagement with the Zionist movement was great example of this attitude. His correspondences with Jewish leaders, like the letters exchanged with Golda Meir as well as their secret meeting in 1948, reveal a pragmatic approach to Arab-Jewish relations, aiming for stability and mutual respect despite opposition. Having been endowed modern day Jordan, he much preferred having Jewish neighbors than an Arab state governed by the then Mufti of Jerusalem, who he viewed as an unstable religious fanatic. Abdullah's stance exemplifies the potential for Arab-Jewish collaboration based on shared interests and respect for each other's historical and religious connections to the land.

Embracing a Quranic Perspective

The Quranic narrative demonstrate the special relationship between the Children of Israel and the land of Israel which is often overlooked by Muslims in times of conflict. This relationship encompasses not just historical or spiritual dimensions but also a divinely endorsed mandate to govern and uphold justice within the land. As Muslims, the understanding of this issue should be guided by the Quran's teachings, recognizing the unique status of the Children of Israel concerning the land of Israel.

This perspective, grounded in the Quran, invites approaching the topic with an open heart and mind, respecting the historical and spiritual connections between them. In practice, it can very well be said that Allah is a Zionist.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@InspiringPhilos Oh I completely agree with you

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@InspiringPhilos Projection maybe?

[Morgan Ariel @itsmorganariel]

@otsinc15 @RayFromNYCity Plot twist. I’m jewish.

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@DillyHussain88 @AvivaKlompas The concepts of Jihad and martyrdom and not indoctrinated into Ukrainian kids

[ThePolymath 📚 @LesPolymathes]

@9mmsmg Christ and the apostles were practicing Jews, it is nothing controversial although by your feed it seems you don’t like Jews very much to say the least. @BishopBarron is a great source to learn more about it.