Poll: Do you like Israel?

[TheIronRuler]

I have heard as such many times, almost always from Israelis for one of two reasons. Either A) as an excuse to not consider giving back the land or stop taking more from the Palestinians because "hey, they can just go to Jordan" or B) because they believe Jordan should be part of Israel, too. B) is unrealistic and both are offensive.

The few times I have heard an Arab equate the two was when they were either born in Jordan but a parent was a refugee from Palestine or when they were trying to explain why Jordan should be retaliating every time Israel bombs another Palestinian family.

I've heard of the B option for the first time here.
But damn it, the whole point of what I said is that you CAN'T DEFINE palestinian nationality.
Because there is already one and it's called Jordan.
Every single person that lived and was born during the British Mandate is palestinian. So you have Jewish palestinians. Hurrah.
You need to see my problem with defining an ethnic group for palestinians... there is already one, and it's called Jordanian. palestinians were people that lived in that piece of land the British mandate governed. Which include Israel and Jordon and all the Arabs, Christian and Muslims living there at the time.
Yes, I'm saying that they aren't a real nationality.

 

[wfpdk]

never been there so i couldn't say.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

I have heard as such many times, almost always from Israelis for one of two reasons. Either A) as an excuse to not consider giving back the land or stop taking more from the Palestinians because "hey, they can just go to Jordan" or B) because they believe Jordan should be part of Israel, too. B) is unrealistic and both are offensive.

The few times I have heard an Arab equate the two was when they were either born in Jordan but a parent was a refugee from Palestine or when they were trying to explain why Jordan should be retaliating every time Israel bombs another Palestinian family.

I've heard of the B option for the first time here.
But damn it, the whole point of what I said is that you CAN'T DEFINE palestinian nationality.
Because there is already one and it's called Jordan.
Every single person that lived and was born during the British Mandate is palestinian. So you have Jewish palestinians. Hurrah.
You need to see my problem with defining an ethnic group for palestinians... there is already one, and it's called Jordanian. palestinians were people that lived in that piece of land the British mandate governed. Which include Israel and Jordon and all the Arabs, Christian and Muslims living there at the time.
Yes, I'm saying that they aren't a real nationality.

But Judaism, as a race, is a nationality?... Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from there...

Saying Palestinian is the same as Jordanian in your position is like Japan taking over South Korea and then saying "There is no ethnic group of South Koreans, so clearly if I take their land they could just go to North Korea because they're all Koreans and thus I don't have to recognize the Southern Koreans sovereign rights to the land they live on."

Even if their ethnic group isn't unique, you're not helping your case by trying to use their ethnic similarity with someone else as a weak excuse to keep taking more land from them. Just because they're the same race doesn't mean they want to or should be forced to live under the same government. Race =/= Nationality.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to have heard of it before, "B" was a version of what is called "Revisionist Zionism." Here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

 

[Bunnymarn]

Yes, I'm saying that they aren't a real nationality.

But Judaism, as a race, is a nationality?... Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from there...

Saying Palestinian is the same as Jordanian in your position is like Japan taking over South Korea and then saying "There is no ethnic group of South Koreans, so clearly if I take their land they could just go to North Korea because they're all Koreans and thus I don't have to recognize the Southern Koreans sovereign rights to the land they live on."

Even if their ethnic group isn't unique, you're not helping your case by trying to use their ethnic similarity with someone else as a weak excuse to keep taking more land from them. Just because they're the same race doesn't mean they want to or should be forced to live under the same government. Race =/= Nationality.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to have heard of it before, "B" was a version of what is called "Revisionist Zionism." Here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

I agree with you, Beric. And, just to make a point - even if some did live in Trans-Jordan doesn't necessarily mean they identify as Jordanian or with their culture. And I'm pretty sure part of the problem is that a lot of the Palestinians don't want to live in some Arab country, they want to live in their land, regardless of whether or not it was a nation beforehand. Considering Israel was created because the Jews were vilified and forced to leave many areas in Europe, you're doing exactly the same to the Palestinians. It's fundamentally wrong.

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-
But Judaism, as a race, is a nationality?... Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from there...

Saying Palestinian is the same as Jordanian in your position is like Japan taking over South Korea and then saying "There is no ethnic group of South Koreans, so clearly if I take their land they could just go to North Korea because they're all Koreans and thus I don't have to recognize the Southern Koreans sovereign rights to the land they live on."

Even if their ethnic group isn't unique, you're not helping your case by trying to use their ethnic similarity with someone else as a weak excuse to keep taking more land from them. Just because they're the same race doesn't mean they want to or should be forced to live under the same government. Race =/= Nationality.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to have heard of it before, "B" was a version of what is called "Revisionist Zionism." Here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

The fact that you continue to say 'race' annoys me.
Ethnic group, not race. A race is homo sapiens. We are all homo sapiens. How we look depends on minor genetic differences affected by the climate our ancestors lived in.
As an Ethnic group, Jews have their own religion, language, traditions, history, etc. , and you can claim that palestinians have the same thing as an ethnic group of their own, but nobody can f*cking say what a palestinian is.
I have, to this day, never heard someone define what is a palestinian besides "you're oppressing them". To my knowledge it refers to any that lived under the British mandate. WHICH REFERS TO JORDANIANS TOO.
Members of an ethnic group can have a different nationality, that is the nature of immigration, but having the members of one ethnic group divide among themselves because of a failed attempt to create a country looks ludicrous. If you say that there is such a thing as a palestinian nationality then you need to acknowledge that Jordanians are palestinians as well.

 

[TheIronRuler]

You know, since I'm talking to you again, I'd like to go back and address something you said to me earlier...

What of the land the settlers take away?

Yes, about that...
There is no country of Palestian. Only the autonomy.

What of the bombings in the Gaza Strip or Lebenon? What of the blockade meant to starve the people in Gaza because your government is unhappy with the way they voted?

Hey! This is WAR.
WAR. Do you understand that word? WAR.

In one breath you say that there is no nation in Palestine and in the next you claim to be at war with that nation... You're basically saying that you've completely destroyed Palestine and can therefore take anything you want, and if they fight you back it's clearly not that they're fighting for Palestine (because it doesn't exist!) but must be instead fighting for a foreign power... Yeah, that's some serious double-speak you've got going on there, sir.

That's the equivalent of saying that there could be no Yugoslavian resistance in WWII because the nation didn't exist anymore after the Nazis took over...

You have the palestinian autonomy in the west bank.
You also have Gaza with a terrorist organization at its head, which we had declared war against. We are at war with Hezbollah, and since it controls Gaza then we are at war with Gaza.
Israel is on good terms with the west bank. Good terms meaning they don't constantly try to murder Israelis.

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-

I agree with you, Beric. And, just to make a point - even if some did live in Trans-Jordan doesn't necessarily mean they identify as Jordanian or with their culture. And I'm pretty sure part of the problem is that a lot of the Palestinians don't want to live in some Arab country, they want to live in their land, regardless of whether or not it was a nation beforehand. Considering Israel was created because the Jews were vilified and forced to leave many areas in Europe, you're doing exactly the same to the Palestinians. It's fundamentally wrong.

Before you say ONE more WORD, define to my what is a palestinian.
I dare you.
We toss the term around yet I've never seen an actual definition.
Are they Muslims that lived in Palestine?
Then they're Jordanian, living in the west bank and Gaza while some are also refugees and some live in Israel.
Are they Muslims that lived in Israel when the British left?
Then palestinian are the muslims that live in Israel, the refugees and the ones living in the west bank and Gaza.
Are they muslims that lived in Israel but are now outside?
Then they're the refugees, from the west bank and Gaza.
Are they muslims that live under Israeli military occupation?
They they are from the west bank and Gaza.
DEFINE it first.

 

[Strophios]

I have heard as such many times, almost always from Israelis for one of two reasons. Either A) as an excuse to not consider giving back the land or stop taking more from the Palestinians because "hey, they can just go to Jordan" or B) because they believe Jordan should be part of Israel, too. B) is unrealistic and both are offensive.

The few times I have heard an Arab equate the two was when they were either born in Jordan but a parent was a refugee from Palestine or when they were trying to explain why Jordan should be retaliating every time Israel bombs another Palestinian family.

I've heard of the B option for the first time here.
But damn it, the whole point of what I said is that you CAN'T DEFINE palestinian nationality.
Because there is already one and it's called Jordan.
Every single person that lived and was born during the British Mandate is palestinian. So you have Jewish palestinians. Hurrah.
You need to see my problem with defining an ethnic group for palestinians... there is already one, and it's called Jordanian. palestinians were people that lived in that piece of land the British mandate governed. Which include Israel and Jordon and all the Arabs, Christian and Muslims living there at the time.
Yes, I'm saying that they aren't a real nationality.

You can't say that though. Or, you can, it's just wrong. Like, egregiously, by definition wrong. Nationalities are made up. They are, in the words of Benedict Anderson, "Imagined Communities."* I challenge you to give me a good definition of nationality which successfully covers the nationality of every nation-state. You can give me some nice tries, but you're not going to be able to come up with one which actually works. Just for example, give me a definition of nationality which covers "American."** And "Yugoslav."***

Oh, and in particular reply to "every single person that lived and was born during the British Mandate is palestinian [sic]": Yes, just like every single person that lived and was born during the Austrian Empire was Austrian, and not, say Czech, Magyar, etc. It's not even really true to say that every single person that lived and was born during France is/was French. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the concept of "being French" as some sort of useful thing to say (in something like the modern sense) dates from around the 17th century probably, you've still got all those Bretons and the like who didn't even speak French and would be unwilling to identify with anything bigger than their own home town until they finally were inducted into "being French" via the wonders of universal education**** in the late 19th/early 20th century.

And this, of course, is all even granting that "nationality" is some sort of meaningful and/or necessary concept in the crafting of states. There are plenty of states which are not, in fact, nation states in any meaningful sense, and there used to be a whole lot more (all of them, in fact). So, yeah, your first task is to somehow prove that if the Palestinians are not really a nation/nationality, that that somehow matters and should be relevant for how we view the fact that they were forced out of their homes and have been oppressed by Israel for about sixty years. If you can do that, then you still have to come up with a definition of nationality which denies the Palestinians a place, but allows the others I mentioned.

*the title of his seminal work on the development of nationalism.
**Don't tell me it's not a nationality, because I can find around 300 million people, with their own nation-state, who'll say different.
***Likewise, don't try and tell me it's not a nationality. There are still, to this day, years after Yugoslavia's collapse people who refuse to identify as Serbian, or Albanian, or Kosovar, because they are Yugoslavs.
****Also the levée en masse, from the Revolution.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

-snip-
But Judaism, as a race, is a nationality?... Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from there...

Saying Palestinian is the same as Jordanian in your position is like Japan taking over South Korea and then saying "There is no ethnic group of South Koreans, so clearly if I take their land they could just go to North Korea because they're all Koreans and thus I don't have to recognize the Southern Koreans sovereign rights to the land they live on."

Even if their ethnic group isn't unique, you're not helping your case by trying to use their ethnic similarity with someone else as a weak excuse to keep taking more land from them. Just because they're the same race doesn't mean they want to or should be forced to live under the same government. Race =/= Nationality.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to have heard of it before, "B" was a version of what is called "Revisionist Zionism." Here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

The fact that you continue to say 'race' annoys me.
Ethnic group, not race. A race is homo sapiens. We are all homo sapiens. How we look depends on minor genetic differences affected by the climate our ancestors lived in.
As an Ethnic group, Jews have their own religion, language, traditions, history, etc. , and you can claim that palestinians have the same thing as an ethnic group of their own, but nobody can f*cking say what a palestinian is.
I have, to this day, never heard someone define what is a palestinian besides "you're oppressing them". To my knowledge it refers to any that lived under the British mandate. WHICH REFERS TO JORDANIANS TOO.
Members of an ethnic group can have a different nationality, that is the nature of immigration, but having the members of one ethnic group divide among themselves because of a failed attempt to create a country looks ludicrous. If you say that there is such a thing as a palestinian nationality then you need to acknowledge that Jordanians are palestinians as well.

Wow, by your definition, there can never be racism, period. Race now equals species, therefore what the US did to black people for hundreds of years by holding them as slaves wasn't "Racist" it was "Ethnicist" or something.

Again, though, my point all along has been that it doesn't matter if there is a Palestinian race "or 'ethnic group' if you're desperate for me to conform to your definitions." They're still people who have lived under their own government previously that you are forcing off of their land. I refuse to believe that you are blind to how morally wrong this is unless your definition of morality is bound up with the your "ethnic group." In my example of another group of people taking over Southern Korea and using the excuse "they're the same group as the North Koreans, so I can take as much of the south's land as I want" are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd morally side with the invader?

 

[Bunnymarn]

-snip-

I agree with you, Beric. And, just to make a point - even if some did live in Trans-Jordan doesn't necessarily mean they identify as Jordanian or with their culture. And I'm pretty sure part of the problem is that a lot of the Palestinians don't want to live in some Arab country, they want to live in their land, regardless of whether or not it was a nation beforehand. Considering Israel was created because the Jews were vilified and forced to leave many areas in Europe, you're doing exactly the same to the Palestinians. It's fundamentally wrong.

Before you say ONE more WORD, define to my what is a palestinian.
I dare you.
We toss the term around yet I've never seen an actual definition.
Are they Muslims that lived in Palestine?
Then they're Jordanian, living in the west bank and Gaza while some are also refugees and some live in Israel.
Are they Muslims that lived in Israel when the British left?
Then palestinian are the muslims that live in Israel, the refugees and the ones living in the west bank and Gaza.
Are they muslims that lived in Israel but are now outside?
Then they're the refugees, from the west bank and Gaza.
Are they muslims that live under Israeli military occupation?
They they are from the west bank and Gaza.
DEFINE it first.

The Palestinians are any who were living in, and identify themselves, the territory that was theirs before you had the British and Jews and whoever else claiming it was theirs. And Palestinians doesn't just include Muslims - there were Jewish people there too, and whatever other religious groups were there. But you can't just define Palestinians as Muslims - they're two completely different things.

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-
But Judaism, as a race, is a nationality?... Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from there...

Saying Palestinian is the same as Jordanian in your position is like Japan taking over South Korea and then saying "There is no ethnic group of South Koreans, so clearly if I take their land they could just go to North Korea because they're all Koreans and thus I don't have to recognize the Southern Koreans sovereign rights to the land they live on."

Even if their ethnic group isn't unique, you're not helping your case by trying to use their ethnic similarity with someone else as a weak excuse to keep taking more land from them. Just because they're the same race doesn't mean they want to or should be forced to live under the same government. Race =/= Nationality.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to have heard of it before, "B" was a version of what is called "Revisionist Zionism." Here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

The fact that you continue to say 'race' annoys me.
Ethnic group, not race. A race is homo sapiens. We are all homo sapiens. How we look depends on minor genetic differences affected by the climate our ancestors lived in.
As an Ethnic group, Jews have their own religion, language, traditions, history, etc. , and you can claim that palestinians have the same thing as an ethnic group of their own, but nobody can f*cking say what a palestinian is.
I have, to this day, never heard someone define what is a palestinian besides "you're oppressing them". To my knowledge it refers to any that lived under the British mandate. WHICH REFERS TO JORDANIANS TOO.
Members of an ethnic group can have a different nationality, that is the nature of immigration, but having the members of one ethnic group divide among themselves because of a failed attempt to create a country looks ludicrous. If you say that there is such a thing as a palestinian nationality then you need to acknowledge that Jordanians are palestinians as well.

Wow, by your definition, there can never be racism, period. Race now equals species, therefore what the US did to black people for hundreds of years by holding them as slaves wasn't "Racist" it was "Ethnicist" or something.

Again, though, my point all along has been that it doesn't matter if there is a Palestinian race "or 'ethnic group' if you're desperate for me to conform to your definitions." They're still people who have lived under their own government previously that you are forcing off of their land. I refuse to believe that you are blind to how morally wrong this is unless your definition of morality is bound up with the your "ethnic group." In my example of another group of people taking over Southern Korea and using the excuse "they're the same group as the North Koreans, so I can take as much land as I want" are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd morally side with the invader?

The slave trade was inhumane, immoral and despicable. It wasn't racist, the sole reason why the Imperialists used them as slaves is because they could take them by force and enslave them.
Black people aren't an ethnic group. They have local tribes - they are ethnic groups, like 'Benin'.
...
Technically, the "same group as the X" was used as a casus beli most frequently.
What I can remember as the most recent of my examples is the Soviet Union giving citizenships and then later using it as a casus beli, claiming that the people in the other nation should either be united with the people that currently live in the USSR (which are of the same ethnic group) or that there are Russian citizens in the other nation, in which case the USSR must protect them and absorb the territory.
(I need my rather elderly father to repeat his story about this again since I've sadly forgotten the name of the ethnic group in question, so you can ignore this till I've found the name and evidence. Just a place-holder. If you do know what I'm talking about, please fill it in.)
It would still work in modern times.
...
Wait... 'They're still people who have lived under their own government previously"...
They never had a Government or country.
What are you talking about?
I'm currently discussing the validity of them as a nationality, not what happened there with Israel.

 

[Strophios]

You have the palestinian autonomy in the west bank.
You also have Gaza with a terrorist organization at its head, which we had declared war against. We are at war with Hezbollah, and since it controls Gaza then we are at war with Gaza.
Israel is on good terms with the west bank. Good terms meaning they don't constantly try to murder Israelis.

Point of Information: Hezbollah does not control Gaza. That would be Hamas.

Also, it is worth noting that "good terms" for the Israelis are not so much for the Palestinians. For instance, I sincerely doubt very many Palestinians would admit to being good terms with the nation which carries out unaccountable, random police actions in their country, and which makes their orders of magnitude more difficult through its overbearing checkpoints, settlements (and their attendant road network, which Palestinians naturally can't use), and its hideously illegal and immoral wall.

Also, I feel I should note that this:

Yes, settlements.
The reason why I didn't discuss it and talk about the solution to the problem (which is swapping territory) and not the problem is because I'm against it.
I can't defend it and I'm ashamed of the actions taken by my government.

made my respect for you and your views skyrocket.*

*Not that my respect for you as a person was ever particularly low or anything, but this only helped.

 

[TheIronRuler]

You have the palestinian autonomy in the west bank.
You also have Gaza with a terrorist organization at its head, which we had declared war against. We are at war with Hezbollah, and since it controls Gaza then we are at war with Gaza.
Israel is on good terms with the west bank. Good terms meaning they don't constantly try to murder Israelis.

Point of Information: Hezbollah does not control Gaza. That would be Hamas.

Also, it is worth noting that "good terms" for the Israelis are not so much for the Palestinians. For instance, I sincerely doubt very many Palestinians would admit to being good terms with the nation which carries out unaccountable, random police actions in their country, and which makes their orders of magnitude more difficult through its overbearing checkpoints, settlements (and their attendant road network, which Palestinians naturally can't use), and its hideously illegal and immoral wall.

I'm terribly sorry about the mix-up, I'm just running on steam at the moment.
I'm afraid to fall asleep and miss all of the fun, it's 2 AM here.
Funny thing, now that Hezbollah is the government in Lebanon they don't have anyone to blackmail or threaten, so their efficiency as a terrorist group declined.
...
We're xenophobic. We're scared of casualties, of more deaths. Therefore we have this thing.
But you can't overlook the fact that there are capitalists and very rich men even in the west bank. Some live well, while others don't.
Last time there was a hit from the west bank, a group of men did a drive-by shooting where they killed four people. They hid in Hebron afterwards. Because of the cooperation with the palestinian forces from the west bank and the grasp of the military police we managed to catch these bastards.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

-snip-
But Judaism, as a race, is a nationality?... Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from there...

Saying Palestinian is the same as Jordanian in your position is like Japan taking over South Korea and then saying "There is no ethnic group of South Koreans, so clearly if I take their land they could just go to North Korea because they're all Koreans and thus I don't have to recognize the Southern Koreans sovereign rights to the land they live on."

Even if their ethnic group isn't unique, you're not helping your case by trying to use their ethnic similarity with someone else as a weak excuse to keep taking more land from them. Just because they're the same race doesn't mean they want to or should be forced to live under the same government. Race =/= Nationality.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to have heard of it before, "B" was a version of what is called "Revisionist Zionism." Here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

The fact that you continue to say 'race' annoys me.
Ethnic group, not race. A race is homo sapiens. We are all homo sapiens. How we look depends on minor genetic differences affected by the climate our ancestors lived in.
As an Ethnic group, Jews have their own religion, language, traditions, history, etc. , and you can claim that palestinians have the same thing as an ethnic group of their own, but nobody can f*cking say what a palestinian is.
I have, to this day, never heard someone define what is a palestinian besides "you're oppressing them". To my knowledge it refers to any that lived under the British mandate. WHICH REFERS TO JORDANIANS TOO.
Members of an ethnic group can have a different nationality, that is the nature of immigration, but having the members of one ethnic group divide among themselves because of a failed attempt to create a country looks ludicrous. If you say that there is such a thing as a palestinian nationality then you need to acknowledge that Jordanians are palestinians as well.

Wow, by your definition, there can never be racism, period. Race now equals species, therefore what the US did to black people for hundreds of years by holding them as slaves wasn't "Racist" it was "Ethnicist" or something.

Again, though, my point all along has been that it doesn't matter if there is a Palestinian race "or 'ethnic group' if you're desperate for me to conform to your definitions." They're still people who have lived under their own government previously that you are forcing off of their land. I refuse to believe that you are blind to how morally wrong this is unless your definition of morality is bound up with the your "ethnic group." In my example of another group of people taking over Southern Korea and using the excuse "they're the same group as the North Koreans, so I can take as much land as I want" are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd morally side with the invader?

Technically, the "same group as the X" was used as a casus beli most frequently.
What I can remember as the most recent of my examples is the Soviet Union giving citizenships and then later using it as a casus beli, claiming that the people in the other nation should either be united with the people that currently live in the USSR (which are of the same ethnic group) or that there are Russian citizens in the other nation, in which case the USSR must protect them and absorb the territory.
(I need my rather elderly father to repeat his story about this again since I've sadly forgotten the name of the ethnic group in question, so you can ignore this till I've found the name and evidence. Just a place-holder. If you do know what I'm talking about, please fill it in.)
It would still work in modern times.
...
Wait... 'They're still people who have lived under their own government previously"...
They never had a Government or country.
What are you talking about?
I'm currently discussing the validity of them as a nationality, not what happened there with Israel.

I don't care if you'd rather prattle on about how the people Israel oppresses shouldn't count as an oppressed group because they don't fit your criteria of the word "group." Israel is still taking land away from the people who own or previously owned it and oppressing the people whose land they haven't stolen yet. It's outright theft. It has been outright theft for decades now, and I'm not going to call it anything but what it is anymore. If any other nation on earth did this, you'd side against them in a heart beat.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I have heard as such many times, almost always from Israelis for one of two reasons. Either A) as an excuse to not consider giving back the land or stop taking more from the Palestinians because "hey, they can just go to Jordan" or B) because they believe Jordan should be part of Israel, too. B) is unrealistic and both are offensive.

The few times I have heard an Arab equate the two was when they were either born in Jordan but a parent was a refugee from Palestine or when they were trying to explain why Jordan should be retaliating every time Israel bombs another Palestinian family.

I've heard of the B option for the first time here.
But damn it, the whole point of what I said is that you CAN'T DEFINE palestinian nationality.
Because there is already one and it's called Jordan.
Every single person that lived and was born during the British Mandate is palestinian. So you have Jewish palestinians. Hurrah.
You need to see my problem with defining an ethnic group for palestinians... there is already one, and it's called Jordanian. palestinians were people that lived in that piece of land the British mandate governed. Which include Israel and Jordon and all the Arabs, Christian and Muslims living there at the time.
Yes, I'm saying that they aren't a real nationality.

You can't say that though. Or, you can, it's just wrong. Like, egregiously, by definition wrong. Nationalities are made up. They are, in the words of Benedict Anderson, "Imagined Communities."* I challenge you to give me a good definition of nationality which successfully covers the nationality of every nation-state. You can give me some nice tries, but you're not going to be able to come up with one which actually works. Just for example, give me a definition of nationality which covers "American."** And "Yugoslav."***

Oh, and in particular reply to "every single person that lived and was born during the British Mandate is palestinian [sic]": Yes, just like every single person that lived and was born during the Austrian Empire was Austrian, and not, say Czech, Magyar, etc. It's not even really true to say that every single person that lived and was born during France is/was French. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the concept of "being French" as some sort of useful thing to say (in something like the modern sense) dates from around the 17th century probably, you've still got all those Bretons and the like who didn't even speak French and would be unwilling to identify with anything bigger than their own home town until they finally were inducted into "being French" via the wonders of universal education**** in the late 19th/early 20th century.

And this, of course, is all even granting that "nationality" is some sort of meaningful and/or necessary concept in the crafting of states. There are plenty of states which are not, in fact, nation states in any meaningful sense, and there used to be a whole lot more (all of them, in fact). So, yeah, your first task is to somehow prove that if the Palestinians are not really a nation/nationality, that that somehow matters and should be relevant for how we view the fact that they were forced out of their homes and have been oppressed by Israel for about sixty years. If you can do that, then you still have to come up with a definition of nationality which denies the Palestinians a place, but allows the others I mentioned.

*the title of his seminal work on the development of nationalism.
**Don't tell me it's not a nationality, because I can find around 300 million people, with their own nation-state, who'll say different.
***Likewise, don't try and tell me it's not a nationality. There are still, to this day, years after Yugoslavia's collapse people who refuse to identify as Serbian, or Albanian, or Kosovar, because they are Yugoslavs.
****Also the levée en masse, from the Revolution.

I'll give you a textbook definition of nationality.
First of all one needs to know what is an ethnic group - which is a group of people with common things, most notably - Language, Land, Religion, History, Tradition (,etc) .
Then we have the nationality. Because of Americans, nationality is now on a grid, an x axis.
On one side we have America. America has a nationality based on ideals, believes and non of the things that define an ethnic group. It's a classic immigrant country.
On the other side you can have Poland, Madagascar and Japan (and the like), where the ethnic group is the most dominant and is that large majority (In Japan and Portugal there are no minorities.), the ethnic group has all of the characteristics I defined earlier.
On that axis you can put France in the middle, leaning towards America. France has a philosophy, a way of life, their believes of freedom of the individual, etc. etc. but you should also bear in mind that it had obliterated other languages spoken in France and made French the only taught language in public schools. History is also an important component.
You see, the axis has two contrasts - purely based on a philosophy of life, and purely based on ethnicity. NOW can you tell me if I'm right or wrong?

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-

I don't care if you'd rather prattle on about how the people Israel oppresses shouldn't count as an oppressed group because they don't fit your criteria of the word "group." Israel is still taking land away from the people who own or previously owned it and oppressing the people whose land they haven't stolen yet. It's outright theft. It has been outright theft for decades now, and I'm not going to call it anything but what it is anymore. If any other nation on earth did this, you'd side against them in a heart beat if you have any moral sense in you at all.

Morality is a convenience of the western world, fat that is grown in times of peace.
It is also subjective.
You are avoiding my facts and claims. Please address them.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

-snip-

I don't care if you'd rather prattle on about how the people Israel oppresses shouldn't count as an oppressed group because they don't fit your criteria of the word "group." Israel is still taking land away from the people who own or previously owned it and oppressing the people whose land they haven't stolen yet. It's outright theft. It has been outright theft for decades now, and I'm not going to call it anything but what it is anymore. If any other nation on earth did this, you'd side against them in a heart beat if you have any moral sense in you at all.

Morality is a convenience of the western world, fat that is grown in times of peace.
It is also subjective.
You are avoiding my facts and claims. Please address them.

I did address your claims that Palestinians are not a nationality or ethnic group by pointing out that even if you were right, your point is irrelevant. Israel is still stealing land. Period. Why, exactly, does it matter if when they're stealing it from people who can't defend themselves that they have a group name other than one that means "People oppressed by Israel?" Even if we take every claim you've made to be true, (which I don't) it's still a devastating indictment against Israel that "people oppressed by Israel" needs their own group name so badly that apparently the world made up the term "Palestinian" to describe them.

 

[Strophios]

I'll give you a textbook definition of nationality.
First of all one needs to know what is an ethnic group - which is a group of people with common things, most notably - Language, Land, Religion, History, Tradition (,etc) .
Then we have the nationality. Because of Americans, nationality is now on a grid, an x axis.
On one side we have America. America has a nationality based on ideals, believes and non of the things that define an ethnic group. It's a classic immigrant country.
On the other side you can have Poland, Madagascar and Japan (and the like), where the ethnic group is the most dominant and is that large majority (In Japan and Portugal there are no minorities.), the ethnic group has all of the characteristics I defined earlier.
On that axis you can put France in the middle, leaning towards America. France has a philosophy, a way of life, their believes of freedom of the individual, etc. etc. but you should also bear in mind that it had obliterated other languages spoken in France and made France the only taught language in public schools. History is also an important component.
You see, the axis has two contrasts - purely based on a philosophy of life, and purely based on ethnicity. NOW can you tell me if I'm right or wrong?

I can indeed tell you if you're right or wrong: You're still wrong, for at least three reasons. First, your definition is meaningless. If America counts, on the back of its shared beliefs/culture/etc. then Catholicism may as well count. If you want to argue that the difference is that, between the two of them, only America claims to be a nationality, then you've made your definition even more arbitrary. Which leads to the second reason: no matter which way you argue it, the Palestinians fit this definition. They have, apparently, a number of the necessary characteristics of an ethnic group (land, language, etc.) and they have numerous shared ideals, beliefs, etc. For instance, that they are a nationality. Third, your provision of a definition of nationality was, recall, only the second necessary step in your argument. The first one was somehow showing that having a "legitimate" nationality is important and meaningful.

Oh, and a minor thing, another point of information: "In Japan and Portugal there are no minorities"? That's not true. It's entirely possible that that's what Japan/Portugal will say, but it's rather like the Chinese saying there are no minorities in China.* I'm sure they'd love it to be true, but it's not. Admittedly, the ethnic minorities in Japan (I don't really know about Portugal) are extremely small, as I recall, but they certainly exist.

*This is an illustrative example, obviously relations between ethnic minorities and the government/the majority are significantly different in China and Japan/Portugal.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I'll give you a textbook definition of nationality.
First of all one needs to know what is an ethnic group - which is a group of people with common things, most notably - Language, Land, Religion, History, Tradition (,etc) .
Then we have the nationality. Because of Americans, nationality is now on a grid, an x axis.
On one side we have America. America has a nationality based on ideals, believes and non of the things that define an ethnic group. It's a classic immigrant country.
On the other side you can have Poland, Madagascar and Japan (and the like), where the ethnic group is the most dominant and is that large majority (In Japan and Portugal there are no minorities.), the ethnic group has all of the characteristics I defined earlier.
On that axis you can put France in the middle, leaning towards America. France has a philosophy, a way of life, their believes of freedom of the individual, etc. etc. but you should also bear in mind that it had obliterated other languages spoken in France and made France the only taught language in public schools. History is also an important component.
You see, the axis has two contrasts - purely based on a philosophy of life, and purely based on ethnicity. NOW can you tell me if I'm right or wrong?

I can indeed tell you if you're right or wrong: You're still wrong, for at least three reasons. First, your definition is meaningless. If America counts, on the back of its shared beliefs/culture/etc. then Catholicism may as well count. If you want to argue that the difference is that, between the two of them, only America claims to be a nationality, then you've made your definition even more arbitrary. Which leads to the second reason: no matter which way you argue it, the Palestinians fit this definition. They have, apparently, a number of the necessary characteristics of an ethnic group (land, language, etc.) and they have numerous shared ideals, beliefs, etc. For instance, that they are a nationality. Third, your provision of a definition of nationality was, recall, only the second necessary step in your argument. The first one was somehow showing that having a "legitimate" nationality is important and meaningful.

Oh, and a minor thing, another point of information: "In Japan and Portugal there are no minorities"? That's not true. It's entirely possible that that's what Japan/Portugal will say, but it's rather like the Chinese saying there are no minorities in China.* I'm sure they'd love it to be true, but it's not. Admittedly, the ethnic minorities in Japan (I don't really know about Portugal) are extremely small, as I recall, but they certainly exist.

*This is an illustrative example, obviously relations between ethnic minorities and the government/the majority are significantly different in China and Japan/Portugal.

About Japan you can say that in some islands its inhabitants aren't from Hokaido, which is the main Island of Japan. But that would be petty. There are a handful of foreigners that have a Japanese citizenship. This isn't a viable minority.
...
palestinians have a name that was given to them, a history of being pushed around and used, a language that more than a billion people use, customs and culture that are based around the Koran which is basically similar to all Sunni Muslims.
I don't see them as a separate nationality. I don't see a nationalist movement.
Niger is comprised of several tribes. Do we cut it up and give each tribe their own land?
...
About america. It still has the aspect of History (which all citizens learn and most are proud of) and culture. There isn't the same Culture or History to all Catholics.
Look at the people calling themselves patriots, disliking immigrants. They believe that their country is just for the Americans, where the nationality of Americans is based on their mindset and philosophy but also on over two hundred years of history and culture that reflects their believes.
...
The palestinians might fit your definition of an ethnic group but in my eyes it fits the definition of a LARGER ethnic group.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

The palestinians might fit your definition of an ethnic group but in my eyes it fits the definition of a LARGER ethnic group.

Which is still as irrelevant now as it was when I pointed it out earlier. Palestinians don't have to be an ethnic group for Israel to still be wrong by taking their land. You still have not addressed my example of an invader evicting South Koreans.