Talk:Palestine (geographic region)

I'd like to make one of those ubiquitous "article series" boxes for Definitions of Palestine and Definitions of homosexuality and similar articles which discuss problems of defining terms used in important articles. I'm not sure what criteria to apply, but one at least should be the threshold that when the meanings of terms are so problematic and thorny that it's hard to edit the articles, then we need an article about the terms. This will let us "stay neutral" so we can keep editing and contributing. --Uncle Ed 13:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This sounds as a good idea, I just don't fully understand yet how to apply it. You might be aware of the fact that the whole article about palestine is in dispute - not politically, but technically: I wrote a version that is (so I believe) not only better written, but olso shorter, omitting discussion of details that make the article clumsy. And believe me, I could add 100,000 more relevant words. But the author of the first version wouldn't let me correct his. So how can your idea find a compromise to include both versions (see Palestine former versions). Mike

I am curious, what is a "non-settler"? Another euphemism for a "Jew"? Let me understand: so Arab nomads and settlers (they have conquered and settle the area after 7th century, haven't they?) are OK, but Jews are not, correct? Then why don't we say so? At what point people who settle somewhere cease to be "settlers"? This definition is really bad, or perhaps I just don't get it. I think this article is ready for its NPOV note. --Humus sapiens|Talk 04:02, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

This is about definitions of Palestinian. Everyone knows what a "settler" is in the Israeli-Palestinian context: someone who set up a settlement within the occupied territories after 1967. No one to my knowledge - least of all themselves - calls them Palestinians. What is confusing about that? - Mustafaa 04:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I proudly call myself a Palestinian Jew. that would generally translate in Hebrew to a Jew from Eres Yisra'el, but otherwise it's exactly the same. besides, my mother was born pre '48 in the Old City of Jerusalem. Her ancestors were revenants [1] that came back (to their homeland) in the early 1800's. they would have come sooner if they could, like most Jews. her family suffered the expulsion of '48 and, eventually, were housed in an apartment in katamon...

my loyalty is to Palestine - The Land , The Land of Israel. Israel is, unfortunately, at the present time the only vehicle that enables me to live in my land, just as local Muslims say a "Palestinian" state is the only means by which they could live here. Significant difference is that, with all the hardships i sincerely recognize that Israel has imposed on the local Muslim population, Muslims can, generally, expect to be able to live in Israel, and rather well at that (relative to other middle east countries). could i expect to be able to LIVE in a Palestinian (read: Muslim, hamas, etc.) state in the west bank?

I find the phrase "settler" offensive. I'd prefer to live in the Judea & Samaria region without the Israeli-political baggage. hundreds of settlements in Israel were built on the ruins of Muslim towns- at least in the west bank i know i can live in a village that wasn't built on ruins of someone else's house. most of the places precious to me- biblical or Jewish historical - are barred to me due to them being Muslim cities & villages. if i could live amongst them, i would, and then Israel wouldn't have to hold territory in the west bank. i just want to live in this place which is meaningful to me. i deplore violence. i don't want to be scorned by political slander.

I found what you wrote ("I would say the reason Jewish Palestinians stopped being considered Palestinian in 1948 is that they had chosen a new identity for themselves - Israeli - which consciously marked a break with the previous territorial entity of Palestine. Arab Israelis identify as Palestinian more often because they did not make such a choice, but rather found it made for them, without having rejected the previous identity") very interesting. i would qualify, though, that the Jews were and are, in a parallel situation to that of the Muslims. if they could, Jews would have stayed in Hebron and gush etzion during the Jordanian occupation. again today, many Jews living in the "west bank" would choose staying without Israel than being evicted. that supposing it's a reasonable, healthy choice. so, it would be more accurate to point out that local Jews- like their counterparts from other religions - did not make a conscious choice of a new identity, breaking their affiliation with "the territorial entity of Palestine". Rather, they too "found it made for them", realizing that only under the 'auspices' of the state of Israel and its military could they survive. literally.

during the years of the Jewish diaspora small Jewish communities co-existed with non-Jews throughout Palestine. i am categorically opposed to expelling people from their homes and against using violence. don't get me to try to justify Israel's actions; i don't agree to many of them myself. I'm opposed to the wall/barrier completely (if it must go up- then precisely on the green line. i know Jerusalem is a challenge. but i can offer solutions). if Jews could live in a Palestinian state just like the druze (an example of a generally peaceful minority community) live in Israel, there might yet be peace in our region.

personally, I'm against creating another state on the west bank, for economic and social reasons. i believe there should be one state, but the people are probably not ready for it yet. it's foundation must be ensuring human rights as a principle overruling 'democracy', which in this region has become a tyranny of pseudo-elected bureaucratic systems.

Peace

Shilonite 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, the article already addresses that: a Palestinian is "a person whose ancestors had lived in the territory corresponding to British Mandate Palestine for some considerable length of time in the centuries immediately prior to 1948". - Mustafaa 04:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

This definition def is fine. I am talking about the other, non-settler one. It is full of holes. Are we suggesting that Arabs "who set up a settlement within the occupied territories after 1967" are not Palestinians anymore? I bet that the Zionist Jews who settled the land before 1948 (BTW, why suddenly 1967 here?) who were calling themselves Palestinian Jews or simply Palestinians, are still being called settlers and their communities are settlements, while Arabs who settled next are now Palestinians. Are you saying that there are no new Arab settlers? --Humus sapiens|Talk 04:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Well, no. What Arab would - or could - emigrate from another country to set up shop in the West Bank? A settler, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "one who settles in a new region".[2] Palestinians building new towns in the West Bank don't fit that definition; Brooklynites do. - Mustafaa 05:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

"I bet that the Zionist Jews who settled the land before 1948 (BTW, why suddenly 1967 here?)" - because Zionists didn't get the chance to settle that are between 1948 and 1967. Either date is correct.

"who were calling themselves Palestinian Jews or simply Palestinians, are still being called settlers and their communities are settlements, while Arabs who settled next are now Palestinians." On what basis do you bet this? The very few West Bank settlements located on sites inhabited by Jews in the immediate pre-1948 years were not resettled by their previous inhabitants, as far as I know (in Hebron's case, the original inhabitants even condemned the new settlers.) - Mustafaa 05:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Despite Bartleby's definition, though, I've changed it to the redundant "Israeli settlers" to remove any potential for misunderstanding. - Mustafaa 05:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Mustafa I'll like to ask following things

1. What about the people who lived in this area before birth of Jacob and didn't convert to Judaism? references?
2. What about Jews who converted to other religions? i.e Islam (not only in Palestine but also in other Arab areas)
3. What about people who were from different areas but converted to Judaism through Ger tzedek.
4. What about people Whose ancestors didn't live in this area. But their ancestors converted to Judism in Russia or some where else?
5. What about people who have (partial) Jewish blood? who practice other religions and settled in other regions.

Zain 12:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about them? All of the categories of people you list existed; but I don't see their relevance to this particular article, though they would be relevant to, eg, Jew, Palestinian, History of Palestine, etc. - 14:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well (3,4) make many jews settlers even by using 4000 years standard. And Claim (1,2,5) make many Muslim natives even if 4000 year standard is used.

Zain 14:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, clearly all people of originally Jewish and Arab descent in the region are settlers if we take the 4000 year standard. But it seems quite excessive to keep calling people "settlers" 4000 years later, and by such a standard almost everyone in every country is a settler. - Mustafaa 14:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I too don't agree with this 'standard', what I tried to say that even if it is accepted still israeli claims will be difficult. If I can find references It will be helpful in that 'mother of all conflicts' article. like we can show that non-descenders are prefered our descenders in law of return. black jews. Similarly I have a lot of other 'claims' or 'counter claims' but will like you to help me in get references so i can put it there.

Zain 14:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"This use of the word seems to have completely died out, as the term Palestinian is now used almost exclusively to refer to Arab inhabitants of the region, since the Jews (and actually Arabs as well) inside State of Israel as of 1948 essentially became Israeli, leaving the term Palestinian for the Arab inhabitants of the rest of the former madate area."

"Palestinian is now used almost exclusively to refer to Arab inhabitants of the region" is an inaccurate oversimplification, as this article already makes clear. "since the Jews (and actually Arabs as well) inside State of Israel as of 1948 essentially became Israeli" isn't even right; the Israeli Arabs are very commonly considered Palestinian. "leaving the term Palestinian for the Arab inhabitants of the rest of the former madate area" is only correct in some of the several definitions discussed in this article. The paragraph is a confused misrepresentation of the rest of the article, and is completely superfluous. - Mustafaa 00:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph you are claiming is incorrect is a direct continue to the previous paragraph -

"...which begins: "The Palestinians living among us". He is clearly referring to Jews, not Arabs. This use of Palestinian to describe the Jewish nation was adopted by non-religious Zionists who emigrated to Palestine from Europe, to refer to themselves. "

- it's clearly stating that the word "Palestinian" - in the past - referred to Jewish inhabitants of Palestine as well (before the British Mandate). The paragraph you are omitting continues and explains that today -

"This use of the word seems to have completely died out, as the term Palestinian is now used almost exclusively to refer to Arab inhabitants of the region"

- means that today when saying "Palestinian" we are exclusively referring to the Arab inhabitants of the region (including or excluding Arab Israeli - that is not the point) - and further explains why Jews are no longer referred as "Palestinian" - since they became "Israeli" when the Israeli state was formed. In Addition: The period of the British Mandate is an exception, since every citizen of this political entity - British Mandate of Palestine - was a Palestinian. This is discussed in the previous sections - "Mandate Definition" & "By Citizenship". This paragraph is only talking about "ethnic origin", which includes Jews who lived in the area prior to the British mandate. VICTOR 10:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming two things:

1. that there is only one definition of "Palestinian" used "today"
2. that this definition refers only to Arabs

The inconvenient falseness of the former is exactly why this article exists. The latter is problematic on two different levels:

• Not all Palestinians regard themselves as Arab; many call themselves Canaanite. A few are certainly of other origins - Turkish, Circassian, Armenian, etc.
• • the Dom (ethnos), certainly not Arabs, are generally listed as Palestinian.
  • a couple of thousand Jews of Neturei Karta both consider themselves and are considered by the PA to be Palestinian
  • about half of the Samaritans are Palestinians, as far as the PA is concerned. - Mustafaa 22:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really claiming it; You are missing the whole point of this paragraph, which purpose is (in a direct continue to its previous paragraph) to explain why Jews that were included in this definition are (largely, if you're including Neturei Karta) excluded from this definition today, although they are of this ethnic origin, -and not discuss anything that was discussed in the first paragraph of this section ("ethnic origin"). I agree that we need to change parts of the paragraph to avoid be resembelling to be "claiming" things: (corrections/additions bolded)

This use of the word seems to have completely died out, as the term Palestinian is now used almost exclusively to refer to Palestinian Non-Jews , since the Jews (and actually Arabs as well) inside State of Israel as of 1948 essentially became Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs accordingly. However, Some of the Israeli Arabs dissociate from this definition and are still considering themselves as Palestinian.

I added the qualification about the Israeli Arabs; comments? VICTOR 10:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pretty good; I'd just tidy up a bit like so:

This use of the word seems to have completely died out, as the term Palestinian is now used almost exclusively to refer to Palestinian Non-Jews , since the Jews and Arabs inside State of Israel as of 1948 essentially became Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. However, some Israeli Arabs dissociate from this definition and still consider themselves Palestinian.

I don't know if anybody will complain about the use of the term Israeli Arabs to describe the people who claim they are not Israeli Arabs, but that's getting into circularity. Gzuckier 14:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I appreciate the improvements, but I still don't think the theory is right. I would say the reason Jewish Palestinians stopped being considered Palestinian in 1948 is that they had chosen a new identity for themselves - Israeli - which consciously marked a break with the previous territorial entity of Palestine. Arab Israelis identify as Palestinian more often because they did not make such a choice, but rather found it made for them, without having rejected the previous identity. I would thus say:

This use of the word is almost completely obsolete, and the term Palestinian is now used primarily to refer to non-Jews (see the other definitions given here), since most of the Jews who ended up inside the State of Israel in 1948 preferred to identify with the new state of Israel rather than with the geographical region of Palestine, whereas many of the Arabs who found themselves outside this state chose to identify with the state of Palestine that they had attempted to create. - Mustafaa 01:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice summary of a subtle situation. Maybe some reference to dual situation of 'some Israeli Arab citizens identify themselves as Palestinian by nationality' or something? Gzuckier 14:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, this is not a "theory" .. we're trying here to reach a Neutral and truthful paragraph as possible, to be presented in this encyclopedia of the world. To the point: I find the end of the paragraph problematic, see bolded text:

This use of the word is almost completely obsolete, and the term Palestinian is now used primarily to refer to non-Jews (see the other definitions given here), since most of the Jews who ended up inside the State of Israel in 1948 preferred to identify with the new state of Israel rather than with the geographical region of Palestine, whereas many of the Arabs who found themselves outside this state chose to identify with the state of Palestine that they had attempted to create.

Leaving alone the fact that the Arab population rejected the UN proposal for 2 states in Palestine, the main problem is that this part's main element is nationality - you are merging this issue into this section, which is titled "ethnic origin". Palestinian Jews will be technically always Palestinian Jews, as well as their descendants, since they are, and if somebody chooses to identify with a state, it doesn't affect this. In addition, Arabs who ended up in the Israeli state do not "stop" being Palestinians as defined by ethnic origin; That's clear, while about their being considered "Palestinians" is about another aspect of the term Palestinian - the term that is used today - to reflect their identification with those who are (primariliy) called today Palestinians, and not because of ethnic origin/territorial reason (which is secondary in this today's definition). That's why I added the qualification about Israeli Arabs who (largely) dissociate from the definition - this is to avoid confusion for people who just wander by and see this article, and might think it's twisting the reality, while they are not aware that saying Palestinian today hasn't the same meaning as in the past. So, the "however" part is a small qualification in the end to avoid mis-interpetations, and shouldn't become the main issue of the paragraph..) What I did was extended a bit the "however" part to make more clear what "Palestinian" term is the qualification talking about, while the paragraph actually talks about - why Jews ceased to be called Palestinian. So, my proposed version is:

This use of the word is almost completely obsolete, as the term Palestinian is now used primarily to refer to non-Jews (see other definitions above), since the Jews (and actually Arabs as well) who ended up inside the State of Israel in 1948, essentially became Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs accordingly. However, some of the Israeli Arabs dissociate from this definition and are considering themselves Palestinian, and future citizens of the Palestinian state.

Comments? VICTOR 18:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A minor quibble is that "dissociate from this definition" is not great English. A major quibble is that many Israeli Arabs do regard themsleves as Palestinians but do not want to be future citizens of a Palestinian state. --Zero 22:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The fact that the Arab population rejected the UN proposal for 2 states in Palestine" is entirely consistent with the fact that they attempted to create a single state of Palestine. But more to the point, the categories seem to already be confused in the text as it stands - Kant's usage was certainly specifically ethnic, but was the early Zionists'? Certainly they weren't using it in the same sense as Kant - that is, to mean "of Jewish origins" irrespective of location. I would have thought the early Zionist usage was territorial - a "Palestinian Jew" meaning a Jew who lived in or was born in Palestine - but I may be wrong; if so, I'd like to see examples of the other usage. If not, then this whole issue doesn't belong in that section. - Mustafaa 23:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the later part of the 19th century, there were some European Zionists who called themselves "Palestinians" just as a way of emphasising their intention of moving to Palestine. Of course this usage is really just an extension of "a Jew who lived in or was born in Palestine". I don't know of Zionists who called themselves "Palestinian" to indicate their political position regardless of their own personal intentions, but it wouldn't be immensely surprising if there were some. Maybe Danny knows. --Zero 08:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely it did. Gzuckier 14:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No it didn't; as I told Ed: - Mustafaa 23:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

British Mandate Palestine did not include Jordan, except for the years 1920-22. See, for instance, http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/fd4d250af882632b052565d2005012c3?OpenDocument , a report to the League of Nations from 1936 which gives Palestine's boundaries quite clearly near the beginning.

There was no League of Nations Mandate prior to 1922. The Treaty of Sèvres was not ratified. Treaty of Sèvres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of Independence and the parties signed and ratified the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate excludes Jordan from the Palestine Mandate.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sources: Any reliable history of the region.

Pappe: History of Modern Palestine

Khalidi: Palestinian Identity

Salibi: A House of Many Mansions

Please don't change it again unless you can provide counter evidence. John Ball

"As Trans-Jordan became a separate political unit on May 15, 1923 and the Mandate came into force in July 1922, it is the case that Trans-Jordan and Palestine were the same political unit during the Mandate period. Thus, it is clearly the case that Jordan can be considered part of Palestine." --This passage seems strange to me. Do you mean that the fact that it was a part of the mandate for less than a year means that it was the same political unit DURING the mandate period? If that is the case it should be stressed that it was for a very brief period. I have a feeling that the text is written in this manner to support an argument. Is there some POV hidden in this? I would change the sentence to "..the same political unit for a short time during the Mandate period. Thus, it is clearly the case that it is possible to argue that Jordan can be considered part of Palestine." or something like that. Pertn

This section does seem to me to be designed to make a case of some kind (possibly along the lines "Jordan is part of Palestine so Palestinians who want a state can just go there"). I'd suggest that the whole of the section needs looking at and sourcing. For now I've removed the conclusion "it is clearly the case that Jordan can be considered part of Palestine" which is POV and derived from a non sequitur.

This does mean that the question in the title of the section goes unanswered, but I don't really have an answer of my own that I can back up with sources (other than "don't be daft").

--Vjam 11:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jordan had been considered as separate from Palestine prior to 1923.

The Churchill white paper:-

With reference to the Constitution which it is now intended to establish in Palestine, the draft of which has already been published, it is desirable to make certain points clear. In the first place, it is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty's Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/f2ca0ee62b5680ed852570c000591beb!OpenDocument

The Palestine Order in council:-

Where article 86 of the Palestine Order In Council 1922 Shall Not Apply To Such Parts Of The Territory Comprised In Palestine To The East Of The Jordan And The Dead Sea As Shall Be Defined By Order Of The High Commissioner. Subject To The Provisions Of Article 25 Of The Mandate, The High Commissioner May Make Such Provision For The Administration Of Any Territories So Defined As Aforesaid As With The Approval Of The Secretary Of State May be prescribed. The Palestine Order of Council 1922 duly received Royal assent and Given at Our Court at Saint James's this Fourteenth day of August, 1922, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/c7aae196f41aa055052565f50054e656!OpenDocument

The Emirate created in 1923 was where Jordan gained autonomy.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of breaking the Definitions of Palestine article into 3 parts:

1. Definitions of Palestine
2. Definitions of Palestinian
3. Definitions of Palestinian territories

Is this a stupid idea, or would it help? --Uncle Ed 21:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dunno; I can see arguments either way. Separate, they can be linked to separately more easily, but cross-referenced less easily. Abstain. - Mustafaa 23:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds crazy, there is too much duplication already. --Zero 12:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think may be if we give more details of individual definitions it will be better. For example may be more details of 'ancient definitions of Palestine' or 'ancient areas of Palestine'. Current version doesn't explain that which areas were considered to be a part of Palestine in different ancient times. I believe different ancient people had different definitions. May be definition of Romans was different then Definition of Ottoman Empire.

A separate article which only focuses on 'ancient definition of Palestine' will be quite informative. Giving different interpretations of 'Palestine' by different people in different time.

Plus I think one very important definition is really missing here. That definition is the definition of Palestine by Zionism. Or should I say earlier definition of 'Palestine' by Zionism.

Another important link which is missing is the definition of Palestine by different people immediately after End of British Mandate. A period which can be definite by 1948-1990s. Or may be 1948-1967. And other 1967-1990s.

I think first we should fill these missing links after that we can think of adding more details. And how to incorporate those details.

Zain 13:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page concerns nearly the same subject as Region of Palestine. I propose that the two be merged into one. --Zero 12:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't' see the date on the comments and thought 'unmerge' is currently in discussion.

Well 'definition of Palestine' may be merged but the 'definition of Palestinian' is difficult to merge with it. For example the content under heading

Referring to Jews in a national rather than religious sense

'Definition of Palestine' before 1948 can be easily mixed with Region of Palestine. After that it will be a little tricky.

Zain 14:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To clarify my suggestion: the parts of this article referring to political geography and the history of the place name "Palestine" are nearly the same as the content of Region of Palestine. The parts referring to the group of people "Palestinians" are another issue - I propose that they be merged with Palestinian. In general, the practice of breaking a topic into finer and finer pieces only makes information harder to find and prolongs the task of revision, imho. --Zero 00:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with that. I have often argued against splitting articles into tiny pieces. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article basically concentrates on the difference of opinion among different people. Other purposed article concentrates on result of generally agreed definitions. Very much similar content. But Both have different purposes. How about renaming current article to Differences on Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians, that will be quite objective. Further an easy distinction could be made between this article and Palestinian or Region of Palestine.

Zain 12:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea to separate agreed and disputed definitions into different articles. Putting them in different sections in the same article makes the whole story easier to understand. Someone interested in the topic will want to know the facts of the case and also the disputed claims; we should present both in the same place. --Zero 13:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, I'm in complete agreement. Jayjg | (Talk)

Well you are right. But generally attempt to put different contradicting believes in one article, where article attempts to give an 'agreed view', result in edit wars. At least talk disputes. In principle it is good idea. But practically applying it can result in problems.

You are more experienced then me in wikipedia. And ub this topic I believe you know better. But still I believe this may result in practical problems.

Zain 13:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm adding this note without access to the reference books that would tell the full story. The Ottoman divisions varied in both boundaries and names over time so what can be correct in one year can be incorrect in another. An example supporting "Damascus" is the Jewish Encyclopedia (ca. 1905): "The country is now divided into the following administrative districts: (1) the vilayet of Beirut, comprising the territory between the sea and the Jordan, extending about as far south as Jaffa, and including the districts of Nablus and Acre; (2) the independent district of Jerusalem, directly under the Ottoman government, and including the remaining portion of the west-Jordan country; (3) the vilayet of Damascus, embracing the entire east-Jordan country and including the district of the Ḥauran (capital Shaikh Sa'd), which extends to the Nahr al-Zarḳa, and the district of Ma'an (capital Al-Karak)." [3] An example supporting the opposite is a letter of 1922 by an Arab representative discussing the Macmahon-Hussein letters: "Moreover, the "Vilayet" said to have been meant was called "Vilayet of Syria" and not "Vilayet" of Damascus, as there was no Vilayet of Damascus." [4] More work is required to untangle this. --Zero 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I checked the Vilayet (or Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire) article before reverting, and it referred only to a Syria vilayet, not a Damascus one. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ok, here's the solution courtesy of Bernhard Lewis, Islam in History p185: "In the final phase of this rule before the British conquest, ..., the whole of Transjordan was incorporated in the Vilayet of Damascus (renamed the Vilayet of Syria under Abdülhamid)". Abdul Hamid II was Sultan 1876-1909. I'll come back here with the actual year of the change if I come across it. --Zero 05:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Vilayet of Damascus was reorganised as the Vilayet of Syria in 1864. What would become Jordan was divided between the Sanjak of Hauran in the Vilayet of Syria and the Sanjak of Ma'an in the Vilayet of Hejaz. John Ball 21:07 27 Sept 2005.

This whole paragraph needs to be replaced. It is written as an argument for a particular conclusion, which we don't do here, and it also has various problems of fact. Tweaking a sentence here and there isn't going to do it. I seem to recall that there is a better description of this issue in some other article, anyone know where? --Zero 05:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The facts about "Palestine" versus "Jordan" in popular use and political fact are described much better in the article Palestine. --Zero 03:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that entry contains many errors: eg, that Trans-Jordan was formed in 1922 when, in fact, it was formed on 11 April 1921. It also fails to acknowledge that the Mandate didn't come into effect until Sept 1923, nearly 2 and a half years after the establishement of Trans-Jordan. Also missing is any reference to Herbert Samuel's account of the establishment of Trans-Jordan from 1925 where he clearly does NOT see it as part of Palestine or his Mandate. It does not take into account any non-European definitions of what is, or is not, Palestine.

John Ball 16:35 30 Jan 2006.

Among archaeologists Palestine conventionally refers to Israel and the O.T. plus Jordan [5], [6], [7], [8]. Archaeologists often refer to Israel/O.T. as "Western Palestine" and Jordan as "Eastern Palestine" ([9], see also Biblical archaeology#Milestones prior to 1914). Fishal 04:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

David, according to the Bible, had already sucessfully wiped out the Philistines, the Israelites' greatest rivals, several hundred years before the revolt. Thus, the reason the Romans renamed the area Palestine/Palestina after the Philistines was to cause humiliation to the Israelites/Hebrews that they defeated since it was such a serious revolt that caused the Romans so much humiliation. None of this is included?--Stoopideggs2 04:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is a popular story. Can you identify where it originated? --06:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This story is from Bar Kokhba's revolt, 132-135 BCE. I looked through different pages here and found it is not really mentioned. Of course you are asking for references, but Josephus was already dead by this revolt. By looking at the other historical references at the time, such as the severity of the revolt against Rome, and means the Romans took afterward putting it down, some historians argued that the renaming was meant to humiliate the Judeans who hated the Philistines/already destroyed them. I can not find any historical documents on the time period at all. However, it is clearly documented and accepted that it was renamed after the Philistines. As I said, I can not find any well documented/accepted texts that indicate why it was renamed after the Philistines, only obvious deductions based on the historical context. It should be clear to anyone who is familiar with the time period that the Romans did not coincidentally rename it after the Philistines (who had been completely wiped out for several centuries) or coincidentally only allow Jews to reenter Jerusalem after the revolt on the holy days of morning and fasting (Yom Kippur and Tisha B'av); it was all carefully planned out.

The Philistines were long dead, but the Greeks had used the name Syria Palaestina ever since. So it was not necessary for the Romans to invent the name or even to have heard of the Philistines. Actually I think that the story is perfectly plausible; I'd just like to know where it originates. It would be great to be able to write "According to <ancient authority>, the Romans named...". --Zero 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I'll keep looking and ask around. Thanks for the help though, I appreciate it.--Stoopideggs2 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

With the intention of obliterating the country’s historic Jewish identity, Rome renamed Judea Palestina, a name derived from the Jews’ ancient rivals, the Philistines.[10]

The province itself was renamed Palestine; and of course, Jerusalem was already called Aelia Capitolina, to stamp out any reference even Jewish naming roots[11].

--Stoopideggs2 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The first one is just a slogan collection, and the second is a rip-off from Wikipedia (complete with grammatical errors). --Zero 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

In my research for ancient authority, I found the following loosely related information that should be better incorporated unless objections:

[12], [13], see footnote 8, [14], the key here is "in honor of", [15], Almost:[16]

As currently written, the definition implies that ALL the Palestinian poulation currently residing in Jordan arrived there as refugees, which is simply false. Many of them had been living in what is now Jordan long before the 1947-49 conflict.

I haven't seen any data about significant movement from the west bank to the east bank of the Jordan (only to assume it's crazy to see why anybody would, in 1900 or today as a matter of fact), but how does that one minor word change look to you? Ramallite ^(talk) 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is better, but still innacurate. I think you misunderstand my basic objection: There was a significant number of non-Bedouin, non-Samaritan, non-Druze etc... Arabs living in what is now Jordan before the 1947-49 conflict. They did not move from the west bank to the east bank - their existance there predates the Arab-Israeli conflict. I believe they are considered 'Palestinian'.

I think everything you say is correct except for the very last sentence - if they were there for that long, I believe they are merely now called 'Jordanians'. Examples of such families are the Muasher family, Majali, Rifa'i, Rawabdeh, etc... these people actually insist that they are the "authentic" Jordanians. (Incidentally, Marwan Muasher was once the Jordanian ambassador to Israel). In the end, it all comes back to where your clan/land originally was. If it was in present day Jordan, you would not under any circumstances be called 'Palestinian' regardless of what an occupying power (Britain) called you 50 years before you were even born. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, do you think the members of the Nashashibi clan currently residing in Jordan do not consider themsleves "Palestinians"? I've tweaked the text to say "orginally form Palestine" vs. "as refugees from Palestine" to account for both cases. Isarig 21:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nashashibi is a Jerusalem clan, so although I can't speak for them, they probably would consider themselves Palestinian. But were they there before Mandate? Nashashibis and Husseinis in Jerusalem caused each other a lot of headaches. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jaakobou, in this diff you make a number of additions to the article without citing any sources. These are problematic for a number of reasons. For one, your choice of terminology is controversial. I don't think the Romans intended to insult the Jewish people by changing the name to Palestine. If they did, you need a source for that claim. You also change the title of a sub-section describing the relationship between Jordan and Palestine from a question format to a statement format, event hough this is inappropriate given the content of that section which explains how Jordan did and did not form a part of Palestine at different points in history and by various definitions. Third, you added that people are opposed to Jews and/or a Jewish state in a later section. No source for that and it's an odd statement. Please stop reinserting these POV additions which were first made by an anon and for which no sourced have been provided. Thanks. Tiamut 12:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

it's actually common knowledge that the romans got fed up with the jewish revolts and decided to make an example of them. changing the name of the country, killing more than a hundred thousand jews and making many slaves and dispersing them across the roman empire and declaring judaism illeagal. i've added a source and fixed up the levant history during the 1800-1900 timespan, if you feel a source is still missing for something, please add the {{Fact}} tag rather than delete it - everything (as far as i'm aware) is correct at this moment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

p.s. not all anons make bad edits (and this case is a nice example), in fact - wiki is founded on the anon contribution idea and therefore people are not forced to register to make an edit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it's common knowledge, you should have no problem finding a source. But instead of offering one, you've ignored the request. Further, your edit reinserted POV and inaccurate information without addressing the points I've raised. I don't understand your obstaincy in this regard at all. I will be changing your edits once again, once I find reliable sources to add to the article so as to improve its sourcing, which is practically nil at the moment. I would appreciate it if you would self-revert the unsourced additions you have made. But I won't hold my breath. 13:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs)

I came here from AN/I, and I have to say that while this article is overall worded in a careful and neutral fashion, the edit in question by Jaakobou prompts me to ask for citations. Specifically, for the addition of the motivation of the Romans, and second, for the expanded assertion that people not only object to a Jewish State but to Jews in general. Both of those edits create a serious sense of Anti-Judaism and/or Antisemitism on the parts of others, and should be backed up with fact. I'd also, to a lesser extent, prefer to see some higher level of citation, perhaps each section having a general sourcing, as to the varied definitions. That said, I read this article and found the overall level of care and attention in the writing to be, frankly, shockingly well done for a topic that seems like it would draw fire daily. ThuranX (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Much of it is highly dubious, for example, referring to the "re-establishment of the State of Israel" is just silly, since the ancient kingdom of Israel was not a state, and the state of Israel was founded by a "declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel". <eleland/talkedits> 01:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me clarify: the Kingdom of Israel fit the definition of a state and might well be retroactively classified as one. But it was not the same as the State of Israel founded in 1948, and nobody believes that it is. <eleland/talkedits> 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

per [17]

ver 1

Before the establishment of the British mandate, most of the...

ver 2

Before the establishment of the French (Syria, Lebanon) and British mandates in the Levant, most of the...

i'm not certain of the encyclopedic value of removing the historical note that there was a redistribution of the area (ver 2), i can understand that the subsection is called "Jordan and Palestine", but usually an encyclopedia wants to be informative and this seems like a fitting place to add this information that doesn't appear anywhere else on the article. i believe its inclusion without violating WP:TOPIC, by adding 3 words on the subject is beneficial to the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The romans changed the name of palestine during the greek empire to Syria! The Arabs revived the greek name of the area ( exact palestine area with out jordan) as Jund Filastin. ref is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.88.121 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You need sources before making that edit again. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The artcicle that was used as a reference that some excluded samaritans and Dom people , there is nothing like that in the artcle!!! To the contrary the article says that samaritans are both israelii and whenthey go ro rthe west bank they are registered as palestinians. so where this lie come from??

and where is the difinition of Palestinians according to the Palestinian authority: it clearly states all people who were living in palestine before 1918 British occupation, and all their descendents unless they renounce their citizenship. this is the only difinition I know of by the palestinians for themselves. The difinition by the british does not count because they were occupiers . Imagine if we the palestinians invade England and decide who is english or not or who gets citizenshup or not including the queen, even if we were appointed mandate on England by ourselves ( the futuristic pax worldana league for example, do you accept that british??75.72.88.121 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

First, avoid attacking others with conspiracy theories. Second, if there's a source, that's generally preferable to no source. As to your comments about the palestinian citizenry, that needs citation, and not just the vague 'anyone in palestine before the british', since the borders of Palestine weren't fixed, because it wasn't a nation before then. ThuranX (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article is very neatly divided into two sections, one that deals with the definition of Palestine, the other deals with the definition of Palestinian.

Perhaps we should seperate this article into: Palestine (term) and Palestinian (term).Bless sins (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Strange, I thought I'd replied to this hours ago... I typed it up, hit save... odd. Anyways, I don't think so. I think the two terms neatly compliment each other, and create a fuller definition, as the two are inseparable. I think it's a reasonably well written article overall, and to split it would set up two new messy articles which would have huge overlaps in content. ThuranX (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some who oppose the existence of a Jewish state regard all the land west of the Jordan River, including territory of modern State of Israel, as the territory of a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea".

This is a subtle but clear mistake, in that one can oppose the state of Israel, situated within historic Palestine ('Eretz Yisrael,') without opposing "a Jewish state." As I said in my edit summary, it is difficult to believe that Palestinians would have a problem with a Jewish state in Madagascar, say. Indeed, I recall that Ahmadinejad made headlines some years back when he proposed (half-seriously, I think) that Israel be moved to Europe or the United States. [18]

If this is "personal interpretation," as Jaakobou insists, then so is the current wording, at least in the absence of neutral citations to prove otherwise. <eleland/talkedits> 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the problem is that for the Palestinians, a Jewish state and an Israeli state are one and the same. Remember, they used to, and still do claim as a goal to push the Jews into the sea and drown them', not' push the Israelis'. because they don't recognize Israel, they see Jews as the invaders, and to call them Israelis legitimizes the Israeli view, which the Palestinians will not do. ThuranX (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, we can argue about what may or may not be in their heads, but even those who still cling to "Death to Israel" rhetoric do not say they want to kill all the Jews. They say they want to expel all, or almost all, of the Jews from Palestine. That's not the same as saying Jews shouldn't have any state anywhere. I'll try a compromise wording, "Jewish state in Palestine." <eleland/talkedits> 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That statement is incorrect. Those who say "Death to Israel" use some fairly clear cut expressions of killing Jews "where ever you may find them". I don't think it would be appropriate to give links of National Palestinian television to make my point, but I will give quality examples and sources if you insist on samples (such as the always inspiring "decendants of apes and pigs who violated the sabbath" exclamations).

We can try a compromise though, but post it here first for approval. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Obviously there are those who say "Death to Israel" and call for genocide against Jews; there are also those who say "Death to Israel" and do not call for genocide against Jews (like Ahmadinejad.) <eleland/talkedits> 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also I don't see why examples of antisemitism on Palestinian television would have anything to do with the discussion here. <eleland/talkedits> 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Achmedinijad's only reason for NOT calling for genocides is because he doesn't believe in them. The Palestinians used Mickey Mouse to teach 3 year olds to blow themselves up to kill the invaders, and sang songs about exterminating Jews. The two terms are interchangable in the minds of most Palestinians whose words get covered, and they're spewing rhetoric which appeals to the masses, so... ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "definition" of Palestine and Palestinian SHOULD not be this difficult. People reclassify themselves and rename their nationalities all the time throughout history. Read any basic 101 on nationalism or historiography in college and things will become more clear. Basically, Italians immigrants to the United States mostly think of themselves after a few generations at Italian. Jewish European immigrants to Israel rarely see themselves as German or Romanian but instead "Israeli". Lets set aside the politics and go straight to who the people who call themselves "Palestinian" consider themselves. Some were surely recent immigrants, some have surely been there for many hundreds of years. Either way, thats NOT what is being argued here. We are simply trying to arrive at a definition as used by most of the media and the people themselves. I propose we break it into a few definitions 1) As defined by the PLO/Palestinian Authority(as the representative of ethnic Palestinians). 2)As defined by the international community (the Palestinian Authority IS an observer of the UN, etc.) and maybe add another section for "Other Uses" including European definitions (such as how Germans called Jewish populations in the 19th century the "Palestinians among us"), Palestinian Jewish defintions (some such as Uri Averny call themselves a Palestinian Jew and support a Palestinian state, others see themselves as Israeli). This is a contentious issue and YES this is a hard debate but, lets just stop politicizing such simple terms.Achamy (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

i propose to make some meaningful improvements to this article, which does not appear to have had much focus at all in recent years. Wikiknowledge has moved on since this article was first put together, and there is a lot of scope to make this article into a good introduction to (1) the etymology and (2) the different historical boundaries of the region. In order to make this a quality article I propose to remove the definitions of Palestinian into a separate article (Definitions of Palestinian), which although a related topic, is strictly no more related than Canada and Canadians. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this page have a section for the Palestinian territories. The section that was called "Palestine as the region of the Palestinian territories" was recently renamed "Palestine as the Palestinian Authority" which I agree with because the section's scope seamed to be just about the PNA and Hams administered parts of the Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll go ahead and wp:Boldly add one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It definitely needs some work. It looks more like something you'd see in a disambiguation page then an article, but it's a start. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the edit that said that the Palestinian territories no longer refers to the entire WB&GS per Nableezy's statement. That section is about the whole WB&GS anyway, the Palestinian Authority section is the one about the Palestinian administered parts of the WB&GS. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply