It seems to me that Islam will continue to exist in their territories, as "clean" of all non-Muslims as they like them to be.
Our focused goal in the West must be to stop Islam's advance within our own civilisation. This is surely easier said than done, as they reproduce astronomically and Westerners- Europeans majorly, for now- are on a suicidal below population replacement trend.
Evil as it is, Islam exists as the religion of Muslims, and they have a right to their religion, something we understand by our own Western liberal minds, which they themselves don't understand.
But the outrageous rights they demand for their religion should be confined to their territories, which ,by the way ,they conquered by the sword, destroying other cultures, as they are intent in destroying ours. So much for Muslims accusing others of colonialism.
The ones that need to understand the evils of Islam are Westerners , so that we may have the collective will to defend our civilisation. The day Muslims and their acolytes become a European majority ,and by the rule of democracy and law they impose their retrograde civilisation - retrograde is an expression Churchill used- , a European far right might rise and Europe will become, again, totalitarian.
The irony is that the young generation today is already drawn to and primed for totalitarianism, and thus see Islam sympathetically. Whether this occurs as a pendulum genuine reaction to the permissiveness they were raised under and their need for boundaries or the result of Islam's internet and institutional penetration, or both, and/or other reasons, is an urgent matter for us in the West to understand.
Excellent, thank you! I would like to add that it is no longer just about the Middle East/Israel. In the language of Islam, the religious necessity is a world-wide caliphate: The entire world must become all-Muslims and infidels must convert or die. And they have the validation for their beliefs clearly stated in the Quran.
If Islam and religion is the supreme motivating force driving the Arab world, what is Islam’s Fanatical ‘mirror’ Analogue here in The West? Is it Racism? And the power and horror which is Racial Hatred? I wonder. Certainly Both thrive in their Antisemitism. But The West’s fascination and dalliance with Nazism has proven FATAL. Nazism and German Imperialism and their Militarism murdered upwards of 80 Million White people. And they were the best of the Europeans too. Will The West’s hard-won Modernity defeat Islam? It must do! For the real centre of the World’s Excellence is our unique Rationalism here in The West, which bore the fruits of Enlightenment, given to the rest of the World. And Western Rationalism and Enlightenment is what the survival of the Civilised World depends on.
Actually, the foundation of Western Civilization is Biblical Christianity. That is just a historical fact. Enlightenment Rationalism has weakened the West and helped create a vacuum into which Islam is being drawn. Unless there is serious repentance and a return to Biblical Christianity, the West will fall to Islam and discover what real oppression is.
I will give you some acknowledgment there… but in fact Mediaeval 14th Century Christianity was Catholic. Is this the basis of Western values, or the Rationalism that began with Galileo and Newton throwing off the shackles of Superstition and the Hellfire and Damnation threats of the Mediaeval era. Science and technology has given us health, and long and enjoyable lives. These are the products of Rationalism and NOT Hellfire Religion. We have argued before, Alison! Welcome back and good to see you on here again! Best wishes. Dan
First of all, Galileo's issue with the Church had nothing to do with "Hellfire and Damnation" - it was all about the position and movement of the earth. Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist of the modern era, was a committed Christian, and certainly had no issue with "Hellfire and Damnation". Nor did he have issue with the Church, as he was Protestant. Science is underpinned by Biblical Christianity - the belief that there is a God Who is rational and orderly, and that He is in control of a rational and orderly universe, where things like the law of gravity operate consistently, and don't change from day to day. When a scientist goes into his laboratory, he expects the physical laws to operate as they did the day before and the day before that. He doesn't go in wondering if this time his experiment will come out with totally different results because the physical laws have changed. The problem comes when so-called "scientists" try to call their unscientific fairy story about evolution "science". This false belief has not given rise to technology, and it is not scientific, because it can't be tested in a laboratory, as operational science can. It depends on blind faith and the false interpretation of the massive evidence for a wise, powerful, good and loving Creator that we can see all around us. However, leaving that aside, why are you against the idea of "hellfire and damnation"? Doesn't your moral sense tell you that wickedness must be punished? Should those who perpetrated the atrocities of October 7 go unpunished? Many have been killed by the IDF, but there are many who haven't, and some will get away scot-free in this life at least. If there is a God, and He is good, can He just overlook sin and wickedness? As bad as the atrocities of October 7 were (and they are only what we know; similar atrocities are occurring all over the world that we never hear about), those sins were primarily against God Himself. People made in His image were brutally tortured and killed. Should He not judge the perpetrators and punish them for that? All of us have a basic sense of right and wrong, and what is just and unjust. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Every one of us has sinned against God. We all need to know that "it is given unto man once to die, and after that the judgement." We also need to know that, because of His love for lost mankind, God gave His only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to bear the penalty of our sins when He was crucified on the cross of Calvary. To those who accept His payment on our behalf, He gives the gift of eternal life. The promise of the Bible is life, not death. But to those who refuse that payment, there is no escape from eternal death, also known as "hellfire and damnation". If you think about it, you'll see that that is perfectly rational, logical and just.
Alison, thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts with me. You believe that G-d works through the Order of the Laws of Physics, which He created, to operate the Universe. Einstein believed in G-d. This was as you correctly say, Isaac Newton’s view, as indeed was the view of many of the Chemists who discovered the Elements and how they combine to create Life. However, the Science of Evolution has been well documented, (like say Geology outside the Laboratory too) including the existence of Life, like the Dinosaurs which are much older than the 5700 years which the Bible and the Creationists say is the actual age of Planet Earth. Both of these facts confound you. I welcome your replies to these facts. Respectfully, Best wishes. Dan
You may be right about G-d and The Order found in The Cosmos. Your answer is good. It is just the Bible may be wrong, and humans including the Prophets of The Testament, do not understand the enormous Majesty of G-d: not yet Fully Revealed.
While Dan Burmawi frames Palestinian nationalism as primarily religious and dismisses it as a “construct,” historical evidence paints a more nuanced picture. Palestinian national consciousness emerged during the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods, particularly in urban centers such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Haifa, through newspapers, political societies, and grassroots activism. Leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini combined religious authority with political and territorial objectives, demonstrating that opposition to Zionism was both ideological and nationalist in nature.
Palestinian identity incorporated religion, but it was not reducible to it; the 1936–39 Arab Revolt and the establishment of institutions like the Palestine Arab Congress illustrate a distinct nationalist agenda focused on the defense of Palestinian land and self-determination. Even after 1967, while Islamic movements such as Hamas gained prominence, secular nationalist organizations like Fatah and the PLO continued to operate as central actors, showing that Palestinian nationalism persists alongside religious elements.
Scholarship by Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappé, and Benny Morris confirms that Palestinian nationalism is historically grounded, politically legitimate, and not merely a post-hoc religious invention. Oversimplifying it as solely religious obscures decades of political struggle, cultural identity formation, and organised activism among Palestinians themselves.
Agreed completely. See my above comment. The only problem with your analysis, and it is mainly the supporting authors you cite, is that your argument could be interpreted as being one sided as Rashid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe are particularly anti-Zionist, bordering on antisemitic. Their work is not seen as balanced by many. Khalidi for one talks about his family’s role in Islamic scholarship for 500 years in Jerusalem but completely denies Jewish roots in that part of the world, continued presence in the land of Israel and the means by which Islam became supreme in that part of the world. He also ignores the unequal treatment of non-Muslims and he sets timelines that ensconce Islamic dominance but denies others the same rights. Ilan Pappe is about as balanced as Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. Slim to none and slim just left town! Benny Morris is very reasonable.
The totalists on either side are doomed to failure or more massacres both ways and the one secular statists are living in a complete fantasy world! There you go from someone who is squarely in the middle of the road and a determined 2-stater.
You’re right that Khalidi and Pappé are often seen as highly critical of Zionism, and relying solely on them can look one-sided. My point wasn’t to lean only on their interpretations, but to highlight that serious scholarship—across the spectrum—acknowledges that a distinct Palestinian national consciousness developed during the Mandate period and after.
To your point, historians like Benny Morris, James Gelvin, and even Anita Shapira—who are certainly not anti-Zionist—also recognise the emergence of Palestinian nationalism as a historical reality, even if they debate its depth or timing. Morris himself has written extensively about the Arab Revolt of 1936–39 as an explicitly nationalist uprising, not just a religious reaction. Gelvin frames Palestinian nationalism as part of broader anti-colonial currents of the early 20th century.
Where I agree with you fully is that totalising narratives—whether “Palestinians never had a national identity” or “Zionism is only colonialism”—ignore the complexity of both peoples’ histories. A two-state future, which you describe yourself as committed to, can only be built on acknowledging that both Jewish and Palestinian national identities are legitimate, deeply rooted, and have to coexist.
So yes—I’ll broaden my citations, but I stand by the argument: Palestinian nationalism is not a “lie” or a mere religious construct. It emerged in parallel with Jewish nationalism, shaped by its own context and experiences.
I concur on both accounts. Btw, I fancy myself and amateur historian as I did my honors thesis in history at Cornell under Walter LaFeber and focused on the Paris Peace Conference and anti colonialism. FWIW!
Maybe we should ask the so-called "Palestinians" to reveal their longstanding roots in the region reaching back to ancient days. That would be interesting to read and then explain why none of the Arab countries want ANY of them on their soil. As an aside, read about King Hussein's running them out of his kingdom in 1970.
Outstanding compilation of history of the mandate, religious and political machinations and the explanation for the groundwork of where we are today. The main question is that Christian Palestinians have played a huge role in the struggle. How does the author reconcile that the conflict is just a religious struggle? That would be convenient and useful for Israel as the progressives will eventually see to discard Islam as there is nothing that progressives and Islam agree on except for hatred of Jews, more particularly, Israel.
Exactly, there was a brotherhood between Christians and muslims prior to 1948. I wonder why the muslims hated the Jews so much, and loved the Christians. Or maybe they only hated the newcomer European Jews?
The answer is simple, in my opinion, they considered themselves Arabs first then Christians or Muslims second hence the clear involvement of Palestinian Christian’s in Palestinian nationalism. Also 65% of Israeli’s have Sephardic roots so it is not so simple to just say they hated Ashkenazi Jews. The problem evolved over time and the winners in The Arab world have been the Islamists because they have had the most staying power in both numbers and a simplistic ideology that the masses can understand. The Christians and Jews are non-believers and therefore need to be purged from Islamic lands. You need look no further than the forced exodus of Christians from Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. There is no such thing as equal rights or for that matter any rights in these countries unless the dictator de jour grants them. That is not sustainable unless you are in the majority. Hence the forced and unforced exodus from Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. All of which have nothing (except maybe South Lebanon) to do with Israel.
The self determination that the Palestinians say they want is no different than what Jews want as expressed in Zionism. The obvious answer is a 2 state solution. The Palestinians (represented by the Arab League from roughly 1948-1968) have refused any two state compromise. They refused in 1947 partition, 1949 at end of a war they started, 1968 Khartoum conference, 2000 and 2008 offers from Barak and Olmert.
What dumbfounds me is that when the Palestinians continually say no to peace, no to two states and start intifadas and continue with terrorism that they are surprised when right wing Israeli’s push back with more settlements and pushing them out further. I do not think this is the solution but both sides bear responsibility and no one is holding the Palestinians accountable for any poor decisions or really taking Israeli security concerns seriously. Israel in 1968 offered the Arab league to return all land taken in war in 1967 for peace and recognition. In 2000 and 2008 the offers included 95% of West Bank, all of Gaza and half of Jerusalem and land swaps. See Bill Clinton’s recent comments on 2000 Wye River accords and peace talks that Palestinians refused to accept. This is why we are seeing the success of the Abraham accords and normalization with Israel, the other Arab countries have big problems in security, economy, agriculture and water resources and much of the solutions lay in cooperation with Israel. Not to mention a counter weight to Irans genocidal, maniacal mullahs.
So in your first sentence, you admit that at least initially, Arab nationalism was a stronger feeling than muslim brotherhood for the Palestinian Arabs. Did the Arab nationalists advocate for a Christian state, a muslim state or a secular one? I suspect mostly the latter, but someone should know. Perhaps had the early zionists also advocated for a secular state, things would have turned out differently? I mean for a long time Israel was effectively as secular state, arguably still so.
If you or anyone feels that Arab nationalism is the same thing as the denizen Christian’s and Muslims feeling Arab first then the religion as second identity then I would say you are accurate. The answer is probably not so straightforward as there has been much Christian Muslim strife in the MENA region well before and since the last 150 years so the answer is somewhere in between. Also, much of the narrative then and now has to be filtered through many lens’ including but not exclusively religious ones for all three religions, external and internal political pressures as well as the history of the Ottoman Empire. Finally, much has changed over the last 150 years in this region as in the world. So what was tennis certainly not what is now. And to touch on an important change, the effect of the 1979 Iranian revolution on the havoc of the region and as a destabilizing force in MENA.
In all of my reading and study of this region, including during my time as a honors history major at Cornell university with a thesis on Paris peace conference, I have never encountered any suggestion that the prevailing Arab inclination was for a secular state for all three religions. I think most historians, either Zionists or Anti-Zionist or Islamist would never concede that this was any intention of the Arabs. As an FYI, King Hussein’s father/grandfather (the original king Abdullah made overtures to the early Zionists but he was murdered by his own people)!
Israel has and does exist, as you point out, as a secular state where there are equal rights under the law for all citizens. The Nation state law withstanding. I am not sure of the purpose of the law but it certainly is problematic in the least for a secular democracy. That being said, all of the 57 Muslim countries pretty much function as theocracies so it is rich that they and their Interlocutors who want to “Free Palestine” accuse Israel of Apartheid (and I am not referring to the territories where there are separate laws) but to Israel proper. Complete fantasy to think there is equality under the law that anywhere approaches what is in Israel proper anywhere in the Muslim world.
The funny thing is that the Palestinians could have had their own state to do what they want with 5 times since 1947 and they keep saying no!
So the constant missing of opportunities to have a state may be a religious (muslim) thing. It doesn't make sense that the Christian nationalists would have said no so many times, or that they would have wanted to genocide Jews. Still, the fact that muslims accepted and even respected Christians, as long as they were arab, is to their credit.
I am not sure how much that is to their credit as Christians in Middle East are a disappearing breed. I would make the argument that Palestinian nationalism was mostly Islamic in the beginning and certainly now almost entirely. They accepted the Arab Christians because they were looking and taking any support they could get at the time. All of this was in the back drop of the fall of all empires post WW I and after WWII and the Holocaust. Very very complex issues. The partition was probably one of the best things the UN ever did. After that they have made mistake after mistake after mistake.
I think everyone was against the founding of Israel and Jewish immigration into the region for a host of reasons. The Ottomans and absentee landlords in Damascus, Beirut, Cairo and Istanbul were more than happy to sell their land at exorbitant prices to Jews whom they thought would not last. Little did they know these Jews and those that followed had nowhere else to go.
This is an extremely insightful essay. It explains why Hamas rejects the two state solution. Because both states would be secular and not Islamic, it’s a nonstarter. It also explains why Westerners still clamor for the two state solution. Because it puts Islam in a box which it doesn’t control. Based on these insights it’s the progressives who are actually the inheritors of colonialism.
The Bible claims to be the infallible Word of the Living God. If there is a God, and He is infinitely wise, powerful and good, why would He lie to us in His Word? The Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie. He was able to ensure that His prophets wrote down exactly what He wanted them to say, and He was also able to ensure that those words were preserved. We might not always understand them, but we can trust them. I prefer to trust the Word of God over the word of fallible, fallen man any day of the week.
Too much repetition. But otherwise OK. I still don't understand why Islamists in Palestine before 1948 hated Jews more than Christians. Many of the nationalists were Christians and elite. Why were they not hated, but seemed to be embraced?
Well done! Every time I read about Hussein and Hitler I wonder: had they won, how long before they would have tried to exterminate the Arabs ? Is there anything I. Writing re what they really thought of Hussein. Clearly, Hitler must have been using him.
Essential reading. More power to Dan Burmawi.
It seems to me that Islam will continue to exist in their territories, as "clean" of all non-Muslims as they like them to be.
Our focused goal in the West must be to stop Islam's advance within our own civilisation. This is surely easier said than done, as they reproduce astronomically and Westerners- Europeans majorly, for now- are on a suicidal below population replacement trend.
Evil as it is, Islam exists as the religion of Muslims, and they have a right to their religion, something we understand by our own Western liberal minds, which they themselves don't understand.
But the outrageous rights they demand for their religion should be confined to their territories, which ,by the way ,they conquered by the sword, destroying other cultures, as they are intent in destroying ours. So much for Muslims accusing others of colonialism.
The ones that need to understand the evils of Islam are Westerners , so that we may have the collective will to defend our civilisation. The day Muslims and their acolytes become a European majority ,and by the rule of democracy and law they impose their retrograde civilisation - retrograde is an expression Churchill used- , a European far right might rise and Europe will become, again, totalitarian.
The irony is that the young generation today is already drawn to and primed for totalitarianism, and thus see Islam sympathetically. Whether this occurs as a pendulum genuine reaction to the permissiveness they were raised under and their need for boundaries or the result of Islam's internet and institutional penetration, or both, and/or other reasons, is an urgent matter for us in the West to understand.
Excellent, thank you! I would like to add that it is no longer just about the Middle East/Israel. In the language of Islam, the religious necessity is a world-wide caliphate: The entire world must become all-Muslims and infidels must convert or die. And they have the validation for their beliefs clearly stated in the Quran.
If Islam and religion is the supreme motivating force driving the Arab world, what is Islam’s Fanatical ‘mirror’ Analogue here in The West? Is it Racism? And the power and horror which is Racial Hatred? I wonder. Certainly Both thrive in their Antisemitism. But The West’s fascination and dalliance with Nazism has proven FATAL. Nazism and German Imperialism and their Militarism murdered upwards of 80 Million White people. And they were the best of the Europeans too. Will The West’s hard-won Modernity defeat Islam? It must do! For the real centre of the World’s Excellence is our unique Rationalism here in The West, which bore the fruits of Enlightenment, given to the rest of the World. And Western Rationalism and Enlightenment is what the survival of the Civilised World depends on.
Actually, the foundation of Western Civilization is Biblical Christianity. That is just a historical fact. Enlightenment Rationalism has weakened the West and helped create a vacuum into which Islam is being drawn. Unless there is serious repentance and a return to Biblical Christianity, the West will fall to Islam and discover what real oppression is.
I will give you some acknowledgment there… but in fact Mediaeval 14th Century Christianity was Catholic. Is this the basis of Western values, or the Rationalism that began with Galileo and Newton throwing off the shackles of Superstition and the Hellfire and Damnation threats of the Mediaeval era. Science and technology has given us health, and long and enjoyable lives. These are the products of Rationalism and NOT Hellfire Religion. We have argued before, Alison! Welcome back and good to see you on here again! Best wishes. Dan
First of all, Galileo's issue with the Church had nothing to do with "Hellfire and Damnation" - it was all about the position and movement of the earth. Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist of the modern era, was a committed Christian, and certainly had no issue with "Hellfire and Damnation". Nor did he have issue with the Church, as he was Protestant. Science is underpinned by Biblical Christianity - the belief that there is a God Who is rational and orderly, and that He is in control of a rational and orderly universe, where things like the law of gravity operate consistently, and don't change from day to day. When a scientist goes into his laboratory, he expects the physical laws to operate as they did the day before and the day before that. He doesn't go in wondering if this time his experiment will come out with totally different results because the physical laws have changed. The problem comes when so-called "scientists" try to call their unscientific fairy story about evolution "science". This false belief has not given rise to technology, and it is not scientific, because it can't be tested in a laboratory, as operational science can. It depends on blind faith and the false interpretation of the massive evidence for a wise, powerful, good and loving Creator that we can see all around us. However, leaving that aside, why are you against the idea of "hellfire and damnation"? Doesn't your moral sense tell you that wickedness must be punished? Should those who perpetrated the atrocities of October 7 go unpunished? Many have been killed by the IDF, but there are many who haven't, and some will get away scot-free in this life at least. If there is a God, and He is good, can He just overlook sin and wickedness? As bad as the atrocities of October 7 were (and they are only what we know; similar atrocities are occurring all over the world that we never hear about), those sins were primarily against God Himself. People made in His image were brutally tortured and killed. Should He not judge the perpetrators and punish them for that? All of us have a basic sense of right and wrong, and what is just and unjust. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Every one of us has sinned against God. We all need to know that "it is given unto man once to die, and after that the judgement." We also need to know that, because of His love for lost mankind, God gave His only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to bear the penalty of our sins when He was crucified on the cross of Calvary. To those who accept His payment on our behalf, He gives the gift of eternal life. The promise of the Bible is life, not death. But to those who refuse that payment, there is no escape from eternal death, also known as "hellfire and damnation". If you think about it, you'll see that that is perfectly rational, logical and just.
Alison, thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts with me. You believe that G-d works through the Order of the Laws of Physics, which He created, to operate the Universe. Einstein believed in G-d. This was as you correctly say, Isaac Newton’s view, as indeed was the view of many of the Chemists who discovered the Elements and how they combine to create Life. However, the Science of Evolution has been well documented, (like say Geology outside the Laboratory too) including the existence of Life, like the Dinosaurs which are much older than the 5700 years which the Bible and the Creationists say is the actual age of Planet Earth. Both of these facts confound you. I welcome your replies to these facts. Respectfully, Best wishes. Dan
How do you know the age of r the dinosaurs?
You may be right about G-d and The Order found in The Cosmos. Your answer is good. It is just the Bible may be wrong, and humans including the Prophets of The Testament, do not understand the enormous Majesty of G-d: not yet Fully Revealed.
We know the age of the Dinosaurs From the age of the rocks the Dinosaurs fossils are in. 70 Million years old.
While Dan Burmawi frames Palestinian nationalism as primarily religious and dismisses it as a “construct,” historical evidence paints a more nuanced picture. Palestinian national consciousness emerged during the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods, particularly in urban centers such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Haifa, through newspapers, political societies, and grassroots activism. Leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini combined religious authority with political and territorial objectives, demonstrating that opposition to Zionism was both ideological and nationalist in nature.
Palestinian identity incorporated religion, but it was not reducible to it; the 1936–39 Arab Revolt and the establishment of institutions like the Palestine Arab Congress illustrate a distinct nationalist agenda focused on the defense of Palestinian land and self-determination. Even after 1967, while Islamic movements such as Hamas gained prominence, secular nationalist organizations like Fatah and the PLO continued to operate as central actors, showing that Palestinian nationalism persists alongside religious elements.
Scholarship by Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappé, and Benny Morris confirms that Palestinian nationalism is historically grounded, politically legitimate, and not merely a post-hoc religious invention. Oversimplifying it as solely religious obscures decades of political struggle, cultural identity formation, and organised activism among Palestinians themselves.
Agreed completely. See my above comment. The only problem with your analysis, and it is mainly the supporting authors you cite, is that your argument could be interpreted as being one sided as Rashid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe are particularly anti-Zionist, bordering on antisemitic. Their work is not seen as balanced by many. Khalidi for one talks about his family’s role in Islamic scholarship for 500 years in Jerusalem but completely denies Jewish roots in that part of the world, continued presence in the land of Israel and the means by which Islam became supreme in that part of the world. He also ignores the unequal treatment of non-Muslims and he sets timelines that ensconce Islamic dominance but denies others the same rights. Ilan Pappe is about as balanced as Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. Slim to none and slim just left town! Benny Morris is very reasonable.
The totalists on either side are doomed to failure or more massacres both ways and the one secular statists are living in a complete fantasy world! There you go from someone who is squarely in the middle of the road and a determined 2-stater.
You’re right that Khalidi and Pappé are often seen as highly critical of Zionism, and relying solely on them can look one-sided. My point wasn’t to lean only on their interpretations, but to highlight that serious scholarship—across the spectrum—acknowledges that a distinct Palestinian national consciousness developed during the Mandate period and after.
To your point, historians like Benny Morris, James Gelvin, and even Anita Shapira—who are certainly not anti-Zionist—also recognise the emergence of Palestinian nationalism as a historical reality, even if they debate its depth or timing. Morris himself has written extensively about the Arab Revolt of 1936–39 as an explicitly nationalist uprising, not just a religious reaction. Gelvin frames Palestinian nationalism as part of broader anti-colonial currents of the early 20th century.
Where I agree with you fully is that totalising narratives—whether “Palestinians never had a national identity” or “Zionism is only colonialism”—ignore the complexity of both peoples’ histories. A two-state future, which you describe yourself as committed to, can only be built on acknowledging that both Jewish and Palestinian national identities are legitimate, deeply rooted, and have to coexist.
So yes—I’ll broaden my citations, but I stand by the argument: Palestinian nationalism is not a “lie” or a mere religious construct. It emerged in parallel with Jewish nationalism, shaped by its own context and experiences.
My point was to suggest people read widely.
I concur on both accounts. Btw, I fancy myself and amateur historian as I did my honors thesis in history at Cornell under Walter LaFeber and focused on the Paris Peace Conference and anti colonialism. FWIW!
Maybe we should ask the so-called "Palestinians" to reveal their longstanding roots in the region reaching back to ancient days. That would be interesting to read and then explain why none of the Arab countries want ANY of them on their soil. As an aside, read about King Hussein's running them out of his kingdom in 1970.
Outstanding compilation of history of the mandate, religious and political machinations and the explanation for the groundwork of where we are today. The main question is that Christian Palestinians have played a huge role in the struggle. How does the author reconcile that the conflict is just a religious struggle? That would be convenient and useful for Israel as the progressives will eventually see to discard Islam as there is nothing that progressives and Islam agree on except for hatred of Jews, more particularly, Israel.
Exactly, there was a brotherhood between Christians and muslims prior to 1948. I wonder why the muslims hated the Jews so much, and loved the Christians. Or maybe they only hated the newcomer European Jews?
The answer is simple, in my opinion, they considered themselves Arabs first then Christians or Muslims second hence the clear involvement of Palestinian Christian’s in Palestinian nationalism. Also 65% of Israeli’s have Sephardic roots so it is not so simple to just say they hated Ashkenazi Jews. The problem evolved over time and the winners in The Arab world have been the Islamists because they have had the most staying power in both numbers and a simplistic ideology that the masses can understand. The Christians and Jews are non-believers and therefore need to be purged from Islamic lands. You need look no further than the forced exodus of Christians from Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. There is no such thing as equal rights or for that matter any rights in these countries unless the dictator de jour grants them. That is not sustainable unless you are in the majority. Hence the forced and unforced exodus from Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. All of which have nothing (except maybe South Lebanon) to do with Israel.
The self determination that the Palestinians say they want is no different than what Jews want as expressed in Zionism. The obvious answer is a 2 state solution. The Palestinians (represented by the Arab League from roughly 1948-1968) have refused any two state compromise. They refused in 1947 partition, 1949 at end of a war they started, 1968 Khartoum conference, 2000 and 2008 offers from Barak and Olmert.
What dumbfounds me is that when the Palestinians continually say no to peace, no to two states and start intifadas and continue with terrorism that they are surprised when right wing Israeli’s push back with more settlements and pushing them out further. I do not think this is the solution but both sides bear responsibility and no one is holding the Palestinians accountable for any poor decisions or really taking Israeli security concerns seriously. Israel in 1968 offered the Arab league to return all land taken in war in 1967 for peace and recognition. In 2000 and 2008 the offers included 95% of West Bank, all of Gaza and half of Jerusalem and land swaps. See Bill Clinton’s recent comments on 2000 Wye River accords and peace talks that Palestinians refused to accept. This is why we are seeing the success of the Abraham accords and normalization with Israel, the other Arab countries have big problems in security, economy, agriculture and water resources and much of the solutions lay in cooperation with Israel. Not to mention a counter weight to Irans genocidal, maniacal mullahs.
So in your first sentence, you admit that at least initially, Arab nationalism was a stronger feeling than muslim brotherhood for the Palestinian Arabs. Did the Arab nationalists advocate for a Christian state, a muslim state or a secular one? I suspect mostly the latter, but someone should know. Perhaps had the early zionists also advocated for a secular state, things would have turned out differently? I mean for a long time Israel was effectively as secular state, arguably still so.
If you or anyone feels that Arab nationalism is the same thing as the denizen Christian’s and Muslims feeling Arab first then the religion as second identity then I would say you are accurate. The answer is probably not so straightforward as there has been much Christian Muslim strife in the MENA region well before and since the last 150 years so the answer is somewhere in between. Also, much of the narrative then and now has to be filtered through many lens’ including but not exclusively religious ones for all three religions, external and internal political pressures as well as the history of the Ottoman Empire. Finally, much has changed over the last 150 years in this region as in the world. So what was tennis certainly not what is now. And to touch on an important change, the effect of the 1979 Iranian revolution on the havoc of the region and as a destabilizing force in MENA.
In all of my reading and study of this region, including during my time as a honors history major at Cornell university with a thesis on Paris peace conference, I have never encountered any suggestion that the prevailing Arab inclination was for a secular state for all three religions. I think most historians, either Zionists or Anti-Zionist or Islamist would never concede that this was any intention of the Arabs. As an FYI, King Hussein’s father/grandfather (the original king Abdullah made overtures to the early Zionists but he was murdered by his own people)!
Israel has and does exist, as you point out, as a secular state where there are equal rights under the law for all citizens. The Nation state law withstanding. I am not sure of the purpose of the law but it certainly is problematic in the least for a secular democracy. That being said, all of the 57 Muslim countries pretty much function as theocracies so it is rich that they and their Interlocutors who want to “Free Palestine” accuse Israel of Apartheid (and I am not referring to the territories where there are separate laws) but to Israel proper. Complete fantasy to think there is equality under the law that anywhere approaches what is in Israel proper anywhere in the Muslim world.
The funny thing is that the Palestinians could have had their own state to do what they want with 5 times since 1947 and they keep saying no!
So the constant missing of opportunities to have a state may be a religious (muslim) thing. It doesn't make sense that the Christian nationalists would have said no so many times, or that they would have wanted to genocide Jews. Still, the fact that muslims accepted and even respected Christians, as long as they were arab, is to their credit.
I am not sure how much that is to their credit as Christians in Middle East are a disappearing breed. I would make the argument that Palestinian nationalism was mostly Islamic in the beginning and certainly now almost entirely. They accepted the Arab Christians because they were looking and taking any support they could get at the time. All of this was in the back drop of the fall of all empires post WW I and after WWII and the Holocaust. Very very complex issues. The partition was probably one of the best things the UN ever did. After that they have made mistake after mistake after mistake.
I think everyone was against the founding of Israel and Jewish immigration into the region for a host of reasons. The Ottomans and absentee landlords in Damascus, Beirut, Cairo and Istanbul were more than happy to sell their land at exorbitant prices to Jews whom they thought would not last. Little did they know these Jews and those that followed had nowhere else to go.
This is an extremely insightful essay. It explains why Hamas rejects the two state solution. Because both states would be secular and not Islamic, it’s a nonstarter. It also explains why Westerners still clamor for the two state solution. Because it puts Islam in a box which it doesn’t control. Based on these insights it’s the progressives who are actually the inheritors of colonialism.
Excellent history!
Excellent description of the historical roots of the current "religious" war.
Great job!
Thank you Dan Burmawi for an astute and insightful analysis of the eternal conflict between Israel and the Arabs and why they are intractable.
Thank you Dan. Quite logical actually. Most people like to over complicate things. The issue is religion, nothing else. Islam VS "the rest". "
The Bible claims to be the infallible Word of the Living God. If there is a God, and He is infinitely wise, powerful and good, why would He lie to us in His Word? The Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie. He was able to ensure that His prophets wrote down exactly what He wanted them to say, and He was also able to ensure that those words were preserved. We might not always understand them, but we can trust them. I prefer to trust the Word of God over the word of fallible, fallen man any day of the week.
Excellent article. Learned somethings. 👍
Too much repetition. But otherwise OK. I still don't understand why Islamists in Palestine before 1948 hated Jews more than Christians. Many of the nationalists were Christians and elite. Why were they not hated, but seemed to be embraced?
Well done! Every time I read about Hussein and Hitler I wonder: had they won, how long before they would have tried to exterminate the Arabs ? Is there anything I. Writing re what they really thought of Hussein. Clearly, Hitler must have been using him.