The mufti of Jerusalem calls the Muslims to kill Jews

Please dont make things up just to prove a point, you do not prefer to call Israelis Israelites. Being a respectful human, at least of them, you call them israelis.

 

Of course I have, the proof is this;

In an area widely known as Rodesia, there live and lived a goodly number of people. In this area they built towns and cities and roads, they were of many a faith.

Therefore they were all Rodesian.

or:

In an area widely known as Kos, there live and lived a goodly number of people. In this area they built towns and cities and roads, they were of many a faith.

Therefore they were all Kosian.

or:

In an area widely known as Roky Mountains, there live and lived a goodly number of people. In this area they built towns and cities and roads, they were of many a faith.

Therefore they were all the Roky Mountains people.

 

Language isn't always what seems appropriate and what seems appropriate often changes faster than language. Language evolves through usage despite attempts to control it for different purposes. The question then is how long have the Palestinians chosen to be called Palestinians?

"Appropriately" Americans should be the inhabitants of the American continents shouldn't they? Again language has evolved so that Americans refers to the minoirty of these poeple of the region, US citizens. Europeans? Aren't we all Africans then?

 

Indeed they were.

Sure why not?

Again what is the problem?

 

So... what seems approppriate is subject to rapid change according to the arbitrary whims of people would you say? Yet the exact name is still so very important would you say?

As for Palestinians, about as long as Israelis made their choice of name. Going to deny Israelis their priveledge are we?

Well calling USA citizens Americans is easier because its a shorter version isnt it?

We do indeed call Latinos both South Americans, and Brazilians, Argentines etc etc.

We would all be Africans if that was where we were at the time or if that description was somehow so very important and relevant to us.

 

Let's face it, child murder has been justified by Israelis for a long, long, time. There ain't no precedent being set by the Pals.

 

No, I wouldn’t say what seems appropriate changes according to arbitrary whim. Names can be very important yes. Take Rhodesians which you mentioned in another post, most of the people of the region would have been very indignant at being called Rhodesians as the name comes from a British colonialist master.

Well that’s very different from what you seemed to be claiming before since Israelis chose their name, through their government to be called Israelis a few weeks after declaring independence in 1948. What privilege?

Sometimes abbreviations become words because its easier but I don’t think that’s the case here, Yanks has fewer syllables, anyway shorter version of what? South Americans is not the same as Americans just as South Koreans is not the same as Koreans.

Would you say Israelis are also Palestinians and Palestinians also Levantines?

So now it’s a matter of what is important to inhabitants. Maybe its important to Palestinians and their supporters to emphasise a distinct culture in their quest for a national state and to do this by exaggerating the depth of history of the Palestinian identity?

 

So names are very important, but they change all the time right? Ok.
Rhodesian is an interesting example. Africans may have or may not have resented this name. Indeed most of them did. Then they chose one of their own.
But how long had all they all thought of themselves as Zimbabweans? 1 year? 5 year? 500 years? How long is enough? Perhaps we should check before we go approving of their decision to consider themselves Zimbabweans?

Ive never claimed the arabs have always called themselves Palestinians, Ive said they are and were Palestinians. Moreover you asked the question of how long the Palestinians have been calling themselves Palestinians. Ive said about as long as the Israelis.
So let me correct, it’s at least as long as the Israelis perhaps longer. I know this because Arabs were setting up political parties that made reference to Palestine and Palestinians some years before 1948. For example the Palestinian National Independence league and others.
The privilege of choosing your own name and being known as that.

A shorter version of United States of America’ners or something like that. Yanks was resented by Americans so Im not sure that never really was going to get much traction.

Well yes, Israel lies within the original Palestine so they are also Palestinians. Not that that would implicate that Israelis don’t exist. If the term Levantine was supported it would have worth.

Indeed now you’re getting it.

It’s important for them to make a distinction and that that should be respected in the exact same way Israelis emphasise a distinct culture in their quest for a national state and do this by exaggerating the depth of history of the Israeli identity.

 

Check my posting history, I have always called them Israelites or them Jews..

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and you spouting off hot air as if there were doesn't change the facts.

 

Your posting history is irrelevant anyway.

They call themselves Israelis, not Israelites. Therefore by your own argument, Israelites dont exist. Indeed since the term israelis only came in the 20th century by your own argument theor existence as a people is undermined.

 

Why is that bull?

Israelis have always blamed the shooting of palestinian kids on their throwing of rocks, or on the parents that let them out the house.

Or they blame parents for letting them be passers by when they decide to assassinate someone in Gaza or the West Bank.

Cant see where the hot air is there.

 

No, I repeat, names can be very important and they can change frequently but far from always. No , Rhodesians didn’t just choose a more preferable name, they establish a new national state. I think most Zimbabweans, indeed most Africans identify themselves primarily by their tribe not by their national state. Its not a question of how long is long enough but of many factors which lead to the establishment or break up of a national state. I doubt very much that the citizens of the new state of South Sudan identify themselves through a distinct south Sudanese culture in common with all South Sudanese. The Kurds have a distinct Kurdish culture but no national state.

The issue is the state of any Palestinian identity at the time of the foundation of the new state of Israel which was founded on the cultural identity of Jews. If the Palestinians had been calling themselves such for a long period then this would lend credibility to the existence of a distinct Palestinian cultural identity. Making reference to Palestine does not equate to a cultural identity. The Jews who founded Israel could equally have chosen to call their new state for Palestine and themselves as Palestinians couldn’t they? What would the Arabs then have chosen to call the Palestinian National league? How do we know that the Arabs didn’t choose a new national identity as a tactic in their struggle for control of the region in the face of the formation of a Jewish state? How do we know this wasn’t simply reasoned to be a better position than for example claiming to be Jordanians, Syrians or Egyptians?

I don’t know whether such a privilege really exists. I don’t believe Americans chose to be called so. Language is seldom a matter of a conscious choice. If foreigners thought Yanks sounded better or communicated the best impression of what they wanted to communicate then that would have gained traction irrespective of what Americans might have wanted.

No, but it lends credence to the possibility of Israel having been named Palestine and its citizens Palestinians. It’s the cultural identity as witnessed by a name that exists or not.

 

Right so Zimbabweans think along tribal lines but they are still zimbabweans?

On basis are they then by your argument?

Indeed the israelis could have called themselves palestinians, but they wanted to assert a distinct jewish identity because most of them had no history in palestine.
The arabs chose 'palestinian' for their political parties some years before the creation of the state of israel when they were busy demanding independence from the British. What more thus would you want?

It was better than being Jordanians because King Husseini wasnt even in the area, he was travelling around trying to get a deal where he could have trans jordan as his own little kingdom.

Would it have gained traction? Why isnt what the americans want to be called more important?

In fact it was really about Israelis wanting to create a separate and new identity, the palestinians had already lived as the arabs of palestine for some time and wanted to be called such.