21

What was Palestine before, if not a country? Could you give me some history on this?

Also, the recent recognition of Palestine as a country in the UN could have far reaching implications. Are there other examples of similar situations where the UN has provided recognition in a volatile region?

EDIT: After reading the following answers, it seems that any answer to the question "what was Palestine before" necessarily includes information about who (for some of you who means which religion or which race) lived in the region at what times. While it is completely fine to provide facts such as X lived in the region R during time T or Y kicked X out in so and so date, it is not okay to make judgements about who belonged there and who was right or wrong. If you want to take this route, I would suggest doing it on another thread. The question here is not to discuss Israel-Palestine conflict. The question simply asks what was Palestine before.

MCW
  • 33,640
  • 12
  • 105
  • 158
Cantor
  • 352
  • 2
  • 7
  • Excellent question. Awaiting replies from experts on mid-east here before posting my own. I expect many replies here. – Apoorv Nov 30 '12 at 12:21
  • 14
    IMO excellent topic, but not an excellent question. @Cantor should make it obvious that he did his own research before reaching out to this community: after all, there is a lot of related news coverage these days, etc. – Drux Nov 30 '12 at 13:51
  • 1
    I'll try. Its really tough to do both fairly and succinctly. – T.E.D. Nov 30 '12 at 14:37
  • 1
    Originally a protectorate under the British after World War 2, but under Israel the West Bank and Gaza shifted quite a bit. Still I agree with Drux, what have you looked at on this or discovered on your own? – MichaelF Nov 30 '12 at 14:58

8 Answers8

25

During the last one hundred fifty years or so, the concept of Zionism, or Jews running their own state in their historical biblical territory, become prominent. Theoretically such a state would be free from the periodic persecutions Jews have suffered since the diaspora while living as minorities in other people's countries. This resulted in a large number of Jews emigrating to what was the British territory of Palestine in the early 20th century. The persecutions of the era in Europe and Russia were particularly effective in driving this.

The problem of course was that Palestine already had (mostly Muslim) residents. This created a huge bloody mess, culminating in a civil war, which the Jewish militia won, and then a regional war, which the new Jewish armed forces won.

During this whole mess, those who weren't fighting and could get out of Palestine did so (war zones aren't particularly fun for civilians). After the war the victorious Jews allowed Jewish refugees to come back to their homes, but for the most part refused the same courtesy to Muslim Palestinian refugees. Most of them either resettled in the left over bits of former-Palestine that the new country of Israel wasn't claiming, or went into exile in other countries. Many of their descendants are citizens of no country in the world even today (makes passports a problem, no?)

The "leftover bits" of Palestine were mostly claimed by their neighboring Arab countries. However, in the ensuing wars, those same neighboring Arab countries lost all those territories (and often some of their own), so the rest of what used to be Palestine has mostly over the years been stateless areas off-and-on under the domination of the Israeli military.

enter image description here

A couple of those bits, namely what is now called "the west bank of the Jordan", and "The Gaza Strip", many people would like to use to create a new country for Palestinian Arabs. The problem here is that a lot of Jews feel that they won those territories in war fair and square, not to mention the fact that God gave that land to them in the Torah. I don't think its a majority that feel that way, but its an extremely troublesome minority that like to back up their feeling by building Jewish settlements on the land. So what the border between Israel and this purported Palestinian state would be is unknown right now, and would probably require either a treaty or a war to sort out (and Jewish claims keep changing thanks to new settlements).

The Palestinians have been trying hard to build themselves a state in those territories. One big problem there is that Gaza and the west bank aren't physically connected, and after a disputed election now have two competing governments. The government of Gaza, Hamas, doubles as a terrorist organization. The government of the west bank keeps getting its authority undercut by those settlements on what it considers its land, and its inability to negotiate anything with Israel.

So if Palestine is a state, its a state with completely undefined borders, two different competing governments, and without ultimate authority (aka: a monopoly on the use of force) in whatever territory it does possess.

Basically, Palestine isn't a state so much as a bloody mess.

T.E.D.
  • 118,977
  • 15
  • 300
  • 471
  • Thank you for the answer. So basically Palestine referred to a region with mostly muslim inhabitants who had various rulers but did not have a structure that we call a "country" now a days (whatever that meant at the time). Then another group of people looking for a place to stay and be safe started buying lands in that region (fair and square), but after gaining enough land and power they decided to have their own country. Through wars, they succeeded in making the state of Israel and had it recognized (except by arabs) in 1948. What has occurred since then seems natural. – Cantor Nov 30 '12 at 16:55
  • If I understand correctly, when Israel was recognized as a state, the remaining territories were not recognized as the state of Palestine, so Israel started taking those territories as well. Why did it take so long for some of the remaining territory to be recognized as a country (of Palestine)? – Cantor Nov 30 '12 at 17:00
  • 4
    Two clarifications. First, there was in fact, before all this started, a British territory there named "Palestine". However, that entity ceased to exist in the 40's. Second, Israel didn't just "take" them for fun. From the Israeli point of view, all but one of the Arab/Israeli wars were in fact initiated by the Arab states (although definitively stating who "started" anything in this morass is asking for trouble). – T.E.D. Nov 30 '12 at 17:28
  • Regarding your first clarification: The Palestine territory was controlled by various governments, the British being one of them. Above I didn't make any assumption about who ruled the region, just about its inhabitants. I find your second clarification rather irrelevant to the discussion. – Cantor Nov 30 '12 at 17:52
  • 2
    @Cantor - you seem to be missing that this "another group of people" had a country in that area for thousands of years prior. Arabs (who mostly got there after Islam invasions of 700s) were the squatters, not Israelis – DVK Nov 30 '12 at 18:30
  • 18
    @T.E.D. - sorry but this is woefully incomplete (and the incompleteness makes it biased, though perhaps not intentionally). For example, "settlements". Hebron is always referred to as "Settlement", despite the fact that it was an uninterrupted Jewish city till 1900s when Jews were driven out by Arab pogroms. So why isn't Hebron considered a territory occupied by Arabs, and there are calls for them to both get out, AND let all the Jewish refugies back in? – DVK Nov 30 '12 at 18:36
  • 2
    @DVK - That's part of what's so sad about all this. It's pretty much impossible to be totally "fair", because there are so many details to everything that has happened, and there's no way to cover it all in a form short enough to keep it out of TL;DR land. – T.E.D. Nov 30 '12 at 18:57
  • 7
    As a quick and rough summary this isn't half bad. What got left out is the terrorist history of the PLO, the organization which became the ruling power of the West Bank. Another important point that was stated wrongly: there were no Jewish refugees from the 1948 war. Only the Arabs left. But what did happen, is that the Arab states forcibly expelled their Jewish populations (which had been living their as long as the Arabs in Palestine, and much longer in some cases) - and they were absorbed by Israel. – Felix Goldberg Dec 01 '12 at 21:13
  • The claim "The government of the west bank keeps getting its authority undercut by those settlements" is false. The west bank is divided to area A, B and C. The government of the west bank controls only areas A and B, and all settlements are built on area C (which is most of the land). – the L Dec 02 '12 at 09:42
  • 1
    "other people's countries" is a modern concept. nationalism was invented in 19th century. – Genli Ai Feb 17 '18 at 01:26
  • 2
    How can this be the answer of what Palestine was before the creation of the Israeli state if it only goes so far back as British administration? Not even reference to the Ottomans? Answer is incomplete. –  Jun 12 '19 at 15:44
  • 2
    @inappropriateCode - It also doesn't go back to Roman times, or the Greek or Persian Empires in its measly 8 paragraphs. Its answering only what it was immediately before the existence of the state of Israel, which seems to be the question asked. If you think that's an omission, feel free to instead upvote another answer. There are some worthy ones here. – T.E.D. Jun 12 '19 at 15:48
  • @T.E.D. I just don't understand how you can say this is an answer, or that it got the tick, when you spend the vast majority of the text explaining what happened AFTER the creation of the Israeli state when the question is what came BEFORE the concept of Palestinian nationalism came to be? I'm just confused is all. –  Jun 12 '19 at 16:28
  • 3
    @inappropriateCode - Answer says what it was before, then goes on to explain how it got from there to where it is now. Seems straightforward. As for the tick, in absence of further info from the question author, the logical assumption would have to be that they felt their question was adequately answered. – T.E.D. Jun 12 '19 at 16:31
  • This answer is woefully inaccurate and one-sided. It's like reporting an accident "vehicle A hit vehicle B" without mentioning that vehicle A was crossing on the green and vehicle B ran the red light. – Michael Mar 26 '24 at 15:49
20

It's hard to answer this ("What was Palestine before, if not a country") in a format that's not encyclopaedic, but I'll try some snippets:

  1. No there was never a country/nation called a "Palestine".

  2. More specifically about the name: it was a name given by Roman Empire to the territory they occupied and conquered from the Israel in the first century AD (the name taken from an ancient tribe of Philistines who lived in the area (5 cities) and were one of the main enemies of Ancient Israelis), though the term was also used earlier by other invading powers (Greeks, Assyrians).

    Just to clarify, Philistines were - according to the best archaeological and historical information - NOT in any way, shape or form related to modern Arab Islamic residents of the area. Their language was Indo-European and not Semitic.

    The term was first used to denote an official province in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), which some scholars state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea (Wikipedia)

  3. Ever since the desruction of the Kingdom of Israel by the Roman Empire, there was never a sovereign state in the area till 1948. The area was always under control of some outside power, to whit: Romans, Byzantines, the Sunni Arab Caliphates, the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans, the British. I won't bother with the dates which Wikipedia can easily provide you.

  4. As best as I can tell, the ancestors of modern Arab Palestinians only arrived in the area in 636 AD and on, as part of Islamic conquest of the area. Note that the area was still populated by Jews at the time, though there was no Jewish state.

  5. To be crystal clear, the reason Israel now occupies the territories commonly referred to as "Gaza" and "West Bank", is because they have been conquered as a result of a war started by OTHER countries (see below for that).


Now, as for your second question: "Are there other examples of similar situations where the UN has provided recognition in a volatile region?"

  • No, the UN has never provided a recognition to an area of a nation which wished to secede without agreement.

    For example, Kurdistani areas in Turkey, Iran and Iraq; Basques in Spain; Chechens in Russia; Abkhazia in Georgia etc. For that matter, as far as I know even Kosovo isn't recognized as a state by UN. Neither is Taiwan.

  • Moreover, I am hard-pressed to find a single example of a country being forced by the UN to give back the territory it had conquered in a war that was started by their opponents (which is exactly what happened with West Bank and Gaza). USSR/Russia holds German (Koenisberg) and Japanese (4 islands) territory they took as a result of WW2.

    Hell, many countries invaded and stole land as a result of offensive war and UN never bothered to object (Tibet by China, as an example).

    For that matter, nobody at the UN was calling West Bank and Gaza "occupied territories" and calling for their statehood between 1948 and 1967 when they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively.


To cover another aspect that TED's answer touched on: the term "settlements" everyone uses. One of the example of these so-called "Settlements" is Hebron.

  • Hebron was a Jewish city. As a matter of fact it was one of the first and among the most important cities in Israel due to its biblical roots.

  • Past Roman destruction around 135AD, the city was destroyed, and Jews were not permitted to reside there under Byzantine Empire

  • After Islamic conquests, Jews returned back to the city. Ever since then, Jews held a continuous presence there until 1929 Hebron massacre forced most of them to flee and 1936 when British kicked all those who were left out.

So... according to UN and everyone else, Jews building houses in a city that they lived in for several thousand years with minor breaks is a greater threat for peace than ... I don't know, teaching every schoolchild in the territories that killing Jews is a Good Thing.

DVK
  • 17,695
  • 7
  • 77
  • 144
  • 14
    I'd encourage dropping (or rephrasing?) point 4. If 1,400 years of living somewhere isn't a good claim, then almost nobody in the Western Hemisphere or Australia should be living where they are, the Turks don't belong in Turkey, the English don't belong in England, no slavs belong in the Balkans, the Hungarians don't belong in Hungary, etc. I do love history, but at some point you have to give up on it and deal with the situation as it exists today. – T.E.D. Nov 30 '12 at 19:20
  • 4
    @T.E.D. - the point of point 4 is twofold, neither of which is what you refer to. One is to dispute the "Palestinians are descendants of Philistines", the other is that Jews lived there longer, so you either accept the status quo, OR go with the oldest configuration, but you can't pick some random cutoff date (e.g. 1800) to decide on today's ownership. – DVK Nov 30 '12 at 19:44
  • @T.E.D. I've come across point 4 in dealing with other historical claims of who rules where, and for how long, its a question I have yet to find an answer for. Mostly its either you take the claims and have no way to then go back and determine who the actual people were who owned the land, or accept the current situation. In either situation there are losers and someone is always unhappy. – MichaelF Nov 30 '12 at 20:52
  • 2
    @DVK As for why West Point and Gaza are considered occupied territories now, I think it is fair to say that a people may be considered to be occupied when they do not enjoy as a group the rights of other citizens. Maybe this is the reason the UN considers these territories to be occupied only when they came under Israel. Any ideas? – Arani Nov 30 '12 at 21:15
  • 2
    @user571376 - do they consider Tibet occupied? And did they enjoy those rights under Jordan and Egypt? – DVK Nov 30 '12 at 22:43
  • 1
    Let's all settle in Ethiopia? – Apoorv Dec 01 '12 at 03:52
  • 1
    @DVK I am not sure, but this is what Wikipedia says: "Jordan formally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949." As for Tibet, its citizens seem to enjoy all rights as the rest of the Chinese. – Arani Dec 01 '12 at 06:28
  • 1
    I think that your answer goes adrift in covering matters that are off-topic in terms of the OP's question. If you'd like to rebut some of the points @T.E.D. has made in his answer, then please add them as comments or take it to chat. – coleopterist Dec 01 '12 at 09:40
  • @T.E.D., please see my edit of the question. – Cantor Dec 01 '12 at 11:39
  • @DVK, please see my edit of the question. – Cantor Dec 01 '12 at 11:39
  • @coleopterist - I rolled them back since you didn't provide a single fact contradicting any of the facts (not opinions) that I provided there which you wanted to delete. If you provide proof that any of them are wrong i'll gladly delete them (especially where UN portion is concerned) – DVK Dec 01 '12 at 12:53
  • 2
    @DVK What I'm trying to point out is that the facts that I removed were not germane to the discussion. You're needlessly bring Israel into your answer when the question is about Palestine. You're also commenting on TED's answer as well as voicing your opinions in what sounds like a heated manner. -1 from me. – coleopterist Dec 01 '12 at 15:22
  • 1
    Israel is different on 2 reasons. It kicks populations out. Also while the Arab land is far bigger than Israel land, the splitting is done in such a way that people think Israel grab the whole land leaving this poor palestine suffer. It's misleading, but that's what people think. The 6 days war are started by Israel by the way. – user4951 Jan 02 '13 at 06:21
  • 1
    Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad or Tibet is an exception rather than the norm. Most of the territories occupied by the USSR during the WW2 are now independent from the USSR (e.g. Poland, East Germany, Baltic states). In the west, for example France, Austria or Western Germany wasn't annexed by the UK or the US. Honestly I think the USSR and China got away with all those because they have veto powers rather than because the international community approved them. – Louis Rhys Apr 17 '14 at 04:15
  • 2
    @LouisRhys - Nobody criticizing Israel ever criticized Russia for keeping troops in East Germany. And almost nobody criticizing Israel criticized China for Tibet and certainly not to the point of advocating for boycoytts of China (I can probably find a tiny principled subset that does both). – DVK Apr 17 '14 at 11:19
  • 2
    @DVK: So according to you Arabs completely overrun the area displacing any older Semitic population? Because, speaking Arabic doesn't mean you're biologically or ethnically an Arab. Second, what proof do you have that the Philistines were Indo-European? There is absolutely not enough evidence to support that and theories like Bonfantes "Origins of the Philistinoi" are in the best case laughable. There were a number of Semitic (Semitic is so to say people who speak a semitic language like Arabic, Aramaic etc not just Jews) groups in the area and I doubt they were exterminated. – Midas Jul 15 '14 at 06:50
  • 2
    @Midas - They were not Indo-European as proven (there's too much vagueness). But their language was more Indo-European in origin than Semitic. They clearly were NOT Semitic and thus not Arab. And yes, that far back there were no Arabic-speaking non-Arabs. That's a recent post-Islam-expansion situation since Arabic was spoken by expansionist dominant culture (similar to English in a much later time). – DVK Jul 17 '14 at 10:59
  • @DVK - More this or more that. The language could be whatever, it doesn't really matter as they were not wiped out by Arabs. Besides, Philistines and Israelites are just two out of many populations of that region that were by time assimilated. Yes, you do have extermination of certain tribes in the bronze and iron age, but apart from that we do not have any historical account that Arabs wiped out everyone (thus commiting a genocide). Even if we had, we should be skeptical as Palestinians share genetic similarities with other Levantine populations. – Midas Jul 17 '14 at 12:34
  • 1
    @Midas - of course they share genetic similarities. They lived in the area for centuries and interbred. The point is, Arabs - who migrated in during Islamic expansion after 600AD - have nothing to do with Philistines, and thus there never WAS a "Palestine" Arab country. Everything else if irrelevant. – DVK Jul 17 '14 at 14:23
  • @DVK: So basically just because they got Arabized, it means they have no rights and should get out of there? Remember that armies are always much smaller in numbers than the native populations. Look at Egypt, which is an "Arab" republic, yet the population is native Egyptian. The same happened with the Hittites, they were "Nesilized" Hattians. The examples are many and I can give you more. The people who you try to portray as Arabs, are actually native Levantine populations that got Arabized, just like many others in the area. – Midas Jul 18 '14 at 06:27
  • 1
    @Midas - I think most Egyptians would dispute your notion that they aren't Arabs :) Palestinians are genetically Arab more than anything else. – DVK Jul 18 '14 at 19:28
  • @DVK: Well just because you say so it doesn't mean it is so. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml . Just compare Palestinians with Jews and you will see they have both ancestry from the Arabian peninsula. Not that they are more that than anything as you claim, but it is clearly you can't exclude any of them. Besides, all Semitic populations have ancestry from the Arabian peninsula, that predates the medieval Arab expansion. Also, they have both strong ancestry from both north Africa and the fertile crescent. – Midas Jul 18 '14 at 22:34
  • @DVK: About Egyptians you obviously never knew any personally. Some quick googling is also good before making bold statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt – Midas Jul 18 '14 at 22:41
  • 1
    it is a simple fact that Arabian peninsula was where South Arabian languages were spoken. But Western, North and East Semitic languages (and peoples), like Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Assyrian, Akkadian, are certainly not Arabic nor originated from Arabian peninsula, so what is said in Midas's comment is massively wrong. Also, all those separate peoples go way more back in history than Arabs, like, millennia more. -- So, this answer is the one that gets it right, not the other ones. – Genli Ai Nov 01 '16 at 08:12
  • 1
    *"As best as I can tell, the ancestors of modern Arab Palestinians only arrived in the area in 636 AD and on, as part of Islamic conquest of the area. Note that the area was still populated by Jews at the time,..."* Upon that basis, every Briton who traces their ancestry back to the Norman Conquest of 1066 should return to France, and give England, at least, back to the Anglo-Saxons! – TheHonRose Jun 09 '19 at 00:42
  • 1
    More than that. If you want to do this by ancestry, just about everything in Israel north of the northern outskirts of Jerusalem was historically Samaritan rather than Jewish. The Samaritans were one of the peoples whom the Arab conquerors almost entirely converted to Islam over the centuries. So if you want to use ancestry and ancestral lands to determine right, the "Palestinians" clearly have a much better claim to the northern half of Israel than the Jews have, as the vast majority of the Samaritans' descendants are "Palestinians". – C Monsour Jun 09 '19 at 01:08
  • @TheHonRose - Faulty Anology. Britons and Anglo-Saxons are NOT actively conflicting over ownership of Britain, last I checked. However, if they were - then yes, Anglo-Saxons would have a better claim to the land than Norman descendants, and in turn Celts, a better claim than Anglo-Saxons (and unless I misremember my post-Roman history, Angles have aclaim over Saxons). – DVK Jun 09 '19 at 18:42
  • @CMonsour - If you bother looking at even the most basic source (Wikipedia) you may notice that "Samaritans" were ethnically Jewish, and ancestrally - both ethnically and via DNA studies descend from ancient Israelis. So... (1) no, "Samaritan rather than Jewish" is an oxymoron, Samaritans are and were Jewish; and (2) "Palestinians" - who are Arabs both ethnically and DNA wise, have very little to do with them and thus can't claim the territory due to some Samaritans having been converted to Islam (minor amount around Nablus). – DVK Jun 09 '19 at 18:46
  • @CMonsour ... let's not forget that the only reason Nablus Samaritans converted to Islam was Islamic persecution, for context. – DVK Jun 09 '19 at 18:46
  • @DVK On your reasoning, we should all go back to Africa! – TheHonRose Jun 09 '19 at 19:25
  • @DVK Let's grant that they converted due to persecution. Being persecuted doesn't seem like a reason you should lose your home. – C Monsour Jun 09 '19 at 21:50
  • @DVK You seem to have fundamental misconception of how the Muslim conquests worked. They didn't drive the local population away, especially not people of the book, including Samaritans. Populations converted over the centuries in situ. For example, in North Africa, Berbers didn't become Arabs genetically by converting to Islam. They did start speaking Arabic. Language is not race. – C Monsour Jun 09 '19 at 21:56
  • @DVK Also, you should take a look at Wikipedia yourself, specifically the article on the Northern Kingdom of Israel (i.e., Samaria), which nicely shows its border with Judea. – C Monsour Jun 09 '19 at 21:58
  • @CMonsour - Right. Notice "Israel" in its name. Just because they split off as a separate political unit, they were still Israel and Jews. – DVK Jun 09 '19 at 22:38
  • @DVK You seem impervious to the fact we called the descendants of those Jews Samaritans, that Jews 2000 years ago did not consider Samaritans to be Jews, and that most of their descendants are Muslim. But, ignoring the Samaritan phase in the middle, the question here is whether it's valid to distribute land on a confessional basis, i.e, to say that descendants of ancient Jews who still profess Judaism are entitled to land that other descendants of ancient Jews who profess other religions are not. – C Monsour Jun 11 '19 at 00:43
  • 1
    "the ancestors of modern Arab Palestinians only arrived in the area in 636 AD" Unless there are some recent demographic studies I am not aware of, this is a misconception. Arabs where numerically much lower than the population of the territories they conquered. Most of pre-islamic population of the area ("originally" Hebrew, Greek, Aramean, Assyrian, Roman, Philistine...) stayed on place and demographically absorbed the new arrivals. Religion-wise, many families switched from and to Judaism, Manicheism, Christianism, Islam, etc., several times during the following centuries... – Evargalo Jan 04 '23 at 10:08
  • related: https://history.stackexchange.com/a/36266/26252 – Evargalo Jan 05 '23 at 09:29
12

Actually the problem is that somebody with a contrived mind in 1947 decided that instead of creating one state of Israel, there should be two new states: one for Jews and another for Arabs.

This plan did not account for the fact that there were already 21 Arab states of which 2 bordered the territory of the "Palestinian Arab state" that was to be created.

Another problem was that the territory reserved for the new Arab state was divided into two parts, enclaves which could communicate with each other only via Israel territory.

The third problem was that this new Arab state to be created had no natural resources, fresh water, arable land so to supply itself.

A peaceful solution could have been, instead of creating one more Arab state, just annex the West Bank to Jordan and the Gaza strip to Egypt. This would have benefited the Arab population in those areas because they would live in successful states which have all necessary for popular prosperity. It seems that those Arab countries did not object to this idea initially.

Yet the UN voted for this defective "two new states" solution. It seems that those behind this plan intentionally did not want a prolonged peace in the region.

The dead-born design of the adopted resolution brought numerous misfortunes to both Israeli and Palestinian people.

  • According the solution Jerusalem should be placed under UN administration, even though it is populated by the Jews and a religious center of Judaism and historical capitol of Judea from the times of Roman empire. Uncertain status of Jerusalem makes the conflict between Jews and Arabs eternal and irresolvable (they even formally cannot negotiate over Jerusalem, for example, divide it somehow) until a newer, better UN resolution is passed.

  • Israel suffers from much of terrorism but cannot close the border of the Arab autonomy because the two enclaves have no other connection than through Israel territory. International pressure insists on the border to be open.

  • Palestine has no natural resources and in all their supplies, including electricity and fresh water depends on Israel. Most Palestinians also work in Israel because the Autonomy cannot provide enough jobs.

  • Palestinians deprived of the right to live in a healthy and prosperous Arab state like Egypt and Jordan and instead destined to be confined on a 5-cent area territory that hardly can include and supply all the population, which by the way, grows very fast. They have neither normal citizenship, nor jobs and directed by the "international community" into fight with Israel as the only possible pastime.

  • The geographical disjunction of the Gaza and the West bank led to the inevitable consequence: the power in those respective enclaves was seized by different and hostile to each other parties: Hamas and Fatah. There is no possibility for each of them to restore the autonomy’s political unity.

If Gaza was initially assigned to Egypt, it would be a successful and prosperous resort, and we would spend our vacations there just like we do in Hurgada and Sharm el-Sheikh.

Anixx
  • 32,728
  • 13
  • 90
  • 183
  • 9
    There are IHMO some historical problems with this answer. For instance, the UN initially OK'ed Jordan to annex the west bank (and it did so for 20 years). The problem was that it then lost it again in a war (that by most accounts it started) with Israel. To make things worse Jordan doesn't want it back now, and Israel doesn't really want to annex it either, as it is full of non-Jews. – T.E.D. Nov 30 '12 at 19:39
  • 2
    @T.E.D. Can you point to a source that the UN approved annexation of the West Bank? Regarding modern Jordan it is the US that made it explicit that Jordan and Egypt should not annex the territories. As US allies they follow the Washington line. – Anixx Nov 30 '12 at 19:49
  • 4
    Actually, now that I look at it again, you're right. I was thinking of the Peel Commision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission), but conflating it with the 1947 UN partition plan, which was another two-state solution. However, it looks like the Brits (who were helping run Jordan's military) essentially saw their Peel Commission idea carried out anyway. The UN never really approved that (even the US barely did). Dang, this is convoluted... – T.E.D. Nov 30 '12 at 20:40
  • This answer is "not even wrong." First of all, the 1947 partition plan (map at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg) shows three major parts of the proposed Arab state, and not "enclaves which could communicate with each other only via Israel territory" but touching one another - with the proposed Jewish territories exactly the same. Then, "no natural resources, fresh water, arable land so to supply itself"? They would have had most of the length of the Jordan River, and large agricultural areas in the north and the center. – Meir Mar 25 '24 at 18:10
6

150 years ago, Palestine was a dominion of the Ottoman Empire who basically didn't demand much from her subjects and was mostly incompetent. Of those who became known as the Palestinians, there were a few wealthy clans (Husseni, Nashishbi, pardon my spelling) who lived in cities and owned a lot of land and a lot of peasants who worked on the land. There were also some middle class merchants, craftsmen and peasants who owned land. Arabs were either Moslem or Christian. There were also Jews who tended to be in the middle class and some very wealthy Jews in Syria, Egypt, and Iraq.

Various groups of Europeans also settled in Palestine and there was a lot of German investment to build a railroad from Cairo to Constantinople. Nationalism, of which Zionism is a form, was also really popular at the time so many European Jews came and settled on lands purchased by large benefactors such as the Montefiores and the Rothchilds. Jewish charities also collected money from small people and used it to buy land, from the wealthy landowners. When Jews bought land, they wanted Jewish immigrants to work on it so they often fired their Arab peasant laborers and hired Jewish laborers.

In 1947 something called the Arab Higher Council formed in an attempt to prevent the Jews from forming a state in the manner of the UN partition which they opposed. Had they been successful, the Arab Higher Council would have formed a state, but disunity among the wealthy Arab clans and the loss of some of their charismatic leaders in battle caused them to fall apart. In 1948, Jordan and Egypt took over what the Jews did not get. The original 1964 PLO charter affirms that they did not consider the Jordanians to be occupiers.

Clint Eastwood
  • 2,823
  • 1
  • 20
  • 27
5

The other answers are too complicated.

Prior to 1947, the area we now call Palestine was a British colony.

However, because the British Empire was a little tricky and played games with legalism, they called it a mandate. What is a mandate you ask? If you look in a dictionary, it says:

an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory

Note above is says "other conquered territory". The British were able to strip this land from the Ottoman Empire. For a broad overview of how this happened, see the movie Lawrence of Arabia. While not very accurate, it gives a general idea of how things went.

Wikipedia has a nice article about the legalistic games of the mandate. In a nutshell,

The British achieved legitimacy for their continued control by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922 from here.

Astor Florida
  • 7,477
  • 2
  • 39
  • 72
4

Palestine was provisionally recognised as a Nation by the League of Nations in the Mandate process (all class A mandates were "provisional" states). Though what this means is pretty debatable, doubly so with the Palestinian Mandate with the insertion of the Balfour Declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate "The first group, or Class A mandates, were territories formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

pugsville
  • 2,156
  • 17
  • 14
2

It should be noted that the name, "Palestine" comes into historical existence around the 130's AD/CE. It was the Roman Emperor Hadrian who renamed the land of Israel to Palestine-(or "Philistia"...from the Greek translation).

There was a second Jewish Revolt against Rome that proved to be unsuccessful. The Jews were expelled from Israel and the Diaspora period began-(lasting nearly 2000 years). Shortly after the expulsion, Hadrian removed the name, Israel-(which was comprised of the Judean, Samarian, Canaanite and Galilean regions) and created a new name....Palestine.

From the time of Hadrian, until the arrival of the Arabian Muslims-(about a 500 year period), Palestine was primarily populated by Romans and Greeks....(more specifically, Byzantines). From the time of Constantine, until the arrival of the Arabian Muslims, Palestine was primarily, a Byzantine, Eastern rite Christian land, governed by the Emperor based in Constantinople. However, around the mid 600's AD/ CE, the Arabian Muslims arrived in Palestine and defeated the Byzantine Christians, thereby assuming political control. But, the political control assumed by the Arabian Muslims eventually came under the Syrian Arab Umayyad Caliphate based in Damascus-(I don't remember how long the Umayyads ruled Palestine). Papal led Crusaders arrived in Palestine during the Late Middle Ages and had warrish power struggles with the Arab Muslims over a period of centuries. By the late Middle Ages/Early Modern period, (again, I don't have the exact date), the Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine and had occupied it for well over 400 years. By the early 1900's, the British assumed control over Palestine, until 1948. Beginning in 1948, the state of Israel was born-(or historically speaking....reborn).

Admittedly, I am not a Middle Eastern Historian and my exact memory of the history of Palestine is perhaps a bit incomplete and a bit unrefined. Nevertheless, it should be known that the name, Palestine, has existed for nearly 2000 years and the Arab presence in Palestine existed for approximately 1300 years.

But, it should also be known that there was a small Jewish population who never left the Israel-Palestine region during the above mentioned Diaspora years. The Jewish-Samarian population, while very small in numbers, still maintained a consecutive historical presence in Palestine during 1800 plus years of Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Crusader, Ottoman and British imperial occupation. This is a historical fact that tends to be largely overlooked.

Alex
  • 319
  • 1
  • 4
0

Given the dispute of Palestine as a polity, or a geographical concept, it may be of interest to you that a term cognate with Palestine was used from a very early age:

Modern archaeology has identified 12 ancient inscriptions from Egyptian and Assyrian records recording likely cognates of Hebrew Pelesheth. The term "Peleset" (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in five inscriptions referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c. 1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt. The first known mention is at the temple at Medinet Habu which refers to the Peleset among those who fought with Egypt in Ramesses III's reign, and the last known is 300 years later on Padiiset's Statue. Seven known Assyrian inscriptions refer to the region of "Palashtu" or "Pilistu", beginning with Adad-nirari III in the Nimrud Slab in c. 800 BCE through to a treaty made by Esarhaddon more than a century later. Neither the Egyptian nor the Assyrian sources provided clear regional boundaries for the term.

(The extract is from the wikipedia entry on Palestine).

edit

Before Mandatory Palestine under British stewardship, Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire for around 400 years.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 2,710
  • 19
  • 33
  • 4
    What your answer fails to mention is that this is purely a geographical concept - the Philistines who lived there and provided the name had absolutely nothing in common whatsoever with Arabs/Moslems who call themselves "Palestinians"; either linguistically or ethnically. Modern day Palestinians are just descendants of Arab invaders who started to settle there after 600AD (couple of thousand years after Jews lived there) as part of Islam's expansion. In other words, the fact that the term "Palestine" is old has absolutely zero relationship to modern day Arab-Israeli issues. – DVK Jun 09 '19 at 18:10
  • 1
    @DVK: That doesn't make sense; plenty of countries use terms involving 'land' for example England; there is no purely geographical terms. Only the term land - used abstractly can mean land; but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking of a dictionary meaning of land. – Mozibur Ullah Mar 24 '20 at 09:43