"If not for Oslo, there would have been no resistance."

Perhaps if there were no occupation of Palestinian land, there would be no resistance.

Big Lies (pdf)

Using information from the above link and a couple of other sources, the following concerns the so-called "Palestinians" (the MSM's, the Left's and sundry Arab/Muslim's "Palestinians" are more simply Arab refugees, not a nation, as will be emphasized below), together with tie-ins to the history of Lebanon as well:

The Arab refugees in question ("Palestinians") have in point of historical fact been used as pawns to serve a broader strategy. In the words of senior Fatah central committee member Sakher Habash, "To us, the refugee issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state." Or, as UNRWA director Ralph Galloway put it, "… the Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die. The only thing that has changed since [1949] is the number of Palestinians cooped up in these prison camps."

Additionally, most of the refugees which resulted from the creation of Israel became so as a result of their own choosing. "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949. Also, "The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit… It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." London Economist October 2, 1948. Further still, "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem." Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph September 6, 1948.

All this forms a prominent part of the backdrop for the incubated refugee problem commonly referred to as "Palestinians". (And as there were Arab refugees resulting from the creation of Israel, so there were Jewish refugees resulting from expulsions of Jews from Arab/Muslim lands in similar numbers.) True in Gaza - where these refugees were forced into a perpetual non-citizenship status by Egypt, which also kept these refugees under guard and subject to being shot if they attempted to leave Gaza - and true as well in southern Lebanon where they were similarly barred from citizenship and subject to other restrictive laws.

Too, Arafat had established a stronghold in Beirut and southern Lebanon during the early to mid-70s which served to destabilize the balance of power in Lebanon between Druze, Christian, Shiite and Sunni, a balance of power which had worked with notable success for more than thirty years. Additionally this refugee situation in the hands of Arafat served as a terrorist base, to launch attacks into northern Israel, for example an assault on a school in Maalot wherein twenty-one children were murdered and more than sixty were injured, or an assault on a school bus in Avivim where nine children were murdered and several more than that injured. This too forms a prominent aspect of the backdrop, the general historical background, preceding Israel’s initiative into southern Lebanon. (Even the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre was perpetrated by terrorists largely, if not entirely, based in southern Lebanon.)

Further still, the destabilizing influence of the refugees in southern Lebanon and Beirut served to initiate Lebanon's lengthy civil war in the first place. This instigated Syria's involvement (to oust the PLO) and a prolonged, internecine conflict it was. Hezbollah represents a continuation of this general Arab/Muslim strategy, as a highly trained proxy of Iran/Syria now, far better trained and equipped than the PLO ever were. Hezbollah reflects an advance positioning, strategically understood.

I don't dispute the fact that the Palestinian cause is exploited by some for their own purposes, in the most deplorable manner. (Additionally, the area has been historically referred to as "Palestine," so I don't understand why people who live there or are descended from the local population should not be referred to as Palestinian.) However, I fail to understand how this justifies the fact that the region of land known as Palestine was partitioned by people who did not have any right to make that decision. Is it ok to drive people from their homes and massacre them because they are not an official nation-state? If someone flees thier home due to violence, should they not be permitted to return?

Tragicially, there are countless displaced people in the world. America is a large country and has a lot of land, probably more than it needs. Would American people accept partition of their country in order to make a homeland for some of these displaced people? There are parts of the country which are now majority-Hispanic, due to fairly recent immigration. Suppose these people wanted to partition themselves from the US, would that be ok?

Oh good grief, it isn't merely "some" who are exploiting the refugee situation (i.e., the putative "Palestinians"), it's a huge and hugely leveraged exploitation with highly destabilizing implications, both regionally and globally. Additionally this ill defined conception is leveraged by Arab/Muslim's, trans-nationalists of varied stripe, the Left, the "MSM," etc. This is, first and foremost, a set of ideological/propaganda based conflicts, thus historical, conceptual and moral forms of clarity are all-important.

In fact, your response is highly confused throughout. Firstly (and this should be obvious), there is a huge difference between a benign vs. a highly loaded and politically charged expression. No one would have any problem referring to the inhabitants (Arabs, Jews and others) who populate Palestine as Palestinians per se, in a benign, geographically descriptive manner. Likewise, no one would have any problem if I and others were to refer to ourselves as North Americans, in a benign, descriptive manner. But that is not the manner in which Arab/Muslim's, the Left, the "MSM," etc. use the term "Palestinians" (and not merely "some" of them). Still, I and others do not typically refer to ourselves as North Americans, since it describes a geographic area, not an identifiable national or political grouping, excepting perhaps in a very loose sense. That is no mere coincidence.

Too, I didn't suggest the divisions which occurred after WWI and WWII were in any sense perfect or ideal, even to the contrary (of course what they replaced wasn't ideal in the first place, either). On the other hand imperfect or unjust divisions, however conceived, after WWI and WWII hardly admit of the eliminationist strategies vis-a-vis Israel and Jews, whether conceived under the category of dar al Islam vs. dar al harb or some other set of revanchist and eliminationist categories, strategies and general conceptions.

People just don't get it. These Islamist will not be "happy" with a 'dual state' or just a little bit more land. They are 'good' Muslims therefore are following the orders of teh Q'uran and the Hadith, that, "the end will not come until Muslims kill all Jews. The existence of Israel makes it clear that thier 'god' and prophet are liars, therefore they must destroy Israel. And teh very bottomline is that hate for Jews is Satanically inspired, Satans hates the Jews...you folks taht don't believe such things go ahead and try to explain how through the centuries and world history the Jews have been so hated more then any other people for no reason, it's irrational aside from teh spiritual reasons. The God of theBible said they would be hated among the nations, and they are. God's Word is true rather some men believe it or not.

Michael-So, in other words, if you were driven from your home, you wouldn't fight to return? I'm sorry if you consider your homeland to be of so little value.

I am equally disgusted as you are to see the situation of the Palestinians exploited, but that exploitation does not justify Israel's occupation. And that does not change the fact that the vast majority of the people of the world are much more inclined to sympathise with the Palestinians and their desire to return to their homes, than they are to sympathise with the Israeli occupiers.

Why do you refer to yourself as an American? Perhaps it is because you are a citizen of a nation-state. Perhaps if the US didn't exist and you were a displaced person, and living somewhere in the geographic region of North America, you might refer to yourself as a North American.

Carole-Your post indicates that you know nothing of Islam, are not familiar with the Quaran and ahadith, and have not a clue of what it means to be a good Muslim. What the people of the Middle East want is to be free of western colonialism and occupation. Is that such an unreasonable request?

Michael-So, in other words, if you were driven from your home, you wouldn't fight to return? I'm sorry if you consider your homeland to be of so little value.

I am equally disgusted as you are to see the situation of the Palestinians exploited, but that exploitation does not justify Israel's occupation. And that does not change the fact that the vast majority of the people of the world are much more inclined to sympathise with the Palestinians and their desire to return to their homes, than they are to sympathise with the Israeli occupiers.

Why do you refer to yourself as an American? Perhaps it is because you are a citizen of a nation-state. Perhaps if the US didn't exist and you were a displaced person, and living somewhere in the geographic region of North America, you might refer to yourself as a North American.

Carole-Your post indicates that you know nothing of Islam, are not familiar with the Quaran and ahadith, and have not a clue of what it means to be a good Muslim. What the people of the Middle East want is to be free of western colonialism and occupation. Is that such an unreasonable request?

Perla, you're still confused. We occasionally refer to ourselves as "Americans" due to common usage, a vernacular which associates the term "America" with the U.S., not because we're referring to North America and South America; that's a function of language/etymology, not politics.

Additionally it's obvious you didn't read (or comprehend) what was previously posted, much less the Big Lies (pdf) history in its entirety from which a couple of the historical quotes were taken. Otherwise you wouldn't be using terms such as "driven from your home" and "colonialism".

Also, more Montaigne, less Marx.

In retrospect, I do acknowledge my own misinterpretation in terms of your intent, vis-a-vis the term "American". Nonetheless this simply means I'd direct your attention to the poignancy of the historically based "Big Lies" essay all the more. Any refutation, and serious refutation, needs to take the facts presented in that essay into account.