The 'State of Palestine' quiz

The ‘State of Palestine’ quiz

Lucky for the ambassadors at the UN, it will be marked on a curve.

Middle East • September 2011 • Views: 1,677

With all that is going on at the UN, I think it is a good time to bring this back. It is all old hat for many, but might be a bit of an education for some lizards.

The “State of Palestine” quiz

1. When was the country of “Palestine” founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its Capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. Name at least one “Palestinian” leader before Arafat.
6. What was the language of the “Country of Palestine”?
7. What was the prevalant religion of the ancient “country of Palestine”?
8. What was the name of its currency?
9. Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the “Palestinian” monetary unit against the US dollar, German Mark, GB Pound, Japanese Yen, or Chinese Yaun on that date.
10. Since there is no such country of “Palestine” today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
11. Why did the “Palestinians” never try to become indepependant until after the devastating defeat of invading arab states in the 1967 Six Day War?

Dry Bones The “State of Palestine” quiz

Recent Pages by Buck (Buck):
'Israeli Apartheid? I Know What Apartheid Really Is' Guess Who's Valedictorian at Israel's Top Medical School? The Most Racist/Misogynist Commercial In History

Jump to bottom

53 comments

gehazi Thu, Sep 22, 2011 10:37:24am

Exactly who is trying to argue that Palestine has ever existed as a distinct geopolitical entity? Please cite your sources.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Sep 22, 2011 10:47:32am

It's something to bear in mind, as people furiously insist that the land 'belonged' to an immemorial ancient indigenous Palestinian people, and therefore partition was robbery and colonialism. And they do. And that narrative has nothing to do with actual history in the region.

However, my answer to this sort of thing tends to be "It does not matter if there was a Palestinian state in 1800, or a Palestinian people before the 1960s. The fact remains that there is a group that defines itself as Palestinian now, and quite reasonably so."

Lobengula Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:14:05am

re: #2 SanFranciscoZionist

"It's something to bear in mind, as people furiously insist that the land 'belonged' to an immemorial ancient indigenous Palestinian people."

Replace "Palestinian" with "Jewish" for the Israeli / American right-wing narrative. Much better.

Decatur Deb Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:16:08am

If you're depending on God, Allah or an archaeologist to co-sign your mortgage, you're doing it wrong.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:20:12am

re: #3 Lobengula

Do you not believe that the land of Israel belongs to an immemorial ancient indigenous Jewish people?

Decatur Deb Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:23:19am

re: #5 Buck

Do you not believe that the land of Israel belongs to an immemorial ancient indigenous Jewish people?

Do you not believe that the Black Hills belong to an immemorial ancient indigenous Sioux people?

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:30:23am

re: #6 Decatur Deb

Do you not believe that the Black Hills belong to an immemorial ancient indigenous Sioux people?

Ahh the great avoid....

Maybe. And if they want to buy it back, they are certainly welcome to. If the Sioux people want to raise money, and start buying land... there is nothing on earth that will stop them.

Are the Sioux people the Jews in your example, or the Palestinians? If they are the Jews, then who stole the land from the Jews? Are they the Palestinians?

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:33:41am

re: #1 gehazi

Exactly who is trying to argue that Palestine has ever existed as a distinct geopolitical entity? Please cite your sources.

SFZ touches on your answer, but if you need more:

[Link: www.pmw.org.il...]

Decatur Deb Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:36:14am

re: #7 Buck

Ahh the great avoid...

Maybe. And if they want to buy it back, they are certainly welcome to. If the Sioux people want to raise money, and start buying land... there is nothing on earth that will stop them.

Are the Sioux people the Jews in your example, or the Palestinians? If they are the Jews, then who stole the land from the Jews? Are they the Palestinians?

They are neither. I have just given you an example of the uselessness of arguments from ancient claims. I had a similar discussion with my department head, a Pawnee. The answer is simple: The land, all land, belongs to him who can hold it.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:39:09am

re: #1 gehazi

Exactly who is trying to argue that Palestine has ever existed as a distinct geopolitical entity? Please cite your sources.

If we agree that Palestine never existed as a distinct geopolitical entity, then how when negotiating a border will they "swap land" with Israel? They never had any land to swap with in the first place.

gehazi Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:39:24am

re: #2 SanFranciscoZionist

Exactly. The right to self-determination shouldn't be a function of how long you've wanted independence.

gehazi Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:40:46am

re: #10 Buck

I never mentioned land-swapping.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:41:42am

re: #9 Decatur Deb

They are neither. I have just given you an example of the uselessness of arguments from ancient claims. I had a similar discussion with my department head, a Pawnee. The answer is simple: The land, all land, belongs to him who can hold it.

That makes it sound like the land of Israel was taken or stolen from someone. That is simply not true.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:42:21am

re: #12 gehazi

I never mentioned land-swapping.

Correct... Obama did.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:46:35am

What happened to the Pawnee or the Sioux for that matter is not in anyway a parallel to what happened to the Jews in Palestine, or the Palestinians for that matter.

Decatur Deb Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:48:15am

re: #13 Buck

That makes it sound like the land of Israel was taken or stolen from someone. That is simply not true.

If I can admit we took two whole continents, why can't you admit to a bit the size of New Jersey? Countries are made and kept by men with the better guns--it's the old way.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:51:19am

The arab and muslim population that today calls itself Palestinian are NOT the indigenous people of that land.

In the late 1880s, there were fewer than 350,000 Arabs living in the entire region called Palestine, which then included the area now called Jordan.

Arabs immigrated en masse to the desolate region to take advantage of the economic development created by the Zionists. Arabs constituted 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel.

Other do use that Native/indigenous people argument. However it is not even close. The descendants of Arabs who immigrated in pursuit of jobs and economic opportunity are not “indigenous”.

The descendants of Jewish immigrants who fled discrimination, violence, and genocide are not “colonizers.”

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:52:42am

re: #16 Decatur Deb

If I can admit we took two whole continents, why can't you admit to a bit the size of New Jersey?

Because that is not the way it happened. You can't make up my history and then tell me to accept it because it is only a small lie.

Decatur Deb Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:56:07am

re: #18 Buck

Because that is not the way it happened. You can't make up my history and then tell me to accept it because it is only a small lie.

It's the correct way to make a nation--you should be proud of it, and the Israelis I worked with were. Looking for priests and archaeologists to put a doily over a perfectly normal human action is unworthy.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:57:30am

re: #19 Decatur Deb

It's the correct way to make a nation--you should be proud of it, and the Israelis I worked with were. Looking for priests and archaeologists to put a doily over a perfectly normal human action is unworthy.

Nonsense.

Decatur Deb Thu, Sep 22, 2011 11:58:28am

re: #20 Buck

Nonsense.

I can't defeat an argument like that.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 12:01:18pm

re: #21 Decatur Deb

I can't defeat an argument like that.

That argument was that it is not the way it happened, and that you were making stuff up.

You ignored that, and continued to pretend. So I called your comment what it was... nonsense.

Obdicut Thu, Sep 22, 2011 12:11:30pm

Israel as a democracy. How it came to exist is entirely irrelevant, just as it is for France, Britain, or any other blood-stained European country.

What matters is the fairness of the current form of government, and its legitimacy in representing its citizens.

South Africa was not a legitimate government because they had actual apartheid; political, economic and other power was denied to the majority black population.

Israel allows all citizens of any ethnic background to vote and have representation.

That is Israel's claim to legitimacy. Not an argument from history. The historical argument is pointless, since every part of earth has been the homeland of many different people over time.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 12:30:08pm

re: #23 Obdicut

How it came to exist is entirely irrelevant, just as it is for France, Britain, or any other blood-stained European country.

Well some people think it is relevant. I, for example, think that it matters when discussing the legitimacy.

Israel did NOT come to exist by war, or by conquest, or by displacing an indigenous people.

Anyone who thinks so is simply ignorant of history. I think the truth is relevant.

Bob Levin Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:04:50pm

re: #24 Buck

The use of history has become a political tool, and the use of history as a means of discovering truth has been completely degraded by people who feel that they can change history by simply telling a lie. Accurate history is in itself a principle to be defended. Finding the accuracy in history is a matter of discovery and debate, and this is fine when the goal is discovering the truth.

The most egregious examples of purposeful distortions are Holocaust Denial, and astoundingly, 9/11 truthers. If people taking these distorted positions causes you anger, then I suggest the integrity of history is more than an academic exercise. It affects us deeply.

Obdicut Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:10:55pm

re: #24 Buck

Well some people think it is relevant. I, for example, think that it matters when discussing the legitimacy.

Why? It's fully legitimate just by being a democracy. It doesn't need any more legitimacy. Case closed. Why try to pile on more authenticity? What happens then-- it gets a gold border on the maps or something?

Israel did NOT come to exist by war, or by conquest, or by displacing an indigenous people.

Anyone who thinks so is simply ignorant of history. I think the truth is relevant.

The history of Israel is important, sure. But it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the country. The US was a country with slaves, a country that committed genocide. That's the story of our founding. And yet we're no less legitimate as a nation now, because of what we are now.

I really don't get what the arguments of historical precedence are supposed to do. They're good for showing that the Palestinian nationalism is an invention with a specific purpose, but beyond that, they seem to be supporting the idea that a historic homeland should be the determiner of whose countries it is, in which case the map of the entire world would have to be rewritten.

Decatur Deb Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:14:29pm

re: #26 Obdicut

..snip..but beyond that, they seem to be supporting the idea that a historic homeland should be the determiner of whose countries it is, in which case the map of the entire world would have to be rewritten.

TA-DA!
Toda.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:26:40pm

re: #26 Obdicut

It's fully legitimate just by being a democracy.

Well that might work for you, but the international community needs more.

Does that new rule apply to countries who are not democracies? Are they to be recognized as illegitimate? I mean that would work for me, but I suspect it would fall short of a reasoned argument.

There is a lot more evidence, documentation and history that is the claim of Israels Statehood.

There are legally accepted steps and standards. It is my opinion that ignoring that only helps the people who don't want Israel to exist.

Someone comes to your house and says you don't own it. They insist that they were there before you and that you stole the house.

You go and get your deed, and all the paper work that says you are the legitimate owner. It might seem like a neat shortcut to instead simply say "well I am here now, and tough luck on you". However you should keep the paperwork.... you should know the truth and have the ability to back up your claim....just in case.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:30:39pm

re: #24 Buck

Israel did NOT come to exist by war, or by conquest, or by displacing an indigenous people.

The "indigenous" attribute is meaningless in the context. And of course there had been expulsions of Arabs who had been living in what had up until then been the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:38:15pm

re: #24 Buck

Israel did NOT come to exist by war

That makes as much sense as saying that the USA did not come to exist by war, btw.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:48:47pm

re: #30 000G

That makes as much sense as saying that the USA did not come to exist by war, btw.

American colonists fought a war for independence known as the American Revolutionary War.

It was a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen British colonies.

What war do you think took place between the Jews and the occupying force in Palestine? And who was that occupying force?

Obdicut Thu, Sep 22, 2011 1:50:03pm

re: #28 Buck

Well that might work for you, but the international community needs more

They need proofs of historic residence in the area? Since when? Who says?

Does that new rule apply to countries who are not democracies? Are they to be recognized as illegitimate? I mean that would work for me, but I suspect it would fall short of a reasoned argument.

I don't find any form of government that wasn't elected in free elections legitimate, yes. I wouldn't say we should fight to preserve China's oligarchy, for example.

We should fight to preserve Israel because of her democratic values and the corrupt and undemocratic nature of those who threaten her.

There are legally accepted steps and standards. It is my opinion that ignoring that only helps the people who don't want Israel to exist.

Uh... what are they. Can you explain what the legally accepted step and standard for statehood is, and who determines that?

You go and get your deed, and all the paper work that says you are the legitimate owner. It might seem like a neat shortcut to instead simply say "well I am here now, and tough luck on you". However you should keep the paperwork... you should know the truth and have the ability to back up your claim...just in case.

Home ownership is not like the existence of a state. The analogy is a non-starter.

sliv_the_eli Thu, Sep 22, 2011 2:03:17pm

re: #26 Obdicut

There are two problems, in my view, with the position you stake.

First, the Jewish historical ties to the land of Israel, including an uninterrupted presence in the land dating back several millennia, is important because it bears on the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historical homeland. Israel is not Madagascar or the Upper West Side of Manhattan. It is the birhplace of Jewish national identity and the Jewish people's ancient and continuous homeland. This is important to understand in the face of the accusations by the historically-challenged that Israel is merely a colony implanted by the West among an indigenous "Palestinian" people in order to assuage their feelings of guilt over the Shoah. Incidentally, this particular point is what rankled many Isarel supporters about President Obama's speech in Cairo. The Jewish claim to self-determination in Israel is not based upon their ability to establish a Western colony by force.

Second, Israel's raison d'etre is not to be a democracy, but to be the national home of the Jewish people, a place where, ironic as it may be given the Arab states' attempts to destroy Israel, they can exercise their right to self-determination without fear of being set upon, denigrated and killed solely because they are Jewish. The modern Zionist movement began as a response to the treatment of Jews by the far too numerous antisemites of the world, and conceived the idea of a revived Jewish state as a safe haven. The Jews who managed to revive the state chose to adopt a form of parliamentary democracy to govern that state not because democracy was their reason for being but because, as Winston Churchill once said, it is the worst form of government except for the others that they might have tried.

To base legitimacy solely on whether Israel is a democracy, moreover, will invariably subject Israel -- in a way that it does not subject any other country -- to accusations that it is not legitimate because it is imperfect. That is the essense of the libelous "Israel = apartheid" meme - that Israel does not give the Palestinian Arabs in the territories full democratic rights.

Thus, while I personally agree with your general proposition that all governments are legitimate only as and to the extent they draw their legitimacy from the people, and while it woudl certainly be nice to be able to rely solely upon that proposition in discussing Israel's legitimacy as a member of the family of nations, the reality is that it is not sufficient to merely argue that Israel is a democracy.

Obdicut Thu, Sep 22, 2011 2:27:03pm

re: #33 sliv_the_eli

First, the Jewish historical ties to the land of Israel, including an uninterrupted presence in the land dating back several millennia, is important because it bears on the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historical homeland.

But that way lies rewriting the entire map of the world. Israel is one of the very few places where a people are anywhere close to their historic homeland.

The Jewish claim to self-determination in Israel is not based upon their ability to establish a Western colony by force.

The Israeli's claim to self-determination is that they have a functioning democracy. That's all it takes from me. That's the definition, really, of self-determination.

Second, Israel's raison d'etre is not to be a democracy, but to be the national home of the Jewish people, a place where, ironic as it may be given the Arab states' attempts to destroy Israel, they can exercise their right to self-determination without fear of being set upon, denigrated and killed solely because they are Jewish.

Nope. It's to be, at least a democratic, fair, and just home for the Jews. Not just a home for the Jews. That was the idealism it was founded in, that of a just society.

To base legitimacy solely on whether Israel is a democracy, moreover, will invariably subject Israel -- in a way that it does not subject any other country -- to accusations that it is not legitimate because it is imperfect.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're talking like whether Israel proves with double-marks and fully authenticated history that they really did belong in Israel, that the countries that currently attack them would actually be mollified or rebuked by that? They don't give a shit. You've got the countries in Europe deporting the Roma and burning their camps while they lecture Israel on their treatment of Palestinians. Intellectual consistency is not their long suit.

the reality is that it is not sufficient to merely argue that Israel is a democracy.

I really don't get what contest you guys think Israel can win by doing this. Sufficient to whom, to do what?

sliv_the_eli Thu, Sep 22, 2011 2:47:45pm

Obdicut: I understand your position and, as I indicated, I generally agree with the concept that only democracy = real legitimacy.

On one historical point, however, I think you are incorrect. The modern Zionist enterprise that began in the last 19th Century and led to the creation of the modern State of Israel did not seek or aim to create "a democratic, fair, and just home for the Jews", only "a home for the Jews." The "democratic, fair and just" elements of the state that they ultimately created, while of tremendous importance to many of Israel's supporters in the West, was secondary to the enterprise.

Flavia Thu, Sep 22, 2011 3:14:55pm

re: #6 Decatur Deb

Do you not believe that the Black Hills belong to an immemorial ancient indigenous Sioux people?

The Black Hills belong to the Sioux FAR MORE than "Palestine" belongs to the "Palestinians"; any American who shrieks at Israel to "give land back [sic]" better have their bags packed when they say it! We are far guiltier than Israel ever was/will be.

Noe, to get back to the original premise: "Palestine" was never a country, & the pretense that "Jews stole the land" is just that, a pretense.

Obdicut Thu, Sep 22, 2011 3:17:26pm

re: #35 sliv_the_eli

I think better of them than you, I guess.

Flavia Thu, Sep 22, 2011 3:19:04pm

re: #16 Decatur Deb

If I can admit we took two whole continents, why can't you admit to a bit the size of New Jersey? Countries are made and kept by men with the better guns--it's the old way.

Because it's a lie, that's why. The land was Turkish, & then the British were holding it, & they gave it to Israel. The fact that some people didn't like it (but didn't mind when most of it was given to Jordan - but I digress!) doesn't change those facts. It was not stolen, it was given by the rulers - & then it was won after being attacked. The polar opposite of what happened in America.

Flavia Thu, Sep 22, 2011 3:26:56pm

re: #29 000G

The "indigenous" attribute is meaningless in the context. And of course there had been expulsions of Arabs who had been living in what had up until then been the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.

a) VERY FEW expulsions, especially when compared to those who simply left
b) No official/legal expulsions
c) Israel allowed back in any who left who still had family who stayed
d) Israel has compensated everyone who could prove they has property (as opposed to those who waved around old keys & swore they had homes - which even the organizers of "Nakba Day" events now admit are "symbolic")

I'll agree that it's meaningless, especially because it's been trumped up against Israelis.

sliv_the_eli Thu, Sep 22, 2011 4:18:12pm

re: #37 Obdicut

I think better of them than you, I guess.

It's not a question of better, only different. I assure you, I think very highly of the men and women whose exertions led to the founding of the modern State of Israel and who decided that it was just and proper that the Jewish state be governed by principles of Western liberalism, rather than the autocratic tribal culture that dominates the Middle East or the dictatorial culture of Eastern Europe. The fact is, however, that while you or I define a government's legitimacy by whether or not it reflects the will of the people, and while the founders of Israel chose democracy as their form of government, it was not their guiding principle. By the same token, the motives of many of the United States' founding fathers were not necessarily pure -- witness, for example, their stances on slavery -- but that does not lessen my tremendous respect for what they created.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 5:28:21pm

might be a bit of an education for some lizards.

Hey I was right about that....

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 5:52:13pm

re: #39 Flavia

Really good, however technically there were zero expulsions of Arabs leading up to and including the day of Israeli Statehood. Yes, the war where the Arab nations attacked the brand new state caused civilian upheaval.

However the creation of the state of Israel did not depend on any war. That occurred before the War of Independence.

Obdicut Thu, Sep 22, 2011 6:22:53pm

re: #40 sliv_the_eli

Well, I'm disagreeing with you. I think it was their founding principle, as can be seen in many of the writings of the Zionists. That it not just be a place for the Jews, but a fair and good and just place for the Jews.

Buck Thu, Sep 22, 2011 6:26:47pm

re: #34 Obdicut

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're talking like whether Israel proves with double-marks and fully authenticated history that they really did belong in Israel, that the countries that currently attack them would actually be mollified or rebuked by that? They don't give a shit. You've got the countries in Europe deporting the Roma and burning their camps while they lecture Israel on their treatment of Palestinians. Intellectual consistency is not their long suit.

The reason why you would go through the proper motions to gain statehood, instead of bloodshed and war is to encourage the use of diplomacy and international law as opposed to war.

The decision to create a homeland for the Jews in what is now Israel was done in accordance fully with international law. It was done by England, France, Italy, and Japan, with the United States as an observer. April 25, 1920.

It included Gaza and Judea and Samaria. It also included what is now Jordan. Everything west of the river is the land the Jew gave up FIRST.

Long before the Holocaust....

Obdicut Thu, Sep 22, 2011 6:28:32pm

re: #44 Buck

The reason why you would go through the proper motions to gain statehood, instead of bloodshed and war is to encourage the use of diplomacy and international law as opposed to war.

Again: What are the proper motions? Please cite them. Who established them? Who abides by them? What effect do they have?

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Sep 22, 2011 10:23:57pm

re: #31 Buck

American colonists fought a war for independence known as the American Revolutionary War.

It was a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen British colonies.

What war do you think took place between the Jews and the occupying force in Palestine? And who was that occupying force?

Your question is nonsensical as to the point I was making: Of course Israel came to exist by war. It was inevitable, just as it was in the case of the USA. Whether those two wars are comparable beyond that is completely besides the point. But we know that to be your M.O.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Sep 22, 2011 10:26:18pm

re: #39 Flavia

I'll agree that it's meaningless, especially because it's been trumped up against Israelis.

Well, Buck waved the "indigenous" attribute around as supposedly meaningful for the Jewish people but not Arab people. The reality is that it is meaningful for neither.

And thank you for not denying that there were expulsions of Arabs, like Buck did.

Buck Fri, Sep 23, 2011 5:31:59am

re: #47 000G

Well, Buck waved the "indigenous" attribute around as supposedly meaningful for the Jewish people but not Arab people. The reality is that it is meaningful for neither.

And thank you for not denying that there were expulsions of Arabs, like Buck did.

you can make stuff up, and repeat the Palestinian talking points.

However leading up to statehood, there is no history of expulsions. in fact Arabs were welcome.

Buck Fri, Sep 23, 2011 6:06:42am

re: #46 000G

Your question is nonsensical as to the point I was making: Of course Israel came to exist by war. It was inevitable, just as it was in the case of the USA. Whether those two wars are comparable beyond that is completely besides the point. But we know that to be your M.O.

And you keep repeating a false history.

If it is so obvious, then please tell me which war? What day pre- May 14, 1948 did that war start?

I maintain that some arabs left because they were ordered to and were deliberately incited into panic by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for a war they knew they were going to start.

You can believe the Palestinian myth that they were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.

In fact, the new Jewish state immediately recognized the Arab population as an official ethnic and religious minority. The Jewish leadership had made detailed plans for the establishment of an Arabic-language press, the improvement of health in the Arab sector, the incorporation of Arab officials in the government, and the integration of Arabs within the police and the ministry of education. In 1947, David Ben-Gurion, who would soon become prime minister, told his Labor Party, “In our state there will be non-Jews as well -- and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well.” Today -- unique to Israel and in contrast to the most advanced democracies -- the Jewish state gives the languages and religions of its various minorities official status. Thus, Arabic is an official language alongside Hebrew, and Muslim and Christian holidays are considered official holidays.

Buck Fri, Sep 23, 2011 9:51:18am

re: #1 gehazi

Exactly who is trying to argue that Palestine has ever existed as a distinct geopolitical entity? Please cite your sources.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

the New York Times promotes the extinct Palestinian state myth, by quoting without challenge a young Palestinian:

"We never thought of [Abbas] as having his finger on the pulse of the Palestinian people the way Arafat did," said Sandra Tannouf, a 17-year-old student at a West Bank rally supporting the U.N. application. "He never filled the gap left by hmi, but I fully stop this step [at the U.N.] Maybe we will get our country back."

While it's perfectly reasonable to quote Tannouf on this point, it is not reasonable to do so without providing readers with the historically accurate corrective -- that never before has there been a Palestinian state.