Talk:A land without a people for a people without a land

message: This edit by an anon has removed a claim that the phrase encapsulated a Zionist desire that Palestinian Arabs would go elsewhere. The reference to Garfinkle was also removed. The page linked by the remaining reference doesn't seem to support the go elsewhere claim. Does Garfinkle?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going elsewhere 

message: Just found this:
: "Nevertheless besides forwarding the purposes of humanity and general convenience in bringing a people without land to a land without people the benefit of a mutual intercourse with a neighbouring and friendly colony would in itself be no inconsiderable advantage." William Bligh, A Voyage to the South Sea (1792), referring to the possibility of settling South Sea islanders in Australia. 
Zerotalk 07:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "As had been well said, before the emancipation they had there a Church without a people, and a people without a Church." (1843 but suggesting it is older) 
Zerotalk 14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  prior use of concept 

message: I have two clear recollections about this phrase, but no sources, so no inclination to add to the article. I describe them in as much detail as I can in hopes someone else might find sources.
1) Growing up in Binghamton, New York, circa 1960, this phrase was used in a positive light in my Jewish sunday school classes at Temple Concorde under Rabbi Schagrin. I seem to recall it emblazoned on a book about Israel used in these classes. Only later did I come to realize this as a horrendous phrase, whatever the interpretation. This could be a sign that this phrase was in wide use in the US at a certain period in Jewish education (but I have no specific knowledge whether it was used in other temples). 
2) When I mentioned this recollection to an Israeli coworker, he was quite familiar with the phrase and had a different rationalization of than any presented in the article: that it referred specifically to Tel Aviv, which he claimed really was un-inhabited at the time (I have no knowledge whether this was the case or not).
Pallen (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional uses of the phrase 

message: Lassner&Troen's explanation of what "without a people" means is not at all the same as Garfinkle's.  While Garfinkle claims it is about national identity, Lassner&Troen explain it as "Palestine was a sparsely settled and economically underdeveloped country from the perspective of Western observers who compared it both with other countries and with Palestine's own distant past."  They didn't believe it had no population at all, but they believed the population was well below what it could be.  That's what Keith, Shaftesbury and Zangwill, to name a few, thought too.  We need to provide Garfinkle's viewpoint of course, but we shouldn't present it as "the" explanation since it is only Garfinkle's opinion. And we shouldn't insert Garfinkle's premises into the text in various places like the lead so as to construct his argument for him. Zerotalk 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a separate source to cite what a book contains.  Der Judenstaat is the most reliable source for what it contains and we could cite it directly if it was relevant. Khalidi wrote that Der Judenstaat doesn't mention Palestinian Arabs.  He is strictly correct, since the word Arab doesn't appear even once in the book.  Muir notes that there is a mention of "native populations", in a place were Argentina and Palestine are considered.  If Khalidi reported that it would have made his case stronger.  Think about it, Herzl wrote a whole book about establishing a Jewish state somewhere, and the only mention of existing populations is a single sentence which describes them as a nuisance! It is worse than not mentioning them at all. Muir was trying to score a point, she failed, it is not our job to repeat it (and if we did, it would need to be repeated correctly). Zerotalk 00:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lassner&Troen 

message: Post-Crusader Palestine’s population experienced a profound stagnation 600+ years, prior to a significant population boom in the mid-late 19th century. (see: Demographic history of Palestine (region)). 
It’s likely that the population of the entire region did not exceed 350,000 people at the time of the writing of that quote (as opposed to the population of the region at the time of most of the critical responses, when the population had far exceeded 1.9 million people). 
Not saying this as grounds to delegitimize criticism against the quote and its subsequent usage, but the context of the population of Palestine at the time (which historically had hosted populations upwards of 1 million during the late Roman period) is not without merit. Should find a place somewhere in this article. Mistamystery (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether there are reliable sources mentioning it in context. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Population at Time of Quote