# Consider The Facts



## MJB12741 (Jan 16, 2016)

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

What I'm learning is that the pro revisionists have trouble with truth. 

I don't think you are going to convince to many of them to comment on the history of the term palestine honestly, or on the term palestinian people; as much of their narrative depends on the belief that a circle is actually square.


----------



## turzovka (Jan 16, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> 
> Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.
> 
> The Truth about the Palestinian People


The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting.     Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.        

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns?     This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 16, 2016)

turzovka said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> ...



Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay.  For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.  And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> 
> Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.
> 
> The Truth about the Palestinian People




From "who we are":
_This website is devoted to fighting Terrorism and the forced integration of Marxist oriented ideals and values into the American mainstream. By exposing the violent actions and the violent speech (and it is very violent, just keep reading) of these so-called *"Non-Violent"* and *"Peaceful"* groups, the truth is revealed for all to see. Their brand of Radical Marxist Liberalism poses a serious threat to the American public. They are among us and this website exposes them for who they are and what they are based on THEIR actions and THEIR agendas._

Why exactly should we take anything from this site as "truth"?

Facts are documented.  Semi-truth.   What facts are documented and how they are spun and what is left out is determined by the winner of the conflict.  When the "established" narrative (that given by the winner) is questioned - it's labeled "revisionist history" - even though it too provides documented facts (and it's own spin).

So where is the truth?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay?  Sure.  But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

I don't think anyone is saying Israel has always existed. What we are saying is that ancient Judea Jerusalem and the Canaan valley area is where the Judaic peoples developed and grew into a strong culture. The genesis of this culture with its distinct language and customs, religion and ideologies came out of the local tribes of the area dating prior to the late bronze age collapse roughly 4500 years ago.

The Arab Muslim colonists who arrived in about the 9th century CE on the other hand brought their culture, language and beliefs with them from the Arabian peninsula area in wha is known as the Muslim Conquests

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggiMAE&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine&usg=AFQjCNFtriCpKYbW6lMG04J-LZFepmDm3A&sig2=QV9koB4Jjmw8elG_6r5LJA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

and

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggpMAI&url=http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_when_islam.php&usg=AFQjCNEWknDyOBktBlxeWXFcejnTN2sBFw&sig2=XLAT4rnn-_G9j0QjL2qz3A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Well thats crazy, no idea why its not just pasting simple links.

In any case the argument isn't that a place called Israel ever existed prior to 48 the argument is that the Arab Muslim colonists already have two states within the mandated area and don't need a third. What they need is an excuse to try and destabilize Israel.

So the question of who or what is an indigenous people was brought up.

The Arab Muslim colonists would like us to believe there is a distinct culture called palestinian, so began the refutation of palestine.

Which brings us to there having been no palestine or distinct palestinian culture of language, religion or ideologies develop out of the Arab Muslim colonial period or people. As apposed to the Judaic people who most certainly do have all the defining characteristics of a distict cultural and ethnic group. A first nations people.

In the end there's really no posible debate as to who is the first nations people of Judea Jerusalem and the Canaan valley area. The Egyptians bailed out in the late bronze age collapse leaving the proto Judaic tribes room to develop into the modern Jewish culture and peoples we see today. 

The Arab Muslim colonists ( first wave in about the 9th century CE. Second wave in the early to mid Zionist period ) simply don't fit the description of a first people or indigenous. 

If we are to consider the facts one must accept that Israel is today in the exact place of its early development through the Judaic culture, language and belief system.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



AOL Image Searchresult for "http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/ot_israel-flat.jpg"


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



No one is denying it existed thousands of years ago.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying Israel has always existed. What we are saying is that ancient Judea Jerusalem and the Canaan valley area is where the Judaic peoples developed and grew into a strong culture. The genesis of this culture with its distinct language and customs, religion and ideologies came out of the local tribes of the area dating prior to the late bronze age collapse roughly 4500 years ago.



MJB specifically said it: "For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell,* yet Israel still remained* despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom."  The Israel of today is not the Israel of thousands of years ago.  It's a brand new modern nation recreated in the 20th century.  Even the language had to be resurected.  The sort of argument that MJB goes alongside the one about "where is Palestine" - inherent in the "questions" are the claims that the one has been a state and other (including it's people) never existed until modern times.  Neither is totally true and the purpose in those sorts of claims is to disenfranchise one side's right to be there.  The Jewish people, alongside other people's have existed there for thousands of years.  States and nations have risen and fallen.  That is the only actual fact imo.



> The Arab Muslim colonists who arrived in about the 9th century CE on the other hand brought their culture, language and beliefs with them from the Arabian peninsula area in wha is known as the Muslim Conquests
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggiMAE&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine&usg=AFQjCNFtriCpKYbW6lMG04J-LZFepmDm3A&sig2=QV9koB4Jjmw8elG_6r5LJA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc



Why are you calling them colonists?  You realize, don't you, that the people who today call themselves "Israeli Jews" were themselves colonists of an earlier people?  The Muslim conquests ended in many native people converting to Islam, just as the earlier Christian conquests resulted in many people converting to Christianity.  Cultures in that area are built upon layers and layers of conquests.



> and
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggpMAI&url=http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_when_islam.php&usg=AFQjCNEWknDyOBktBlxeWXFcejnTN2sBFw&sig2=XLAT4rnn-_G9j0QjL2qz3A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> Well thats crazy, no idea why its not just pasting simple links.



It does that sometimes - not sure why! 



> In any case the argument isn't that a place called Israel ever existed prior to 48 the argument is that the Arab Muslim colonists already have two states within the mandated area and don't need a third. What they need is an excuse to try and destabilize Israel.
> 
> So the question of who or what is an indigenous people was brought up.
> 
> The Arab Muslim colonists would like us to believe there is a distinct culture called palestinian, so began the refutation of palestine.



You're constant referral to native people's as "Arab Muslim colonists" is as annoying as another poster's constant referral to "Jewish colonists" and it's not any more accurate.  The Palestinian people are descendents of people who have lived there as long as the Jews mixed with later migrations (kind of like todays Jews).  They have every right to be there.   Every Arab state is it's own entity, not sure why there is this insistence that there must some sort of equity here.  There are more European states than Arab states - should one of them be given to the Jews then?  Why should Europeans have more states than anyone else?  That's the kind of argument you're making.  In the end - it resolves nothing.  As you say - Israel is here to stay.  So are the Palestinians.  Despite the best efforts of both sides to diminsh them and turn them into non-people.



> Which brings us to there having been no palestine or distinct palestinian culture of language, religion or ideologies develop out of the Arab Muslim colonial period or people. As apposed to the Judaic people who most certainly do have all the defining characteristics of a distict cultural and ethnic group. A first nations people.



Every "people" starts somewhere.  They don't drop onto the earth from alien starships.  What you are saying is some people (due to arbritrary definitions and an arbritrary length of existence) have more rights than others.  There is not much of a distinct cultural/ethnic difference between America and Canada but I have never heard that used as an excuse to deny the rights of either to their nations.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

the bottom line is that the British mandate area has been split into two states. An Arab Muslim state and a Jewish state. With Gaza left over, which will eventually become a third Arab Muslim state.

I use the term Arab because it defines the language
Muslim because it defines the religion
and colonists because it defines there having come from somewhere else.

Cultures are more accurately described as being defined by language, belief systems and customs among a few other things. In which case the Arab Muslims brought there culture in an armed conquest not unlike the Romans did earlier. The term colonist seems most accurate to describe those who remained to emplace these criteria. What locals remained from the conquest, who didn't flee would have been incorporated into the new culture.

What you are stressing is that there will be some of the remaining inhabitants who carry the original blood line. No problem, but the predominant people and the culture they imposed on the survivors were colonists

Oh and the 35% or so of returnees who came from Europe for instance don't really qualify as colonists. Its a definitions thing. They are returning to the place of their ancestral origins. Not colonizing a new area. I started a definitions thread over this one.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



and the US only began it's "existence" a couple hundred years ago.  The jewish people, as a national identity and religion never ceased to exist, not did they totally leave their ancient heritage land.

They were invited by the Ottoman and promised by the LoN and the UN their land as a state for jews.
Palestine was a later thought and never existed as a state before.  Most of the middle east and the british empire became states without real historic basis.
World have seen changing and rehanging is the dawn of time.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



That is the point I was making.  It's inaccurate to say Israel has existed all this time.  It hasn't.  The people have.  Just like the Palestinian people have *even if they did not go by that name*.

What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important?  The only reason I can see is this.  One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights.  The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.

The fact of the matter is they both have rights to be there so how are we going to deal with it?  With continual nonsensical arguments about who is or isn't indiginous, who is or isn't an "invader" or "squatter" - who is or isn't a "real people" - and all the old genetic crap?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> the bottom line is that the British mandate area has been split into two states. An Arab Muslim state and a Jewish state. With Gaza left over, which will eventually become a third Arab Muslim state.
> 
> I use the term Arab because it defines the language
> Muslim because it defines the religion
> ...



I disagree - while the existing people were "arabicized" - that does not mean the predominant people were Arab invaders.  Even the Jews spoke Arabic and while they retained their religion, their culture was heavily arabicized.  In fact, aren't their modern day tensions between the indiginous Jews and Jewish immigrants from Europe?  If you call them "colonists" then, you should also be calling the European Jews "colonists".


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

col·o·ny
ˈkälənē/
_noun_
noun: *colony*; plural noun: *colonies*

*1*. 
a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.



_synonyms:_

settlement, dependency, protectorate, satellite, territory, outpost, province "a French colony"

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]

a group of people living in colony, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors.
chiefly British term for Thirteen Colonies.plural noun: *the colonies*; plural noun: *the Colonies*

all the foreign countries or areas formerly under British political control.plural noun: *the colonies*





*2*. 
a group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country."the British colony in New York"



_synonyms:_

community, commune; Morequarter, district, ghetto 
"an artists' colony"

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]

I think another look at the definition would help clear this up.

My ancestors come from the north east area of the USA. I'm Iroquois, Cayuga to be precise. While it MIGHT be said I'm colonizing Colorado it can't be said I'd be colonizing that same north east coast area my ancestors developed in were I to return.

Same logic holds true of the Judaic people returning to the lands their ancestors developed in.

The culture of Judaism, beliefs, customs, language, all developed in the canaan valley area.

The same simply can't be said for the Arab Muslim colonists. Their beliefs, customs, language, all developed in on the Arab peninsula area.

Ergo the application of accurate language is needed to build a factual framework for any discussion.

While you can reasonably say that "some" people from the areas conquered in the Arab Muslim colonial period are native to the lands and therefor have a legal claim to remain there. I don't think its reasonable to NOT allow those native inhabitants who have retained their first peoples language and customs from also inhabiting this region.

The mandate specifically made allowances for that fact as well and enacted those allowances when it split the area 75/25 in favor of the Arab Muslim colonists, regardless of their actual lineage.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiGncPFhq_KAhUCKWMKHQ_zAvsQFggcMAA&url=http://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees&usg=AFQjCNE3wUC8knkwlvF82fj2F7SaaOwo3w&sig2=8-enAFvElR4dpE9KlGMjxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Quote

*WHO ARE PALESTINE REFUGEES?*
Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”
UNRWA services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

End Quote

The reality is that from the start the UN failed to follow its own protocols and segregate combatants from refugees and lent aid to both within the palestinian sphere.

I would agree that there are Arab Muslim not colonists living in the mandate area, I'm just saying that they already got their slice of the pie and seem hell bent of denying Israel theirs.

This whole fraud of palestinians requiring ONE MORE slice of land before they will suddenly be able to live in peace thing, now thats something I'd argue endlessly. The Arab Muslims of the mandated area have more than their share of the pie.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> col·o·ny
> ˈkälənē/
> _noun_
> noun: *colony*; plural noun: *colonies*
> ...



No, it doesn't really because it's arbritrary.  The people today called Jews, conquered yet another earlier people.

How far back to you go?









> The culture of Judaism, beliefs, customs, language, all developed in the canaan valley area.



The culture is a mix of the culture they came with and of the regional cultures in the area the Israelites conquered.  It's not too different from other conquists where they end up adopting some of the regional culture, language, religion and mixing it into their own.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> The same simply can't be said for the Arab Muslim colonists. Their beliefs, customs, language, all developed in on the Arab peninsula area.



Yes.  It can.  Arabization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_*Arabization* or *Arabisation* (Arabic: تعريب‎ taʻrīb) describes either a forced conquest of a non-Arab area and migration of Arab settlers into the new domain or a growing Arab influence on non-Arab populations, causing a gradual adoption of Arabic language and/or incorporation of Arab culture and Arab identity. It was most prominently achieved during the 7th century Arabian Muslim conquests, in which Arab armies were followed by massive tribal migration into the Muslim-occupied territories across Middle East and North Africa, spreading the Arabic culture, language, and in some cases Arab identity upon conquered nations. Arabian Muslims, as opposed to Arab Christians, brought the religion of Islam to the lands they conquered. *The result: some elements of Arabian origin combined in various forms and degrees with elements taken from conquered civilizations and ultimately denominated "Arab"*. The Arabization continued also in modern times, being aggressively carried by the Ba'athist regimes of Iraq[1] and Syria, Sudan,[2] Mauritania, Algeria[2] and Libya, enforcing policies of expanding colonial Arab settlements, expulsion of non-Arab minorities and in some cases enforcement of Arab identity and culture upon non-Arab populations. Some also described the aggressive expansion and persecution of non-Arab minorities by the Arab-dominated terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as Arabization.[3]

After the rise of Islam in Hejaz, Arab culture and language spread* through conquest, trade and intermarriage of the non-Arab local population with the Arabs - in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Sudan Tunisia. The Arabic language became common across these areas; dialects also formed.* Although Yemen is traditionally held to be the homeland of Arabs, most[4][5] of the Yemeni population did not speak Arabic (but instead South Semitic languages) prior to the spread of Islam. The influence of Arabic has also been profound in many other countries, whose cultures have been influenced by Islam. Arabic was a major source of vocabulary for languages as diverse as Berber, Indonesian, Tagalog, Malay, Maltese, Persian, Punjabi, Sindhi, Somali, Swahili, Turkish, Urdu, Bengali, Spanish as well as other languages in countries, where these languages are spoken; a process that reached its high point in the 10th to the 14th centuries, the high point of Arab culture, and although many of Arabic words have fallen out of use since, many still remain. For example, the Arabic word for book /kita:b/ is used in all the languages listed, apart from Malay, Somali, and Indonesian (where it specifically means "religious book")_​


> Ergo the application of accurate language is needed to build a factual framework for any discussion.



If you want accurate language - colonists is not the right term unless you apply it to the Zionists as well.  Your application is arbritrarily used and does not contribute to a factual framework.



> While you can reasonably say that "some" people from the areas conquered in the Arab Muslim colonial period are native to the lands and therefor have a legal claim to remain there.* I don't think its reasonable to NOT allow those native inhabitants who have retained their first peoples language and customs from also inhabiting this region.*



The native inhabitants of that region are a mix of Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze, Samaritan and such peoples who have weathered numerous conquests and re-alignments.  I deny none of them the right to inhabit the region nor do I persist in calling any of them "colonists", "squatters" or "invaders".



> The mandate specifically made allowances for that fact as well and enacted those allowances when it split the area 75/25 in favor of the Arab Muslim colonists, regardless of their actual lineage.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiGncPFhq_KAhUCKWMKHQ_zAvsQFggcMAA&url=http://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees&usg=AFQjCNE3wUC8knkwlvF82fj2F7SaaOwo3w&sig2=8-enAFvElR4dpE9KlGMjxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> ...



If you are going to persist in calling Arab Muslims colonists, then European Jews should be labeled the process of diaspora included many religious conversions of non-Jews to Judaism, for example and marriages into non-Jewish populations.  The returning people would be as much a "colonist" as the Arab Muslims who intermarried into the indiginious populatoin.

There is no "fraud" of palestinians.  There are simply people who lived there and were then forced out.  Like Israel - they are there to stay.  So how will you deal with them?


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > col·o·ny
> ...




conquered?
They were forced by those who conquered them to leave their homes, but gradually many tried to return.  Every time they were persecuted they moved.  Trade and investments also added to their "migration" since owning land was often forbidden to them.
Jews have always been returning to Jerusalem and the "holy land".  All jews today that can return for aliyah.  Not all stay but it is a way to connect to their roots, much the same way muslim go to mecca once in their life if they can to connect with their faith.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

The people today called Jews ARE the earliest people that can be traced to the area. While there has been substantial migrations of people over the years taking it back as far as possible. 

Before tackling your post I'd like to reiterate that the mandating powers did take all this into account and provide a 75/25 split for the two major components. Israel also allowed any peaceful Arab Muslims who wished to remain and become Israeli citizens to do so. 

So really the issue is one of bigotry and racism against the Israeli's who are under pressure to now accomodate a manufactured people "palestinians" 

I'd hesitate to draw to much from WIKI as its subject to the same revisionist views as is any non peer reviewed source. While I do use it myself sometimes its not really all that accurate. But I'll try and address some of your points brought up by the use of WIKI anyway. 

My initial take away from the WIKI quote you provided would be that it by and large agrees with the sentiments I've expressed thus far. 

Quote 

_*Arabization* or *Arabisation* (Arabic: تعريب‎ taʻrīb) describes either a forced conquest of a non-Arab area and migration of Arab settlers into the new domain_

End Quote

I'd stress this first segment as being the most likely scenario for the conquest of the Canaan area given it occurred early in the Muslim conquest period 

I realize you disagree with my use of the term colonist however I believe I'm applying it in a reasonable fashion. 

from 
Vocabulary.com

Quote 

*Colonization* is the act of setting up a colony away from one's place of origin.

End Quote 

If we are going to be facing facts then the Judaic people regardless of where they were expelled to were from Judea. Developed their language culture belief system and customs in ancient times right smack in Canaan 

See 
The Bible Unearthed. 

Which actually refutes the old testament stories and replaces it with actual science concerning what is known about human development in this area. 

The Arab Muslims culture language, customs and belief system developed elsewhere and there was a well defined military expansion of that culture into the area where the Judean people developed.

I'm not sure why that is an issue as its extremely well established in known history 

I understand that you are trying to impose indiginous status on the a group you refer to as palestinians however I'd rebut that claim by saying that the area was southern Syria in Ottoman times, provinces of Gaza Acre and Lebanon as I recall. Throughout virtually the entire Muslim period. Since the people of the mandate area prior to the return of the Judaic people have failed to develop into a distinctive culture and there is no national distinction placed on the area throughout the Muslim period it seems reasonable to say there is in fact no such thing as a palestinian untill you get to the mandated period. 

Ergo palestinian is an invention of the mandate period designed to define Arab Muslims who were former residents of the Ottoman Syrian provinces.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I read your comments as history should be forgotten by both sides.  The past is past.  Time for Kumbaya & lets start all over.  Problem is neither side will ever forget the history that led to the conflict of today.  And how can that ever be as all history of today, anywhere in the world, has evolved from past history. 

Regretfully I believe history has shown us the only hope for a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians will enough dead bodies on both sides.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important?  The only reason I can see is this.  One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights.  The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.



People are also trying to provide counter-arguments for the disenfranchisement they see the other side doing.  Small distinction, but I think an important one.  

But yes, you are bang on.  The key to solving the problem and ending the conflict is for both sides to recognize one another.  

But I also think Boston has a point.  The concern on the Israeli side is the chipping away of the Jewish State by the invention of new distinct peoples -- each of whom require self-determination.  

For example, in the 1920's it was determined that there should be a Palestinian Arab State and a Jewish State and, thus Jordan came into being.  It has been well-documented by Boston that Jordan and Palestine were one and the same, in terms of culture and people.  Yet, in the 1940's it was decided that there were actually two Arab groups so that there should be two Arab States and a Jewish State.  And through the 1950's and 1960's the Palestinians began to differentiate between themselves and the Jordanians even further.  

Given that it is well-understood and oft-publicized that the Arab Muslim intent is to remove the Jewish State, by whatever means are available, the concern is that this picking away of the Jewish State might be part of a larger strategy.  

Again, keep in mind my position here.  I do not intend to delegitimize the Palestinians nor their right to self-determination.  Nor do I think Israel is especially interested in absorbing a hostile population.  (The stabbings and car-rammings suggest that will be problematic).


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

I'm not actually interested in disenfranchising the Arab Muslims either native or colonists but I do believe they've already been provided with 75% of the mandated area.

Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.

Another fact thats not oft spoken of is the fact that the UN in virtually every other conflict has made a big deal out of segregating combatants from non combatants. Not so in this conflict. Combatants and refugees were equally admitted on the UN rosters and became eligible for aid. Unfortunately that makes the questions of compensation or return a lot more complicated.

My take is that any palestinian refugee should be returned to Jordan ASAP as there is really no possibility of establishing eligibility for continued refugee status with either the UN or Israel at this point


----------



## Shusha (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.



I hear you.  I would be inclined to agree with you but for two reasons:  

1.  We don't actually want to absorb a hostile population.  
2.  Any inflexible, rigid position is likely to prolong the conflict rather than solve it.

Personally, I think ceding Areas A and B and those parts of Area C necessary to create continguity to Jordan in a peace treaty with Israel would be a real step forward in solving the problem.  

Note that this would not preclude sovereignty on the part of the Palestinians, but it would mean that the request for sovereignty would go through Jordan instead of Israel.  It would also mean that the responsibility for security would lie with Jordan.  And personally, I think most of the world will suddenly forget about the Palestinians.

It would be a game-changer.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

I wouldn't suggest Israel absorb the palestinians refugees. I'd suggest allowing them to go to Jordan.

I'd also suggest the responsible parties compensate them. IE those who declared war on Israel in the first place. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Damascus I think. Its been a while.

Office of the historian
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjvpcv9sq_KAhUK_WMKHWjZASQQFggoMAI&url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war&usg=AFQjCNE9wmF4i7wXAQs7IXa9rArIfrQPsA&sig2=-7drGgpusUlQW9s06pqtOQ&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGcQuote

*The Arab-Israeli War of 1948*
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents.

End Quote

My personal take is that we should offer them an extremely reasonable plan to peace and then settle the issue if they won't take it. A one year unconditional truce except for the following. Israel refrain from conducting any police actions against palestinians during this time and the PA agree to incarcerate whoever the Israeli's request be detained regardless of judicial action.

the Geneva convention suggests a period of one year after the sesation of hostilities that prisoner exchanges should take place. So lets go with that.

If the palestinians can't manage one silly year without breaking the agreement. Any without Israeli citizenship should be removed from Israel, and that includes the disputed territories.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I wouldn't suggest we absorb the palestinians refugees. I'd suggest allowing them to go to Jordan.



By "allowing" do you mean deport?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't suggest we absorb the palestinians refugees. I'd suggest allowing them to go to Jordan.
> ...



I'd ask politely first and offer them X amount of compensation depending on individual circumstances 

The compensation being from a fund set up by the responsible parties IE those that declared war on Israel. 

My take is that if the palestinians insist on maintaining hostilities then Israel should simply throw them out. 

Neither the Geneva conventions or the UN requires a nations to maintain hostile forces within their borders. Its perfectly legal to throw them out.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.
> ...




A and B are in palestinian control.  They would have to cede the areas to Jordan.

Jordan already relinquished any claim to the WB when they turned all rights to Israel.  Israel withdrew A and B to the PA.
Jordan does not even want the palestinians to control the jordan valley.  They have enough of a palestinian population already.

Israel withdrew from Gaza leaving that to the PA.  Hamas fought the PLO to gain control of Gaza.

Even the arabs have turned away from the palestinians after so many years.  Like the UN, they are not giving funds to them, as before.  There are more important issues for them.

As for Saudi, they have over spent their funds and in a deficit now.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 16, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Jordan already relinquished any claim to the WB when they turned all rights to Israel.  Israel withdrew A and B to the PA.



Jordan relinquished claim to the WB, but saying they turned over all rights to Israel isn't accurate.  They relinquished rights, without prejudice to the future of the territory.  Not quite the same.  Though, please correct me if I am wrong.  

Israel, thru the Oslo Accords, relinquished civil and security control of A and B to the PA, and also Area C as well -- pending the negotiation of permanent boundaries in an end of conflict agreement which has not materialized.  But control and sovereignty are not the same thing.

It seems to me that since the Oslo Accords are "dead" and a sovereign Palestine is not going to materialize anytime soon that Jordan and Israel (as the only two sovereigns in the area) could re-negotiate a peace treaty between themselves concerning the territory.  

I don't think there will be all this talk about "ending the occupation" if Jordan had control over the territory instead of Israel.  The conflict, in essence is one between Arab Muslims and Jews.  Once we take the Jews out of it, meh, the conflict becomes much less interesting.  And that will reduce the ability of the Palestinians to  call attention to themselves on the global stage and that will, in turn, cause them to have to get their shit together.  

It would also announce Jordan's (and hopefully Egypt's) willingness to work with the West and not against us and we can join together to work against radicals like ISIS.  



> Jordan does not even want the palestinians to control the jordan valley.  They have enough of a palestinian population already.



Agreed. But don't you think it would be easier for Jordan to absorb the Palestinians than for Israel to do so?  How much strife is there between Palestinians and Jordanians IN Jordan?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important?  The only reason I can see is this.  One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights.  The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.
> ...




But every "people" has to start somewhere and at this point, I think we can agree that the Palestinians are a people.

There seems to be a lot of "belief" about the other side that gets in the way of serious negotiations.  I thought these polls were rather enlightening and in some cases disturbing as it indicates a loss of faith in non-violent negotiations and a lot of distrust.  What's interesting is how the polls reflect a different "reality" than popular media would have you think.  They both have substantial majorities that believe the same about each other:

*(5) Peace Process and Israel’s long term aspirations: *

In the absence of a peace negotiation, 60% support a return to an armed intifada; 76% support joining more international organizations; 60% support a popular non-violent resistance; 46% support the dissolution of the PA. Three months ago, only 57% supported return to armed intifada.
Only 45% support and 54% oppose the two-state solution. Three months ago, 48% supported and 51% opposed this solution.
36% support and 62% oppose a package permanent settlement along the lines of the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva Initiative. But 12% of those opposed to the package change their mind and accept it if Israel also accepted the Arab Peace Initiative.
Palestinian views on the most effective means of establishing a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel vary: 46% think that armed action is the most effective, 26% think negotiation is the most effective, and 23% think popular non-violent resistance is the most effective. Three months ago, only 42% said armed action was the most effective and 29% said negotiation was the most effective.
A majority of 65% believes that the two-state solution is no longer practical due to settlement expansion while 34% say it is still practical.
Despite this, only 29% support, and 70% oppose, a one-state solution in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equal rights.
75% believe that the chances for establishing a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel in the next five years are slim to non-existent and 24% believe the chances are high or medium.
The percentage of those who are worried that they would be hurt by Israel or that their land would be confiscated or homes demolished stands at 79%. 21% are not worried.
*Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of 82% believes that Israel’s long term aspiration is to annex the lands occupied in 1967 and expel their population or deny them their rights. 16% believe that Israel’s long term aspiration is to insure its security and withdraw from all or most of the territories occupied in 1967.*
When asked about the long term aspiration of the PA and the PLO, 65% said that it is to recover all or parts of the land occupied in 1967 while 26% said it was to conquer the state of Israel or conquer the state of Israel and kill most of the Jews.
Findings also show that 45% support the Arab Peace Initiative and 53% oppose it. Similarly, only 39% support a mutual recognition of national identity of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people and 61% oppose it.
An overwhelming majority believes that al Haram al Sharif is in grave danger: 51% believe that Israel intends to destroy al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and replace them with a Jewish temple; 17% believe that it intends to divide the plateau on which the two mosques sit so that Jews would have a synagogue alongside the Muslim holy places; and 9% believe that Israel intends to change the status quo prevailing in the plateau since 1967 by allowing Jews to pray there. Only 11% believe that Israel is interested in maintaining the status quo without change. 
Meanwhile, on the other side:

_As in last year’s poll,* each side believes the other side is a “threat to its very existence,”* the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey said in a news release. Fifty-six percent of the Palestinians said that Israel is seeking to extend its borders to include the entire West Bank and Gaza and to expel its Arab citizens, while 25 percent believe Israel’s goal is to annex the West Bank and deny political rights to Palestinians.

Meanwhile, *43 percent of the Israelis said that the Palestinians long-term goal is to “conquer the State of Israel and destroy much of the Jewish population in Israel,” *the news release said.


The poll also found that *56 percent of Israelis are worried that they or their family may be harmed by Arabs*, while 79 percent of Palestinians worry that they or a member of their family could be hurt by Israel or that their land might be confiscated or their home might be demolished._​


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I'm not actually interested in disenfranchising the Arab Muslims either native or colonists but I do believe they've already been provided with 75% of the mandated area.
> 
> Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.
> 
> ...



Once you start labeling them "colonists" you are no different than those who label Zionist immigrants "colonists" and the question is what is the intent of such labels?  "Colonists" implies foreigners, come to steal land, does it not?  It's clearly a slur.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



You are talking about* 4.4 million people.*

Jordan is not a resource-wealthy state that could even begin to accommodate such a flood of deportations.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.

But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states Jordan and Gaza or at least Gaza is soon to be state.

Now they are using the excuse of a manufactured peoples to further destabilize Israel.

I say not another inch.

They already have 75% of the mandated area

PS as for that last

Not my problem

Combatants, those who assist combatants, legal combatants or illegal combatants or those even suspected of aiding the afore mentioned forfeit their protected person status and as such may be legally expelled from the host nation.

Period

It doesn't matter how many there are.

Not another inch.

And enough of this pussyfooting around with the terrorists.

I'd support massive deportations of all known terrorists as well as all who support them exactly as specified within the UN own regulations and the Geneva conventions

I've detailed each of the legal instruments articles on this in multiple threads


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.
> 
> But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states or at least one soon to be state.
> 
> ...



It's not beside the point.  As long as you insist the Palestinians are not "a people" - you disenfranchise them. Every "people" starts somewhere.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.
> ...



The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have no distinct language, customs, belief system or culture. They are not a distinct people. They are southern Ottoman era Syrians of the Arab Muslim conquest who remained in the area and imposed their culture on the surviving inhabitants. Colonists.

They do not meet the requirements of a distinct people.

The whole argument is an excuse to further destabilize Israel. If the issue is so important let Jordan cede land to them. Israel is small enough already.

If we ignore the passage of time we might as well say that Coloradians are a distinct people and demand statehood


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Do Canadians have distinct language, customs, belief system or culture from America?

How about Argentina and Brazil?

Switzerland, Liecthenstein and Germany?

What you're doing is trying to deny the Palestinians their rights as a people.  It's not an attempt to "destablizie" Israel but rather an attempt to recognize a fundamental reality here - there are two peoples involved here, with rights, a need for a homeland, state, citizenship.  They aren't going to conveniently disappear.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Jordan already relinquished any claim to the WB when they turned all rights to Israel.  Israel withdrew A and B to the PA.
> ...




Jordan does not want the trouble.  They don't want the WB palestinians.  Obama, Kerry and even Kissinger have said a two state solution is no long viable option.  

Abbas is too old and there is little agreement on a successor to step in.  Even Erakat is having his problems with accusations of collaborators in his office.  PLO is unwilling to allow Hamas to join, so they are stuck on the outside.  Hamas just killed around a dozen so call collaborator.

Unless and until another US president steps up and take the reins of any talks, there is little anyone can or will do to change the log jam.

Palestinians either decide to accept Israel and compromised terms, instead of making demands, or they will remain a people without state or they gradually apply to immigrate to other nations around the world and become citizens there and the name "palestinian" will become history.  Those willing to serve or somehow prove themselves through education or peace organizations, Israel will likely accept a few thousand a year as long as the economy grows.  

Right now the world is looking to syria and the problems there.  

They are not the only refugees and the world cannot afford to bank roll them.

Like refugees of the past they will have to be incorporated by other groups willing to take them.

Over population is not going to make things better will limited resources, limit farm land and every limited water.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> *Palestinians either decide to accept Israel and compromised terms, instead of making demands, or they will remain a people without state or they gradually apply to immigrate to other nations around the world and become citizens there and the name "palestinian" will become history.  *Those willing to serve or somehow prove themselves through education or peace organizations, Israel will likely accept a few thousand a year as long as the economy grows.



Or they will become the new "Jews", in a diaspora.

Palestinians have an identity now, as a people.  That isn't just going to go away - it hasn't, even in their immigrations.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...




No one is talking about "kumbaya" yada yada.  Let's toss that into the trash can.

The reality is there are 4.4 million Palestinians that aren't going to disappear for the convenience of the Israeli's.  There are 8 million Israeli's (6 million Jews) who aren't going to disappear for the convenience of the Palestinians.  That is what you have to deal with - the facts on the ground, which, sadly - are human beings.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area. 

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today. 

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants. 

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.



Again - what differentiates the examples I gave from each other?  Yet they are regarded as separate people.



> But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.



I seem to recall that agreement also included a requirement that the regions Arab character and population were to be preserved.



> And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.
> 
> The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue



I disagree - first, and foremost, that that area referred to as "Occupied Territories" (even the Israeli High Court agrees) belongs to Israel.  Show me where their High Court has acknowledged it belongs to Israel?

I can't help but wonder -  if you expel civilians...where the hell do you expel them to?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

A)
Your examples are irrelevant. The fact remains that the Arab Muslims of the mandate area are not a distinct people

B)
The agreement does not apply to the condition of war in which case martial law is enacted. Under martial law combatants, legal or not. or people who assist combatants, or people suspected of assisting combatants GIVE UP their protected person status as non combatant civilians and may be expelled to a neutral third country or from a host nation. 

C) 
The term occupation does not carry the connotations you think it does in this instance. 

D) 
Protected persons or civilians give up their protections under the geneva conventions when they engage in hostilities against the host nation. Assist those engaged in hostilities against the host nation or are even suspected of assisting in hostilities against the host nation. 

In the end Israel has every right to begin immediate and mass exportations of any hostiles within its area of influence. 

If I wasn't watching this football game I'd go dig up the exact articles that specify these legalities. But after the game I have a Bowie party to go to. So its going to have to be tomorrow. Although I've specified the exact areas of both the Geneva conventions and the UNs own regulations numerous times already


----------



## turzovka (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.
> ...


Someone earlier remarked (cannot recall who or when) they were pleased there were new calm voices of some reason in these discussions.      Well, I have to count myself out.     I am not very calm about this at all.   I am both flabbergasted and incensed how utterly blind or unfair the West is to Israel.

Just your questions firmly place you in that group.       You have the gall to accuse Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians.    In light of all history, I cannot think of anyone more fair and willing than Israel towards the Palestinians and also holding back due anger and restitution towards their many dishonest and malevolent and murderous Arab neighbors.

The very Arab “brothers” who would not think of allowing their Palestinian brothers to emigrate to their lands and be taken care of.   These very RICH Arab neighbors who would rather watch their brother exist in squalor for decade after decade why?    So they can use them as pawns towards the Jews and try to get despicable sympathy from the greater world.    A total sham.     They do not care what happens to the palestiniands because their hatred for the Jews is far greater.    Like Golda Meir said --- there will only be peace when the Arab mothers and fathers love their children more than they hate us Jews.    (Incidentally -- the west never seems to care or notice that tiny Israel in 1948 had to absorb 600,000 Jews kicked out of Arab nations the very same time about 600,000 palestinians by and large left on their own accord Israel.    Why is that?  Are arabs impervious to doing anything wrong?)

Do you really think we are all so clueless as the way the odious western media reports all this?    Do you really think the Jews have not been willing to settle for peace in every way possible since the 1920s and the Arabs have NEVER been willing to settle for any kind of peace or agreement?   Why?  Because they do not want peace, they want to destroy or eradicate the Jews from the land!    But they have no legitimate case whatsoever to support their position.   So they lie.   And they lie to their children.  And the cowardly U.N. and western nations buy into it.    Because they either want their oil or they do not want to be their next victims.

How many more decades must we pretend?      As far as I am concerned this is all a spiritual battle and always has been.     These spiritual forces and elements overtake the Arab mindset and, yes, protect the Jewish one.      But since so many of you think that is all laughable now is a good time to stop trying to explain anything.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> A)
> Your examples are irrelevant. The fact remains that the Arab Muslims of the mandate area are not a distinct people
> 
> B)
> ...



A) I don't agree

B) I don't agree

C) I don't agree

D) I don't agree


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

turzovka said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Where am I accusing Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians?  



> The very Arab “brothers” who would not think of allowing their Palestinian brothers to emigrate to their lands and be taken care of.   These very RICH Arab neighbors who would rather watch their brother exist in squalor for decade after decade why?    So they can use them as pawns towards the Jews and try to get despicable sympathy from the greater world.    A total sham.     They do not care what happens to the palestiniands because their hatred for the Jews is far greater.    Like Golda Meir said --- there will only be peace when the Arab mothers and fathers love their children more than they hate us Jews.



I'm not defending the Arab nation's treatment of the Palestinians.



> Do you really think we are all so clueless as the way the odious western media reports all this?



I really don't care.



> Do you really think the Jews have not been willing to settle for peace in every way possible since the 1920s and the Arabs have NEVER been willing to settle for any kind of peace or agreement?   Why?  Because they do not want peace, they want to destroy or eradicate the Jews from the land!    But they have no legitimate case whatsoever to support their position.   So they lie.   And they lie to their children.  And the cowardly U.N. and western nations buy into it.    Because they either want their oil or they do not want to be their next victims.



Israel is not exactly an innocent bystander here either.



> How many more decades must we pretend?      As far as I am concerned this is all a spiritual battle and always has been.     These spiritual forces and elements overtake the Arab mindset and, yes, protect the Jewish one.      But since so many of you think that is all laughable now is a good time to stop trying to explain anything.



I'm really not sure what you are on about or how it relates to this conversation.


----------



## turzovka (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I gathered as much from a sampling of a number of your posts to this thread.      Was I wrong, I am sorry.     So then you agree Israel is far more in the right than any Arab position?

Acutally, my comment was for all those who love to argue what a bully or "occupier" Israel has been.   So if it does not apply to you, again, my apologies.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 16, 2016)

turzovka said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...





No.  I don't agree Israel is "far more in the right" - *it depends on the situation*.



> Acutally, my comment was for all those who love to argue what a bully or "occupier" Israel has been.   So if it does not apply to you, again, my apologies.



I think Israel is wrong in some things and I think the Palestinians are wrong in some things.  Neither are angels.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 16, 2016)

We can hit it tomorrow, but for now I'm kinda distracted. Just made a dinner date with a blue haired beauty and of course there's this game on and then the party later tonight.

I understand your position but I believe mine is well founded within the elements described. I'd suggest finding support for your position within the literature available and presenting it to the group.

My basic contentions are that

1) Palestinians are not a distinct people
2) There is already a state within the mandated area specifically for Arab Muslims
3) Israel is under no obligation to house, lend aid to or provide for in any way, hostile forces against the state of Israel
4) Combatants are not protected persons under the Geneva conventions
5) Israel isn't breaking international law if it seeks to expel combatants
6) The UN has failed to segregate combatants from refugees or their descendants

The list goes on but in the end I think Israel is fast approaching the point where mass expulsions are the appropriate solution


----------



## turzovka (Jan 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Ok, fine, that is your opinion.

And then I stand by my earlier comments.     The West is in error.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.
> ...




Outstsading point.  So true "every people starts somewhere."  And the Palestinian people started as Jews.  Not a single land thieving Muslim Palestinian among them.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 18, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> 
> Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.
> 
> The Truth about the Palestinian People



Hmm, well when I actually see a fact, I'll consider it. Any site with the word "Truth" in the title, has to be treated with healthy skepticism. Reading through the site, it's mainly unsubstantiated bovine excrement.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



And Jews started off as someone else.

What's your point?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

The issue isn't if the Judaic people started off as someone else. And actually best science says they developed right where they are now.

The issue is where did the Arab Muslim culture and people develop who are now trying to squeeze another homeland out of the native Judaic people.

I'd suggest they came from the Arabian peninsula area some time between the 7th and 9th century

As colonists they are not a native people or a first nations tribe and should not be allowed to colonize or displace a first nations people when 75% of the land area designated for the native people has already be awarded to them.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The issue isn't if the Judaic people started off as someone else. And actually best science says they developed right where they are now.
> 
> The issue is where did the Arab Muslim culture and people develop who are now trying to squeeze another homeland out of the native Judaic people.
> 
> ...



I disagree and agree.

The issue isn't who started off as whom period.  Judaic people (Israelites) conquered the existing peoples of the area and then mixed with them.  In that sense - they are no different than the later Muslim conquests.

Israelites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Several theories exist proposing the origins of the Israelites in *raiding groups, infiltrating nomads or emerging from indigenous Canaanites *driven from the wealthier urban areas by poverty to seek their fortunes in the highland.[21] Various, ethnically distinct groups of itinerant nomads such as the Habiru and Shasu recorded in Egyptian texts as active in Edom and Canaan could have been related to the later Israelites, which does not exclude the possibility that the majority may have had their origins in Canaan proper. The name Yahweh, the god of the later Israelites, may indicate connections with the region of Mount Seir in Edom.[22]

The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites *were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan, though an Egyptian matrix of peoples may also played a role in their ethnogenesis*.[23][24][25] with an ethnic composition similar to that in Ammon, Edom and Moab,[24] and including Hapiru and Šośu.[10] The defining feature which marked them off from the surrounding societies was a staunch egalitarian organization focused on Yahweh worship, rather than mere kingship.[24]_​
Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_
Like the Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Maghrebis, and most other people today commonly called Arabs, the Palestinians are an Arab people in linguistic and cultural affiliation. Since the Islamic conquest in the 7th century, Palestine, a then Hellenized location, came under the influence of Arabic-speaking Muslim dynasties, including the Kurdish-descent Ayyubids, whose culture and language through the process of Arabization was adopted by the people of Palestine.[19] According to historical records an undetermined part of the present-day Palestinians *have roots that go back to before the 7th century, maybe even ancient inhabitants of the are*a.[104]_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#cite_note-Gottwald-24
American historian Bernard Lewis writes:
"Clearly, in Palestine as elsewhere in the Middle East, *the modern inhabitants include among their ancestors those who lived in the country in antiquity. Equally obviously, the demographic mix was greatly modified over the centuries by migration, deportation, immigration, and settlement.* This was particularly true in Palestine..."[108]​They quite clearly are not colonists and both, are quite clearly a mix of indiginous and non-indiginous peoples over their thousands years of history.  Perhaps we can put an end to this sillyness.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

There is no physical evidence to support the idea of the biblical canaan conquest. Which pretty much negates the assertion, the Judaic people didn't develop within the area of mandate. Best science says they are the first nations people, native people. 

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjR5piznbTKAhUY4WMKHehyCBgQFgg7MAA&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Ancient/dp/0684869136&usg=AFQjCNHEw_GWs-9GUfSzSw5YLB10NTZEnQ&sig2=sIVAvDiecQ8w5HsFxv6PTw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Once again I'd urge the readers to take anything from WIKI with a big grain of salt given that none of the work their is subject to peer review. Even when it clearly supports my particular view.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> There is no physical evidence to support the idea of the biblical canaan conquest. Which pretty much negates the assertion of the Judaic people didn't develop within the area of mandate.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjR5piznbTKAhUY4WMKHehyCBgQFgg7MAA&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Ancient/dp/0684869136&usg=AFQjCNHEw_GWs-9GUfSzSw5YLB10NTZEnQ&sig2=sIVAvDiecQ8w5HsFxv6PTw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> ...



I'm going by what historians said (as I quoted)- they are a mixture of indiginous and invading peoples.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
_The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites *were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan, *_
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area. 

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.
> 
> Quote
> _The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites *were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan, *_
> ...




"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years.  Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion.  To insist they are colonists is false.  They aren't.  To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.
> ...




Since Jerusalem is the historic and spiritual center of the jewish faith for over 3000 years, do jewish have a right to live in the land and pray at the mount?

Do muslims have a right to refuse, massacre and erase the history of the jewish people?

Do jews who have been persecuted throughout history and identify as a people and a faith, have a right to a safe homeland?

Did the UN, UK Mandate and LoN have the right to decide the make up and division of the failed Ottoman empire?

Did jewish have a right to buy land in and around Jerusalem since the 1800's and not have the land stolen from them or to be massacred because they bought or developed the land?

When offered the chance by the UN, did the Jews not have the right to create Israel and live in peace there?  Did they have the right to defend themselves when attacked?

Jews have always identified as jews, both faith and as a people.  Even in countries where they settled they were treated as separated often forced to live apart from the rest of the community and limited to certain jobs and crafts.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?
> 
> At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?



Its neither magic nor arbitrary.  With respect to being indigenous -- the test is a recognizable unique culture developed in place. It is not a culture imported from elsewhere.  And its not based on genetics (as I've said before, racism assisted by technology).  

That said, though the Palestinians are demonstrably NOT indigenous, they still have developed, over time, the right to self-determination and even sovereignty (if they can get their sh*t together in time to take it).  Rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory do not arise solely from being indigenous.  

That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"?  Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable?  Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation?  Where does it end?  

And THAT said, the reason why it is important for First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture.  Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples.  This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own.  As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews".  As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount".  As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it".  As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 18, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?
> ...



If Israel ever granted the Palestinians their own Palestinian State with self determination without Israel to provide for them any longer, the Palestinians would kill each other over who will rule them & starve to death.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote wants to forgo history and just say we are all mutts. But the facts are somewhat different. Culture, what defines a people is a primary consideration when defining first nations people.

The native american tribes for instance which were highly nomadic each however had unique customs, beliefs, ritchuals, and cerimonies, languages and origins. ( ps english isn't my first language and I'm sick of looking shit up today, so oops on the spelling ) yet each had a traditional homeland they felt responsible for, custodians is about the best term for the connection. Yet they took prisoners and had a lot of genetic exchange. Yet we have remaining of the initial 500 nations about 200 still considered unique cultures associated with thier own individual native homelands.

The middle east isn't entirely unlike NA when it comes to the development of its native tribes. but the Arab Muslim tribe is well described and we know it came from the Arab peninsula. NOT the Canaan valley area. The first identified group in the area is the late stone age Hyksos who have no known culture or language. As soon as culture art, language, written or otherwise, pottery, type of homes constructed come into play the early Hyksos were divided into the various proto cultures.

The native tribes of the Canaan valley developed into the Judaic people from as far back as a culture can be identified in the area.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Judaic people developed in Judea as a native people from the late stone age on.

There is equally no doubt that the Arab Muslims developed from the Arabian peninsula from the remnants of multiple waring peoples who fled there over the centuries since the development of ancient civilizations in about the 7th century and into the the century. With additional expansions as far as Europe up to about the 12th century.

This is all just basic history.

The Judaic culture is unique in its language, customs, dress and religious practices to name just a few.

There is no distinct palestinian culture

But lets tackle this from another angle.

The Arab Muslim colonists already have 75% of the mandate area

The Judaic first nations people won 25% in a bitter war of extermination waged against them by the Muslim colonists.

Whats the problem ?

75% isn't enough


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Not a chance.

Here's what I think would happen. And I'll draw from the lessons of history.

The disputed territories would explode in sectarian violence with hamas likely coming out on top. They'd continue on the UN tit for all of eternity with the world cheering on and eventually succumb to an ISIS like state. The main thrust of any energies wouldn't be to improve the living conditions of civilians just as we see in Gaza it would be on the building of a tunnel system and go towards the purchase of arms.

Terrorism would go through the roof as the area is so intertwined with Israeli towns and eventually an all out war would ensue. In which Israel no matter what happened would be portrayed by the Arab Muslim colonists as the aggressors even if Israel has proven a viable peace partner so many times before.

In the end it would only make matters much much worse.

Which is another reason I firmly believe a policy of

NOT ANOTHER INCH

is the only policy I can support.

The solution lies in identifying the combatants and throwing the bums out along with anyone who can be associated with them as accomplices. Deport to Jordan. It is after all the Arab Muslim state of the mandated area


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote wants to forgo history and just say we are all mutts. But the facts are somewhat different. Culture, what defines a people is a primary consideration when defining first nations people.
> 
> The native american tribes for instance which were highly nomadic each however had unique customs, beliefs, ritchuals, and cerimonies, languages and origins. ( ps english isn't my first language and I'm sick of looking shit up today, so oops on the spelling ) yet each had a traditional homeland they felt responsible for, custodians is about the best term for the connection. Yet they took prisoners and had a lot of genetic exchange. Yet we have remaining of the initial 500 nations about 200 still considered unique cultures associated with thier own individual native homelands.
> 
> ...




I'm a mutt, but a mutt with a pedigree as well


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

Looks more like a cat to me ;--)


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Simple question for you Aris.  Do the Palestinians have a right to live there where they have lived for generations or, do you believe like Boston they should be expelled?

All of your questions involve historic wrongs.  Are you saying it's ok to perpetrate yet more wrongs because of that?  The Jewish Israeli's aren't all innocents, sweetness and light either.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote wants to forgo history and just say we are all mutts. But the facts are somewhat different. Culture, what defines a people is a primary consideration when defining first nations people.
> 
> The native american tribes for instance which were highly nomadic each however had unique customs, beliefs, ritchuals, and cerimonies, languages and origins. ( ps english isn't my first language and I'm sick of looking shit up today, so oops on the spelling ) yet each had a traditional homeland they felt responsible for, custodians is about the best term for the connection. Yet they took prisoners and had a lot of genetic exchange. Yet we have remaining of the initial 500 nations about 200 still considered unique cultures associated with thier own individual native homelands.
> 
> ...



Your very argument ignores history - the history that has had these people, called Palestinians, living on that land for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.  You want to delete that history, and expell them. You deliberately minimize and disenfranchise them as a people by using the term "colonists".  You are no different than those who consistantly refer to the immigration of European Jews as "invaders" and "colonists".


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

Actually even a rudimentary exam of history will show there were no people called palestinians that weren't Judaic until very recently. 

It would appear that the term palestinian when applied to Arab Muslim colonists was invented some time in the 1950s

The other part you are forgetting is that those Arab Muslim colonists you are referring to have already recieved 75% of the mandate area.

Why should the native peoples give up more land to the colonists ?

Is 25% really to much to ask for the first nations tribes ? And 75% really not enough for the Arab Muslim colonists


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?
> ...



How can they not be "indiginous" when their history* includes descent from indiginous peoples?*

If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.

If a distinct culture is a requirement -* what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews?*  Not religion - culture.



> That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"?  Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable?  Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation?  Where does it end?



Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless.  That at the very least should be addressed.  As to how much land should be "given away" - none.  Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion.  Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear.  The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as  Boston implies is weak.  There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" -* only with the Palestinians*.  Why?



> And THAT said, the reason why it is important for *First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous* and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture.  Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples.  This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own.  As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews".  As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount".  As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it".  As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."



I disagree.  For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi.  Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.

I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own.  As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage.  Judaism is the founding Abrahamic faith.  When Christianity was invented it usurped much of the Jewish faith for it's own.  When Islam was invented it did the same.  This is common with religions - they are almost all built upon earlier faiths and traditions.  

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> *Actually even a rudimentary exam of history will show there were no people called palestinians that weren't Judaic until very recently. *



That's deceptive if not downright dishonest.  Ottoman and Mandate census figures show a considerable non-Jewish population.  In fact, the number of Jews were relatively small until Zionist immigration started.  Whether you call them "Palestinians" or Martians - the people who lived in that region were a mixture of religions that had been there for some time.  Your statement would have us believe that until recently there were only Jews there and that is demonstratably false unless "recent" means the last thousand years or so.



> It would appear that the term palestinian when applied to Arab Muslim colonists was invented some time in the 1950s



The term is irrelevant.  The people are.  And they did not just drop from the sky in the 1950's.



> The other part you are forgetting is that those Arab Muslim colonists you are referring to have already recieved 75% of the mandate area.
> 
> Why should the native peoples give up more land to the colonists ?
> 
> Is 25% really to much to ask for the first nations tribes ? And 75% really not enough for the Arab Muslim colonists



They aren't First Nation tribes.  To use YOUR terminology they are "European colonizers".


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

for whatever reason nothing on this site works. Quote boxes are an impossible dream on this end. 

I hope word pastes OK into this thing cause thats about the only way I can reasonably take your points one at a time


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> for whatever reason nothing on this site works. Quote boxes are an impossible dream on this end.
> 
> I hope word pastes OK into this thing cause thats about the only way I can reasonably take your points one at a time



I find they get messy too.  Sometimes - I remove the quotes and just put them in again to try and get it to divide the way I want - very frustrating!


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Not all the palestinians have lived in the mandate for generations, nor did they all own the land they had lived on.

many lived and worked on land owned by others or the church, who sold it.  No they do not have a right to remain n the land.

Half the people did not leave, they stayed and helped build Israel.  Those that left did not have loyalty to a palestinian identity or to the land they let beause they through they would reap the benefits after the jews were all dead.
Palestinians sold land, then tried to nullify the same, without returning the money years after the fact.  They left at the urging of other arabs, not because they were forced to leave by Israelis.  Even the nazi mufti once admitted that the jews did not steal the land, fact many palestinians either don't know or pretend never happened.

Israel has allowed paestinians to enter and become citizens through unification and allwed them to gain back land through Israeli courts.

How many more do you really believe have any claim or right to live in Israel?  How many of them have been involved in terrorism or attacks on Israel or jews?  How many have committed crimes?  How many would be able to pay tax on their land, develop their land or live off their land?

So what happens to the millions of other palestinian that think they have any claim or right and in the process displace or kill Israelis?  Who many would be willing to be israelis and not palestinians?

No, I don't think there are that many that can or should be brought into Israel or have any rights to land there.

Just being born and listed by the UN as a refugee does not give them any legal or moral claim to Israel.  Even if Israel agreed to 200,000 palestinians, the rest don't.

Most have been raised on a delusion of a future.  Most won't recognize Israel let alone want to become Israeli.

Millions are under a false idea they have a right to claim Israel as their palestinian home land, as if there was ever a palestinian state or native palestinian people.  They were arabs, ottomans, syrian, muslims, but they were not palestinians that owned a palestinian nation.

Where is the responsibility for israel to take in millions of palestinians that have for the last 65 yrs been trying to kill them?  It is not even taking in refugees suffering by war like the syrians or central african for humanitarian reasons.  You are talking about people who did not have to become refugees, remained refugees on the UN toll rather than accept a state and people that for the most part openly hate Israel.  So why??????

Most that could or would have already entered Israel.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



There is Israel and there is the Occupied Territories.  I was referring to the Occupied Territories and people calling for expelling the Palestinians because Israel has a "moral claim" on the land.  Do you think that is right?

I don't personally support the "right of return" - it's not going to happen.  

It's not as simple as "Israel purchased all the land" - that is not strictly true either.  Much was purchased, but land was also annexed and confiscated - and, the owners were denied residency permits to return.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Born in a new york hospital or lived a couple of years in a new york appartment does not mean you have a right to be given land you did not own or that you have to live in new york.  You go where there is wrok and where you can find a place to live.  If you are recognized as palestinian and a state in fact, not just in name, actually comes to fruition, they have a right to seek work and try to find a place to live in palestine, not Israel.  Working, parents that worked, a few years in the mandate and then leaving does not make one an indigenous to what became Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Your very argument ignores history - the history that has had these people, called Palestinians, living on that land for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.  You want to delete that history, and expell them.



But lets give recognition to WHY Boston wants to expel them.

1.  They are categorically unable to live in a peaceful partnership under Jewish rule.
2.  They want their own sovereignty and self-determination (supposedly).  
3.  They already have a State where they have their own sovereignty and self-determination.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




We have played this game and the classification of state, public, church and unarable land as opposed to private land in the past.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



You bring it up.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Your very argument ignores history - the history that has had these people, called Palestinians, living on that land for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.  You want to delete that history, and expell them.
> ...



They do not already have a state.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I'm not talking about those.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote ;--) lets see if this paste from pages works.

====================================


Quote
How can they not be "indiginous" when their history includes descent from indiginous peoples?

If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.

If a distinct culture is a requirement - what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews? Not religion - culture.

========================================

It doesn’t, thats one of the problems with WIKI it fails utterly to use specific language, that error would have been corrected in a peer review but on WIKI its allowed to stand.

And yes, religion, language, customs all part of culture. The Judaic peoples have retained their uniqueness throughout the centuries. They are a truly unique culture.

========================================

Quote
Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless. That at the very least should be addressed. As to how much land should be "given away" - none. Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion. Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear. The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as Boston implies is weak. There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" - only with the Palestinians. Why?

========================================

The Nazareth ? give me a hint ;—))

The Arab Muslims you are referring to as palestinians are not stateless, they have 75% of the mandate area as the state of Jordan. This whole thing is really about just taking more land from israel.

The intent of the mandate is clear. EVERYTHING west of the Jordan River is available for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Including Judea and Summaria.
========================================

Quote
I disagree. For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi. Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.

I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage. Judaism is the founding Abrahamic faith. When Christianity was invented it usurped much of the Jewish faith for it's own. When Islam was invented it did the same. This is common with religions - they are almost all built upon earlier faiths and traditions.

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.

=======================================

The Judaic people originated in the Canaan valley area have remained a distinct people with a distinct culture. You can claim they have been absorbed into whatever culture you want but without any evidence to support your claim it remains nothing but a claim. DNA evidence clearly shows that the Judaic people have remained by and large unaffected by their time in foreign lands.

Although I would be the first to point out that DNA evidence can also show we are 99% chimps and I’m not about to support giving chimpanzees a homeland in israel either.

I think you are mistaken about who claimed Muslims reject Jewish history. I’m innocent on that one although I wouldn’t be surprised.

I would suggest that Christianity actually incorporated little of the Judaic faith and instead relies heavily on Hellenistic pagan beliefs more known to Paul the Myth Maker, as H McCobby might suggest.

Oh and palestinians are part of no heritage, they seem to be an invention of the 1950s era.
========================================

QuoteThat's deceptive if not downright dishonest. Ottoman and Mandate census figures show a considerable non-Jewish population. In fact, the number of Jews were relatively small until Zionist immigration started. Whether you call them "Palestinians" or Martians - the people who lived in that region were a mixture of religions that had been there for some time. Your statement would have us believe that until recently there were only Jews there and that is demonstratably false unless "recent" means the last thousand years or so.

========================================

Not at all, you are assuming once again that the people called palestinians previous to about 1950ish  were Arab Muslims, they were not. You have to remember that the first time the term palestinian is applied to an Arab Muslim colonist is about 1950 with the invention of the PLO.

The lack of Judaic people in Judea at various times in history is virtually entirely due to the various pogroms enacted against them.

While there were various other peoples from a variety of faiths remaining you’d be hard pressed to find any reference to palestinians other than of the Jewish faith. Most identified themselves with their country of origin or with being Southern Syrian IE one of the three Ottoman Syrian provinces. Gaza Acre or Lebanon, I think, I’d have to go look up the names, but i”m pretty sure I nailed it.

In a nutshell I don’t believe the Arab Muslim colonists referred to themselves as palestinians until about 1950 ish.

========================================

Quote
They aren't First Nation tribes. To use YOUR terminology they are "European colonizers".

========================================

The Judaic people returning to Judea from Europe make up about 35% of the overall population of Israel today. The term returning is far more accurate than the term colonizing.

The term returning implies the people came from this area in the first place. They did, their ancestral line can be traced back to a pre bronze age people in the Canaan valley area.

The term Colonist implies that a person is moving into new territory and displacing a native people. We know that the Arab Mulsim colonists came from the Arabian peninsula in two waves, one between the 7th and 9th centuries and another in the mid Zionist period. That fact isn’t really in dispute. All you are arguing is that there were some survivors of the various pogroms and their genetics are evident in the colonist populations.

Big deal
A people is defined by its heritage, language, culture, belief systems, customs and uniqueness. None of which define the Arab Muslim colonists of the mandate area. But all of which define the Judaic peoples.

Which brings us to the point.

Why do the Arab Muslim colonists deserve more than 75% of the mandate area when the indigenous people only get 25% ?

Cheers

PS
Its quite refreshing to finally have a peaceful discussion instead of the usual pissing contest. I appreciate your input


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




How many tie have they oped for violence, demand Israel as their state, walked away from negotiations, refused statehood or citizenship elsewhere............

Palestinians could have had a state but they did everything to prove they were not ready or willing.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote ;--) lets see if this paste from pages works.
> 
> ====================================
> 
> ...



The Palestinians do not have a state.  They are not Jordanian.  They have never been Jordanian.  They lived where they live for hundreds of years (with some immigration from other area).  You would expel them from their homeland in order to give that land to another people.



> Quote
> I disagree. For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi. Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.
> 
> I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage. Judaism is the founding Abrahamic faith. When Christianity was invented it usurped much of the Jewish faith for it's own. When Islam was invented it did the same. This is common with religions - they are almost all built upon earlier faiths and traditions.
> ...



Again, that is false - are you trying to insist that the only people living their prior to 1950 were Jews?



> That's deceptive if not downright dishonest. Ottoman and Mandate census figures show a considerable non-Jewish population. In fact, the number of Jews were relatively small until Zionist immigration started. Whether you call them "Palestinians" or Martians - the people who lived in that region were a mixture of religions that had been there for some time. Your statement would have us believe that until recently there were only Jews there and that is demonstratably false unless "recent" means the last thousand years or so.
> 
> ========================================
> 
> Not at all, you are assuming once again that the people called palestinians previous to about 1950ish  were Arab Muslims, they were not. You have to remember that the first time the term palestinian is applied to an Arab Muslim colonist is about 1950 with the invention of the PLO.



The term itself is irrelevant - the people now called Palestinians are the same people that were living there prior to 1950.  This nothing more than rhetorical trickery to try and deny them any sort of validation.



> The lack of Judaic people in Judea at various times in history is virtually entirely due to the various pogroms enacted against them.
> 
> While there were various other peoples from a variety of faiths remaining you’d be hard pressed to find any reference to palestinians other than of the Jewish faith. Most identified themselves with their country of origin or with being Southern Syrian IE one of the three Ottoman Syrian provinces. Gaza Acre or Lebanon, I think, I’d have to go look up the names, but i”m pretty sure I nailed it.
> 
> ...



Again - the name of the people might change but the people have always been there.



> Quote
> They aren't First Nation tribes. To use YOUR terminology they are "European colonizers".
> 
> ========================================
> ...



According to the way you define "colonist" - they are colonizing.



> The term returning implies the people came from this area in the first place. They did, their ancestral line can be traced back to a pre bronze age people in the Canaan valley area.
> 
> The term Colonist implies that a person is moving into new territory and displacing a native people. We know that the Arab Mulsim colonists came from the Arabian peninsula in two waves, one between the 7th and 9th centuries and another in the mid Zionist period. That fact isn’t really in dispute. *All you are arguing is that there were some survivors of the various pogroms* and their genetics are evident in the colonist populations.



Not at all.  It wasn't all pograms in Palestine.  When Christians became dominant - many Jews converted to Christianity, out of expediency, or for what ever reason.  Likewise with the Muslim conquests.  The mistake is trying to use religion as a way of defining a people when people change religions like politics: Spread of Islam, The - Oxford Islamic Studies Online

You can't even argue that worldwide, Jews are pure anymore - they intermarried with other people, and other people converted to their faith during the diaspora - like the Palestinians, they are mutts with their religion uniting them.  



> Big deal
> A people is defined by its heritage, language, culture, belief systems, customs and uniqueness. None of which define the Arab Muslim colonists of the mandate area. But all of which define the Judaic peoples.



*What singular unique culture encorporates all Jews?*




> Which brings us to the point.
> 
> Why do the Arab Muslim colonists deserve more than 75% of the mandate area when the indigenous people only get 25% ?
> 
> Cheers



That is debatable and, is being debated whole heartedly in another thread


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



The point is they DON'T have a state.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Its quite refreshing to finally have a peaceful discussion instead of the usual pissing contest. I appreciate your input



Thank you!  I agree - it is refreshing 

Should I throw in a few slurs for old times sake folks don't get too freaked out?


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



They are responsible for that.  They keep refusing even the best offers that would have given them all but 2%, which would have involved land trade, they walk away and incited violence because Israel would still exist.

Five times after '47 and they kept refusing.  Short of a jew free world, they could have had their state.  Everyone, especially Israel have bend over backwards for 65 yrs to try and bring about a palestinian state.  Palestinians are the failure, as a people, as an authority, as peace partner, as nation builders, they failed.

Why is Israel being blamed for the palestinians not accepting Israel's right to exist?  Why is Israel being blamed for palestinians not speaking with a single palestinian voice?  Why is Israel being blamed for palestinian violence?

Israel does not have an obligation to give them more to reward the hate and calls for the spilling of Israeli blood.  Palestinians had the chance and now they will if they get their shit together, get less not more for their years of stalling and violence.  Sooner or later there will just be no more offers of any kind.  Everyone will just ignore the palestianian spokespeople altogether.  Violence against the jews/Israelis has been going on for a century, so why should the palestinians be rewarded for refusing every reasonable offer of peace of statehood from the UN, Israel and everyone else?  How many more centuries do they deserve to make demands and walk away just to incite more violence, yet again?

The death of Israel is not an option.  Why won't they take anything less if statehood is really their aim?

From the neighborhood coffee shop to honored clerics and political leaders, the call is for Israeli blood and the rape of non-muslims that don't submit completely.

65 + yrs and the calls "first the saturday then the sunday people" have not ended.  The spilling by adults, women or children of Israeli blood has not been stopped.

So why aren't you asking the palestinians what thy will give for peace and statehood instead of expecting the jews and the west to give and give and keep giving?


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




They have to deserve a state and willing to give up their violence and hate if they expect to ever have one
They have to work to build the foundation and teach their people what statehood will mean, instead of working on more violence and hate


----------



## Shusha (Jan 18, 2016)

i-n-d-i-g-*e*-n-o-u-s



Coyote said:


> How can they not be "indiginous" when their history* includes descent from indiginous peoples?*



Because when your culture is overtaken by an imported, colonial, invading culture and your culture is lost or forgotten -- you are no longer indigenous.  When you adopt the culture of the imported, colonial, invaders there is no culture to preserve and keep intact.  There is no meaning to being "indigenous" if all it means is those people who currently live there.  Are all Americans "indigenous" to the US?  Are they all the original inhabitants whose culture developed in that place?  Of course not.  They are products of a mixture of the original inhabitants and the imported, colonial, invading cultures.  This does not confer indigenousness to them.  If it did -- the prevailing, surviving culture of ANY place becomes the indigenous culture. 

If you want to argue that being "indigenous" confers no special rights to self-determination or sovereignty -- go ahead.  I'd even agree with you.  I'd even be able to come up with some pretty solid and tight legal arguments to back it up.  But the argument that Palestinians with an Arabic Muslim culture are indigenous strips all meaning from the word. 



Coyote said:


> If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.



A MIXED culture is not (necessarily) a problem.  There is still evidence of the indigenous culture.  A culture INDISTINGUISHABLE from the imported, invading, colonist culture is a problem. 

Further, again, one of the RIGHTS of being indigenous is the RIGHT to self-identify.  YOU don't get to decide who is Jewish enough and who is not.  The Jewish people do. 



Coyote said:


> If a distinct culture is a requirement -* what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews?*  Not religion - culture.



First of all, religion is a valid marker of culture.  Aside from that:  language, laws, holidays, life celebrations, history, myths, stories, foods, names.  Pretty much any criteria you want to throw at the problem, Jews have. 

Now, what distinct culture is unique to Palestinians.  Good luck with that. 



Coyote said:


> Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless.  That at the very least should be addressed.  As to how much land should be "given away" - none.  Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion.  Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear.



You fail to see my point.  One wonders if it is intentional.  I will try again.  Once upon a time there was a big piece of land called the Mandate for Palestine.  In it lived two culturally distinct groups of people.  (Not three -- two).  One was culturally Jewish people (the indigenous ones who had experienced thousands of years of expulsion and invasion and genocide) and one was the culturally Arab Muslim people.  Two distinct cultures, yes? The powers that decide such things, under all the legal instruments of the time, decided that each of these two distinct cultures should have their own sovereign nation.  So they divided the land in four equal parts and gave three to the Arab Muslims and one to the Jewish people.  (Perhaps, not so unfairly as would seem given the relative populations of both.)  Thus came about the nations of Jordan and Israel. 

Suddenly!  another people appeared.  Seems there were not two populations of Arab Muslims -- but three.  And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the other the "Palestinians" were born from the womb of Jordan.  "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time.  Why shouldn't we have our own country?"  And so, in our fictitious little world, they too are given their own country. 

Suddenly!  another people appear.  Seems that there were not two populations of Arab Muslims, or even three -- but four!  And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the others the "Nazarethis" are born from the womb of Palestine.  "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time. Why shouldn't we have our own country?"

Do you see my point now?  The continuous invention of "new" cultures (cultures which are, in fact, indistinguishable from their parent cultures) serves the purpose (intentional, I believe) to continually chip away and reject the idea of the Jewish State. 



Coyote said:


> The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as  Boston implies is weak.  There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" -* only with the Palestinians*.  Why?



You misunderstand Boston, I think.  The insistence that a people must have a culture to be indigenous is very strong.  The insistence that a people are not a people or have no rights as a people, even without being indigenous is weaker, but not weak 

I would challenge you to provide examples of indistinguishable cultures which no one questions so I can address them individually.  I can't think of any off the top of my head except those in the ME area  we are discussing. 



Coyote said:


> I disagree.  For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi.  Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.



Only if you subscribe to the notion that ethnic cleansing removes indigenousness.  And if you subscribe to the notion that one can "marry out" of a culture -- you have just defeated your own argument about the Palestinians. 



Coyote said:


> I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own.  As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage.



Because it does.  It usurps it. It replaces it. It denies the origins of the stories.  It erases us.



Coyote said:


> The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.


The Canaanites are the cultural forefathers of the Jewish people.  Not the Palestinians.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 18, 2016)

Quote

The Palestinians do not have a state. They are not Jordanian. They have never been Jordanian. They lived where they live for hundreds of years (with some immigration from other area). You would expel them from their homeland in order to give that land to another people.

========================================

There is absolutely nothing to distinguish the Arab Mulsims west of the Jordan from the Arab Muslims east of the Jordan. 

Jordan was invented within a month or two of the onset of the mandate period. It exceeds the ludicrous to think that any culture, language, religion, customs or any other distinctive characteristic could have developed within this two month window. 

The assertion that the Arab Muslims living west of the Jordan are any different from those living east of the Jordan is simply ridiculous. 

========================================

Quote 

Again, that is false - are you trying to insist that the only people living their prior to 1950 were Jews?

========================================

Not at all what I’m saying is that the term palestinian was used to define Judaic people ( Jews ) living in their ancient homeland prior to the creation of the state of Israel.

I’m sure other people live there, but I’ve yet to see a single first source document in which they refer to themselves as palestinian people. There is nothing from the time of the Muslim conquest and in Ottoman times the area was divided up into the Ottoman Syrian provinces. It was never palestine until you get to the mandate period. 

========================================

Quote

The term itself is irrelevant - the people now called Palestinians are the same people that were living there prior to 1950. This nothing more than rhetorical trickery to try and deny them any sort of validation

========================================

The terms hold the utmost relevance. Without accurate terminology we might as well just go back to all the swearing and name calling. By using specific language we accurately define our postions and express our views clearly. 

The people now palestinians were formerly called southern Syrians of the x province. As were the people now called Jordanians. There is absolutely no difference between the two and 75% of the area subsequently known as the British mandate should be more than enough to satisfy any claim they might have to the land. 

========================================

Quote 

Again - the name of the people might change but the people have always been there.

========================================
Odd, change just a few words and we would be in exact agreement. 

“the name of the Arabs might change but the Arabs are still Arab . 

And we all know where the Arab Muslims came from. The Arabian peninsula. 

Given the effectiveness of the pogroms we do know about, just how thorough the slaughter of the Muslim conquest was can only be guessed at. So in fact you have no evidence to support your view. Although it is near certain that at least some of the areas original inhabitants survived and were incorporated in to the colonist ranks. However genetic testing does show a difference between the Arab and Judaic blood lines. 

========================================

Quote 

Not at all. It wasn't all pograms in Palestine. When Christians became dominant - many Jews converted to Christianity, out of expediency, or for what ever reason. Likewise with the Muslim conquests. The mistake is trying to use religion as a way of defining a people when people change religions like politics: Spread of Islam, The - Oxford Islamic Studies Online

You can't even argue that worldwide, Jews are pure anymore - they intermarried with other people, and other people converted to their faith during the diaspora - like the Palestinians, they are mutts with their religion uniting them

========================================

Actually it was. Constantine’s sons made Christianity the official religion of Rome and the riots ensued. It was a blood bath of burning and pillage. Temples of all faiths were sacked and the libraries were burned. 

You forget your history my friend. 

And you don’t know how many converted and how many were killed during that first wave of Christian violence. Just like its unknown how many died vs were converted in the Muslim conquest. What is known is that there are still distinct differences in the genomes of the two three peoples. Arab Muslims, Christians and Jews. 

And actually I think there is ample evidence to show that genetically Judaic peoples are still a distinct grouping. Although that would be an interesting discussion. 

========================================

Quote 

What singular unique culture encorporates all Jews?

========================================

Um ;—) the Judaic culture ;—) 

Its a simple matter of language, customs, religion and heritage. Among a few other things. 

========================================

Quote 

The point is they DON'T have a state.

========================================

They absolutely have a state ( Jordan ) for the exact reasons you specify. Arabs are no different west of the Jordan river than east. 

Cheers


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote ;--) lets see if this paste from pages works.
> ...



Muslim Palestinians are not natives to the land except for converts to Islam.  However, indigenous Palestinians did include Jews.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Basically - that is what I have been saying all along , and there were many converts to Islam and to Christianity.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Quote
> 
> The Palestinians do not have a state. They are not Jordanian. They have never been Jordanian. They lived where they live for hundreds of years (with some immigration from other area). You would expel them from their homeland in order to give that land to another people.
> 
> ...



Except they did not originate in Jordan and they are not Jordanians.  Just like Canadians aren't Americans.



> Again, that is false - are you trying to insist that the only people living their prior to 1950 were Jews?
> 
> ========================================
> 
> ...



It is irrelevant what they "referred to themselves" as - they existed, in that place for centuries and millinia.  And that is enough.



> Quote
> 
> The term itself is irrelevant - the people now called Palestinians are the same people that were living there prior to 1950. This nothing more than rhetorical trickery to try and deny them any sort of validation
> 
> ...



I strongly disagree.  The term is only words.  It does not legitimize or delegitimze the existance of people.  Expelling millions of people as you would do would be a humanatarian nightmare.  Jordan  is a resource poor state - they are not going to take millions of Palestinians simply because Israel wants the land but not the people.  




> Quote
> 
> Again - the name of the people might change but the people have always been there.
> 
> ...



Actualy, they might not even be "arabs".  Arabs are a specific people, but (according to a historical quote I posted earlier) the term "arab" has been applied to many peoples who aren't actually Arab in origin.

You bring up genetic testing, so what does it show?  At the very least it shows a very close relationship to Palestinians and Jews and in fact - Palestinians have a closer relationship to some Jewish groups than those groups have to other Jewish groups.










> Quote
> 
> Not at all. It wasn't all pograms in Palestine. When Christians became dominant - many Jews converted to Christianity, out of expediency, or for what ever reason. Likewise with the Muslim conquests. The mistake is trying to use religion as a way of defining a people when people change religions like politics: Spread of Islam, The - Oxford Islamic Studies Online
> 
> ...



Point taken on history 



> Quote
> 
> What singular unique culture encorporates all Jews?
> 
> ...



 What defines a "singular unique Jewish culture"?

Language?

Jews speak many languages.  Yiddish is one unique language to one distinctive group of Jews.  Hebrew was a dead language used only in religious rites (much like Latin in the Catholic Church).  It had long ceased to be a spoken language and was revived, and altered to become a usable language when Israel was reinvented.  That it is now the language of Israel does not make it a common language to all Jews any more than Latin is to all Christians.  Customs - outside of religious observences - what customs?  Heritage varies widely depending on where in the world they are in and this can be seen also in the genomic differences.   

What specifically defines Jewish culture that encompasses all Jews and is unique?


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote
> ...




Not all Lebanese are arab.  Most are of mixed european dna and some families go back to ancient city state/Phoenician/Kinahni  roots.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What specifically defines Jewish culture that encompasses all Jews and is unique?



Really?  You are going to try to argue that there is no such thing as a Jewish culture?  To what end?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have no distinct language, customs, belief system or culture. They are not a distinct people.​
They are citizens of Palestine. That is the tie that binds.

What is the distinct culture of the US which is comprised of many native tribes and people from virtually every other place on the earth.

Palestine is "Arab" like the US is "English."

Homeland or Jewish state.

More sanity than most can handle


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 19, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What specifically defines Jewish culture that encompasses all Jews and is unique?
> ...




*Jewish Culture - Sharon Pluralism*

sharonpluralism.org › Cultural Protocols
Most are aware of general American _culture_ and customs, though more traditional or Orthodox _Jews_ may observe dIfferent customs connected to their religion.
*Orthodox Jewish Culture, Lifestyle, Traditions and Customs*

www.orthodox-*jews*.com/*jewish*-*culture*.html
Learn and get acquainted with the unique Orthodox _Jewish Culture_, get to know their dress style, education, views on life and more.
*The Jewish people: religion and culture - British Library*

www.bl.uk › ... › Information cards
British Library
Background information on _Jewish_ religion and _culture_.
*Jewish Cultural Identity - My Jewish Learning*

www.myjewishlearning.com › ... › Jewish Identity
MyJewishLearning
While the organized _Jewish_ community often identifies _Jews_ by their denominational affiliation, more than half of all _Jews_ in North America resist ...
*Ancient Jewish Religion and Culture - My Jewish Learning*

www.my*jewish*learning.com/.../ancient-*jewish*-religio...
MyJewishLearning
Home → _Jewish_ History → Ancient & Medieval History → 2500 BCE to 539 BCE: The Story → Ancient _Jewish_ Religion and _Culture_ ...
*Jewish culture - Projet ALADIN*

www.projetaladin.org › English › A Muslim's Guide to Judaism
This makes it difficult to draw a clear distinction between the _cultural_ production of members of the _Jewish_ people, and _culture_ that is specifically _Jewish_.


134,000,000 results

Art, music, literature, food, dance, architecture, language, religion .............

unique


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

Shusha said:


> i-n-d-i-g-*e*-n-o-u-s
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually - that's exactly what I feel.  Whether or not they are "indiginous" doesn't necessarily line up with rights and self-determination.  But I disagree on your final statement.  The Palestinian culture prior to Israel's recreation, was arabicized - and that would have included Mizrahim Jews, as well as Christians. Outside of religion - how did their cultures differ from one another prior to outside immigration?  



> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.
> ...



It would seem to me that the Palestinians have those same rights given their descent from indiginous peoples.  It seems to me it is THEIR right to determine whether or not they are a people, not anyone elses.





> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > If a distinct culture is a requirement -* what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews?*  Not religion - culture.
> ...



Language is not unique to all Jews.  Holidays and laws are religiously based.  What foods - outside of sacred rites - do they have in common worldwide?  What language?  If religion is the primary marker than can we say that Christians are a culture, despite the huge differences outside of religion?

What is culture?


Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.

Language?  They all speak different languages.  Hebrew is a common language used only in religious rites.  There is no common spoken language.

Cuisine?  What common cuisine is there amongst the many different Jewish cultures?

Social habits?

Music and arts?




> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless.  That at the very least should be addressed.  As to how much land should be "given away" - none.  Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion.  Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear.
> ...



No, I do not fail to see your point.   I disagree with the value of the mandate, from over 100 years ago, in resolving today's conflict. 



> Suddenly!  another people appeared.  Seems there were not two populations of Arab Muslims -- but three.  And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the other the "Palestinians" were born from the womb of Jordan.  "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time.  Why shouldn't we have our own country?"  And so, in our fictitious little world, they too are given their own country.
> 
> Suddenly!  another people appear.  Seems that there were not two populations of Arab Muslims, or even three -- but four!  And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the others the "Nazarethis" are born from the womb of Palestine.  "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time. Why shouldn't we have our own country?"
> 
> Do you see my point now?  The continuous invention of "new" cultures (cultures which are, in fact, indistinguishable from their parent cultures) serves the purpose (intentional, I believe) to continually chip away and reject the idea of the Jewish State.



No, they did not suddenly appear.  *They were always there*.  Israel just doesn't want them, but it wants the land (without the inhabitents) - to summarize. So what do you do with the people that had been living there but are of the wrong ethnic flavor?  You do your best to delegitimize them and make them a non-people.  Since I don't see any other groups clamoring for a state - I think that claim is bogus and a distraction.





> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as  Boston implies is weak.  There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" -* only with the Palestinians*.  Why?
> ...



I look at it from a very humanistic perspective when people have been occupying an area for generations - whether you consider them indiginous or "a people" is irrelevant.  They have rights to that space.  The Palestinians are unique (well, not totally - the Rohinga face the same issue) in that the conflict has rendered them a stateless people.  It makes no difference whether they are a people or not (and the pro-Israeli camp is doing it's utmost to make them non-people) - they were inhabitants of the area.  Now, as a result of various conflicts which they lost - there is a state that exerts a great deal of control over the regions they once occupied so the question is - what to do.  People like Boston want to send them all to Jordan because "there is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians" (kind of like saying there is no difference between Americans and Canadians).  Ultimately every "people" starts new at some point - or are, as some are fond of putting it - "invented".  Does that make them any less a "people"?  200 some years ago, Americans were invented after all - a result of conflict.

As far as Palestinians having a unique culture - I hadn't looked at it.  So I used my friend Google (he's a very handy guy  ):

Culture and Customs of the Palestinians

They share traditional dress with other Arab cultures, but have their own unique decorations and and features which distinguish their clothing, headgear and veils from other Arab states. This has been preserved even in the diaspora.

They have their unique dialect: Palestinian Arabic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have their own folk songs: Palestine-Israel Journal: <b>Land, Heritage and Identity of the Palestinian People</b>
_Stories, fables and legends, passed down through generations, are now playing a role in raising morale, expressing the harsh realities of the present, and maintaining hope by showing that justice will prevail. Popular songs and stories were passed down not only by the hakawati (popular story teller) but also by mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers. It is true that the land was occupied, but memories of the land are alive through stories told to children and grandchildren. These stories play the role of fairy tales, yet the situation is now concrete. 
Folklore songs have been adapted to suit the new Palestinian situation. Some songs are based on poetry. These songs express feelings of sorrow, dignity, and hope for return to the land. They are sung by almost all the Palestinians in Palestine and the Diaspora, and are even popular in Arab countries. Palestinian poets, among them Mahmoud Darwish and Ahmad Dahbour, depend on popular culture as a source, and many of their poems have become songs of resistance:_​


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree.  For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi.  Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.
> ...



Aren't you erasing the Palestinians just as surely by denying they are a people?

I guess I don't see it as "destroying" a heritage"  - to me, all religions are built on others and in fact, many modern "demons" were demotions of prior deities.  I'm a firm believer in the commonality of many religions.




Coyote said:


> The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.


The Canaanites are the cultural forefathers of the Jewish people.  Not the Palestinians.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Maybe they are...maybe they aren't 

_*So is it possible for anyone in the area today to prove a historic link to any of the original inhabitants?* 
 It is important to keep in mind both the tumultuous history of this region over time and the massive waves of migration that have taken place during the past 4,000 years. As a result of assimilation, annihilation, and acculturation, it is highly unlikely that anyone living in the area today, whether Palestinian or Israeli, can provide a legitimate pedigree definitively extending back to any of the original inhabitants of [this land]. _​


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What specifically defines Jewish culture that encompasses all Jews and is unique?
> ...



I'm asking you the same question you ask me about Palestinian - is there a unique Jewish culture that applies to all Jews?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 19, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> 134,000,000 results
> 
> Art, music, literature, food, dance, architecture, language, religion .............
> 
> unique



Yep.  Marriage rituals, burial rituals, rituals for the birth of a child and for becoming an adult, a system of laws and legal structure, creation myths, stories, legends, styles of clothing, holidays and feasts, the list goes on and on and on.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Aren't you erasing the Palestinians just as surely by denying they are a people?



I am not denying they are a people.  I am denying they are the indigenous people.



Coyote said:


> I look at it from a very humanistic perspective when people have been occupying an area for generations - whether you consider them indiginous or "a people" is irrelevant.  They have rights to that space.  It makes no difference whether they are a people or not (and the pro-Israeli camp is doing it's utmost to make them non-people) - they were inhabitants of the area.



We agree.



Coyote said:


> It seems to me it is THEIR right to determine whether or not they are a people, not anyone elses.



It is.  They do.  




Coyote said:


> Israel just doesn't want them, but it wants the land (without the inhabitents) - to summarize.



Not true.  Israel has always been willing to create a multi-cultural society.  Israel has been able, in fact, to create a successful multi-cultural society.  And this despite the all of the conflict. (Please contrast that with any Muslim country you care to).  

What Israel doesn't want is HOSTILE inhabitants who wish to destroy her nation and murder her civilians.  Perfectly reasonable request, imo.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 19, 2016)

Quote 

I am not denying they are a people. I am denying they are the indigenous people.

End Quote 

I sure am, Not only are the Arab Muslim colonists not an indiginous people but since palestine hasn't existed for more than about 100 years there simply isn't enough time to develop a distinct culture. 

There can be no indiginous palestinians because not only is there no palestine but there is no distinct palestinian culture and even if there was that culture would have been superseded by a vastly older culture of the Judaic peoples. 

The suggestion that there is a palestine or that there is a distinct palestinian culture is simply ludicrous. 

By any measure the statement is entirely false.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Google Palestinian culture - 48,200,000 results.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Quote
> 
> I am not denying they are a people. I am denying they are the indigenous people.
> 
> ...



Palestine, as an named region has existed for far more than a hundred years, and people have inhabited that region.  Whatever semantical games you play - it doesn't alter the fact.  They weren't transported in and plopped down 100 years ago.

History of the term Palestine: Timeline of the name "Palestine" - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote
> ...



If that is your take on the Palestinians then we must consider that Jews were there onthe land for thousands of years as a opposed to more than 100 years for Palestinians in a place called Palestine.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote
> ...



No they weren't dropped off by aliens, they came from the Arabian peninsula as colonists and conquerers. They brought a culture from outside and have no distinct culture of their own.

However thats not really the issue. The issue is if you can explain how the Arab Muslim colonists on the east side of the Jordan have a culture distinct from the Arab Muslim colonists culture on the west.

Mind you these people have only been in the area for since at the earliest the mid 7th century. I'd also point out that the river narrows to only 100 feet or so in places and is only about 150 miles long. Not much of a geological barrier.

What is it you feel distinguishes the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan from those on the right ????????

Lets just cut to the chase. The Arab Muslims in the mandate area already have 75% of the land area and have no reason to demand more other than basic greed


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Many Jews, as well as many of the people currently referred to as "Palestinians" have been there for thousands of years.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Some came from the Arabian Peninsula, many did not but were already indiginous there.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

Shusha said:


> i-n-d-i-g-*e*-n-o-u-s



I'm a lousy speller.

Is that a problem for you?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > i-n-d-i-g-*e*-n-o-u-s
> ...



Yeah, I can be a bit of an ass when it comes to people repeatedly spelling things incorrectly.  I give a pass when its unintentional, but I'll usually call you on it if the same mistake is made over and over and over. No offense intended.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I sure am, Not only are the Arab Muslim colonists not an indiginous people but since palestine hasn't existed for more than about 100 years there simply isn't enough time to develop a distinct culture.
> 
> There can be no indiginous palestinians because not only is there no palestine but there is no distinct palestinian culture and even if there was that culture would have been superseded by a vastly older culture of the Judaic peoples.
> 
> ...



We agree.  

BUT being indigenous, or even having a distinct culture, are not the only criteria for self-determination. 

We both agree that absorbing a hostile population is a bad idea.  You say deport them.  I say negotiate with them.  That is the extent of our disagreement with each other.  

The only reason I have a finger in this pie is to challenge the notion that the Jewish people are invaders and colonists in our own land.  That idea needs to stop making its rounds on the internet.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 19, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > I sure am, Not only are the Arab Muslim colonists not an indiginous people but since palestine hasn't existed for more than about 100 years there simply isn't enough time to develop a distinct culture.
> ...



I don't think EITHER is  colonist or invader and I think the idea that the Palestinians are should also stop.  They aren't colonists.  They aren't squatters. It does nothing to solve the problem except turning it into a food fight who's main goal is to disenfrancise the other.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > i-n-d-i-g-*e*-n-o-u-s
> ...



No worries, English is a difficult language.

The deal is you have yet to substantiate your claim that there is some difference between the Arab Mulsim colonists existing ( according to you ) within 100 feet or so of each other for all of known history, are somehow a distinctive cultural group deserving of some homeland, particularly carved out of Israel rather than Jordan.

My contention is there is absolutely not a shred of science to support your view.

The Arab Muslim colonists on the east bank of the Jordan in no way different from the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side ( about 100' away ).

Ergo the Arab Muslim colonists within the mandated area already have a state. A 75% stake actually within the mandated area, the Judaic peope, 25%. The two state solution

So how is a third or actually a fourth ( if you include Gaza ) state solution going to help ?

And why should any additional states be carved out of the 25% of the mandate awarded to Israel rather than the 75% awarded to the Arab Muslim colonists.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...




Myths & Facts


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The Arab Muslim colonists on the east bank of the Jordan in no way different from the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side ( about 100' away ).​
Sure they are. The people in the East of the Jordan are citizens of Jordan. The people in the West of the Jordan are citizens of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


The issue is if you can explain how the Arab Muslims blah, blah, blah​
What about the Arab Christians? You never mention them.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

List one single other instance where geographical location was ever used to distinguish cultural differences between colonial groups from the same culture.

English colonists in India for instance, were they any different than English colonists in say Australia in terms of culture ?

And mind you those two colonial groups were thousands of miles apart. the Arab Muslim colonists in the mandated area were separated by no more than about 100' of river maybe 10' deep ;--)


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Unless & until Palestinian leadership accepts the fact that Israel is there to stay, threre will no peace & no reason for peace negotiations.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



There is nothing that says a people must be "unique" to be deserving of a nation.  Nothing.  I can point out multiple examples of nations where there is little unique difference between inhabitants.  I think that is a distraction.

The reason it should be, as you like to put it "carved out of Israel" is that that is there native land.

Your solution is mass expulsions.  Sounds familiar doesn't it?

How will you accomplish that?




> The Arab Muslim colonists on the east bank of the Jordan in no way different from the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side ( about 100' away ).
> 
> Ergo the Arab Muslim colonists within the mandated area already have a state. A 75% stake actually within the mandated area, the Judaic peope, 25%. The two state solution
> 
> ...



Actually, the Palestinians do have their own unique cultural aspects that differentiate them from other Arabicized cultures (I posted that earlier).

What do you propose to do with Gaza?  No way to hook it up to any of the West Bank while meeting Israel's needs for security and both their needs for continuity.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I agree.  And I would add to that that unless the Israeli leadership accepts the Palestinians are there to stay, there will be no peace nor reason for negotiations.  As Netanyahu said:  no Palestinian state ever.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> The reason it should be, as you like to put it "carved out of Israel" is that that is there native land.



Its the Jewish people's native land as well.  When can we be done carving?  At what point does the carving stop?




Coyote said:


> Actually, the Palestinians do have their own unique cultural aspects that differentiate them from other Arabicized cultures (I posted that earlier).



I'm not at all convinced that you demonstrated any difference between Palestinians as _distinct_ from Jordanians.  



Coyote said:


> What do you propose to do with Gaza?  No way to hook it up to any of the West Bank while meeting Israel's needs for security and both their needs for continuity.



Gaza sort of took care of that itself by electing Hamas.  But there is no "need" for contiguity.  Or Alaska should be in Canada.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I wouldn't "do" anything with Gaza, Israel already relinquished that part of its land to the Arab Muslim colonists and I can't imagine they'd want ti back. Particularly after building such a nice fence around it ;--)

As for the Arab Muslim colonists in Judea and Samaria I'd expel only those that weren't legitimate refugees.

I'd refer you to the Geneva conventions to determine who those are. In the case of the Arab Muslim colonists I'd suggest that descendant of combatants, or those suspected or actually supporting combatants do not qualify as refugees. As such they are illegally occupying an area intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and may be expelled to their countries of origin. In this case Jordan.

The simple and judicial application of law would see every violent act by the Arab Muslim colonists followed by a few hundred deportations as well as home demolitions. Every single person who knew the terrorist should be evaluated for having lent assisted or even speaking in favor of the terrorist act.

See art 5 IV Geneva convention

Quote


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
End Quote


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




Let's get this part straight first.  You would expel Muslim inhabitents of West Bank even though they'd lived there for generations - hundreds if not thousands of years?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Let's get this part straight first.  You would expel Muslim inhabitents of West Bank even though they'd lived there for generations - hundreds if not thousands of years?



You do realize that the Arab Muslim countries did exactly that to the Jewish people, don't you?  Consider it an exchange of populations.  It happened alot post WWII.  And it happened in order to create an ethnic and cultural cohesiveness which, in turn, created peace.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The reason it should be, as you like to put it "carved out of Israel" is that that is there native land.
> ...



Yes.  It is.  It legitimately belongs to two sets of people who've lived there for eons.  If they both have rights, then there needs to be a way to divide it.  No one is going to be entirely happy.



> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the Palestinians do have their own unique cultural aspects that differentiate them from other Arabicized cultures (I posted that earlier).
> ...



I pointed out distinct differences that were uniquely Palestinian.   Are you going to move the goalposts?



> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What do you propose to do with Gaza?  No way to hook it up to any of the West Bank while meeting Israel's needs for security and both their needs for continuity.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

I think a lack of contiguity causes problems more often than not - Alaska is more of an anomoly isn't it?  There are also enough differences between Gazan's and Palestinians in the Westbank to cause difficulties in creating one nation amongst them.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I pointed out distinct differences that were uniquely Palestinian.   Are you going to move the goalposts?



Not at all.  I am leaving the goalposts EXACTLY where they have always been.  Showing that "Palestinian" culture is different from Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanese culture is not enough to make a distinction between Jordanian culture and a separate, distinct Palestinian culture.  Its not enough to warrant two nations instead of one.  And THAT is and always has been the argument.  There is no significant cultural differences between Jordan and "Palestine" thus culture is not a valid criteria for Palestinian statehood.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get this part straight first.  You would expel Muslim inhabitents of West Bank even though they'd lived there for generations - hundreds if not thousands of years?
> ...



...that happened over 50 years ago... you'd think we'd have learned something, but hell no.  So a people, who had some of the most horrendous things done to them, will now turn around and justify the same?  Expelling 4.4 million people....in addition to the 5 million or so residing in refugee camps from previous expulsions and exodus due to conflict?  900,000 Jews  expelled from a variety of countries justifies expelling 4.4 million.  Some things don't change.

Unfortunately - unlike the Jews - there is no Palestinian "Israel" to take them.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I pointed out distinct differences that were uniquely Palestinian.   Are you going to move the goalposts?
> ...



The articles I quoted showed distinct Palestinian differences - I'm satisfied with it and I also don't happen to consider a distinct culture a necessary requirement for the creation of a nation.  Oddly - this sort of propoganda only seems to matter when it comes to the Palestinians and the resulting need to insist they aren't a real people.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



NO.

I'd detain and expel enemy combatants exactly as defined within the Geneva conventions.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> ...that happened over 50 years ago... you'd think we'd have learned something, but hell no.  So a people, who had some of the most horrendous things done to them, will now turn around and justify the same?  Expelling 4.4 million people....in addition to the 5 million or so residing in refugee camps from previous expulsions and exodus due to conflict?  900,000 Jews  expelled from a variety of countries justifies expelling 4.4 million.  Some things don't change.
> 
> Unfortunately - unlike the Jews - there is no Palestinian "Israel" to take them.



It happened during the SAME EVENT.  Israel should be commended that at a time when it was NORMAL to expel populations because of ethnic, cultural and political differences in times of war or in times immediately after war it _chose not to do so_.  That was far and away morally superior to what happened elsewhere in the world.  And yet elsewhere in the world we have peace exactly BECAUSE the populations were made cohesive.  In the end, which do you think made for fewer deaths and fewer conflicts? 

Those who are willing to stay and be at peace with Israel are welcome.  They always have been.  This is why Israel has the vibrant multi-ethnic culture that it does.  Its only the HOSTILE population who wishes to destroy Israel that should leave. 

And there IS a Palestinian country to take them.  They don't want them, of course.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Yes. It is. It legitimately belongs to two sets of people who've lived there for eons. If they both have rights, then there needs to be a way to divide it. No one is going to be entirely happy.



Can you prove it "legitimately" belongs to both people?

First you'd have to prove that the Arab Muslim colonizers had a legal right. If you recall the Arabs rejected every attempt to give it to them, instead they insisted on it all. Then you'd have to find a legal instrument which exactly defines the borders. Then you'd have to argue that acts of aggression do not give the defending nation a claim to territory necessary to its own defense. And of course you'd have to argue that there is no war and that martial law isn't enforceable.

Also you claim to have provided evidence of the Arab Muslim colonists on one side of the Jordan ( about 100' away from each other ) are somehow unique from Arab Muslim colonists on the other side. 

If you could repeat that information, I'd appreciate it, I must have missed it.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> The articles I quoted showed distinct Palestinian differences -



Distinct differences between who?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

I think Coyote's referencing that genetic study that didn't include any information about who was studied. As a family history would be critical to any such study, particularly given that he's got a whole different view of what an Arab Muslim colonist is than I do.

Also when considering genetic studies its imperative to discriminate markers very carefully, after all we also have 99% of our genetic code in common with Chimpanzees, but I wouldn't suggest returning Chimps to their native homeland in Meca.

There's very little to say the markers he's considering have more to do with hair color than they do with anything indicative of race.

In short the genetic studies are very tricky, unless you really know genetics, its just about impossible to make a fair determination based on such esoteric information.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



That is true.  Both sides must accept the fact that both sides have people who are there to stay, barring some total genocide which cannot possibly happen as the people on both sides are too intermingled.  As for your comment on Netanyahu, that was not his original position.  It changed through necessity in that all previous attemps for peace offered by Israel have been thanked with jihads & intifadas killing Israeli's.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Peace will only occur when two things happen. The UN stops supporting active terrorists and combatants in the mandated area for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and when the Israeli's exorcize their rights under international law and expel the terrorists and combatants to their native states. Jordan and or the rest of the Arab League.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



There are migrants, workers and illegals living in the US, but that does not make them american citizens or mean they have he right to be here permanently.
People might have lived and worked land but if they did not own the land, they have no rights after the and is sold.  Some were offered a chance to register land and pay taxes for the land, many did not want want to or have the money to.
You can have a home for generation but if don't pay taxes or have a valid deed, you will loose the home.  If you sell it and years later for "sentimental reason" want to have the sale nullified because it was your grandfathers, you will be laughed out of court.  If for some reason it is offered back if you return the money and you don't have it, no one is going to give it back.

Your family might have lived for generation in an apartment, but if you don't pay rent or the building goes condo and you can't buy it, you have to leave.

Palestinians did not have to leave, the arab told them to and it was there choice to close their doors and hit the road so the land could be bathed in jewish blood.  If they did not want to be Israelis, why should they be allowed back just because their grandmother was born there.  When people migrate to the US and become citizens, just because your great great grandmother came from italy, does not mean you go the front of the line for italian citizenship.

Many countries require you to pick your country by age 18 if you are born in one country but one or both of your parents are born elsewhere.  Some allow duel citizenship, it is not the same everywhere.

Parents, grandparents, great grandparents left, why should the children of today be allowed to claim land they have no deed or tax payment for?  Why should they return as palestinians if the country is now Israel?  Do they have money to buy land?  Do they want to become citizens, learn the language, do army or community service, find a job and pay taxes as an Israeli?

Israel bought land in the WB and G in the 19th to mid 20th C. that they were forced to leave and tried to reclaim, with great hostility.  Why were palestinians, arabs, churches willing to take their money and then think they will just give up and walk away?

Ottomans (before the young turks), LoN, Mandate and UN offered the jews a return to their historic and religious homeland.  The land was greatly under populated, under developed, swamp and desert, but jews were willing to pay for and build.

Why should palestinians who were not born in Israel, perhaps not even their grandparents, have the gates of Israel swung open for them, when they still seek to wipe Israel off the global maps and out of history?  Why?

Thousands have been allowed to reunite families and to get legal cases and land claims heard so they can return.

Why should all the others be allowed to enter, just "because"? Palestinians can't live in peace side by side with the Israeli state, why should they be let in?

Why?

PA and G did not want them.  Even refugees being killed were not welcome in the WB or G.  UN can't afford to support them any longer and limited funds are needed for those in even greater need, they are limited in even funding the very minimal needs for them.  It is unfortunate but refugees have become a threat for nations that tried to open the door for them, why should Israel endanger it's people more than they are now?

The whole middle east and most of the world became "created" states.  Populations, were brutally oppressed, moved, were forced to leave, were killed off, were renamed.  Is india going to allow all the pakistanis back?  Is China going to allow all the tibet buddhists to reestablish their government, give them back all their land?  Are all the sikhs going to be allowed to their land without persecution by muslims?  Are the armeneans and kurds going to be given back all their historic land and be allowed to live in peace?

Jews were offered a homeland in the early to mid 19th C.  They were offered a homeland in the early 20th C.  Israel has been forced to fight for their very existence ever since, why should they allow an enemy in if thee is no peace or disarmament?  No willingness to become Israelis instead of palestinians?

If the palestinians wanted a homeland, why have they refused it so many times?


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 20, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Better the Palestinians have Israel around to suck off of to provide for them.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



We've been back and forth on this before...


You know, don't you - that Israel is one of those created states?  So, now that they have their state they can sit back and deny another?

But I think your missing the point.  No one is talking about the "right of return" - Israel accepting them all.  There IS contested territory - Occupied Territories.  That is what we're talking about.  That and allowing a state for a STATELESS people.  Give it to them and if they F it up, they suffer the international consequences.  There is NO OTHER people I can think of who's existence is defined by the propoganda of another state, who's ability to have a state is contingent upon upteen requirements of that other state. Israel was won in blood and terrorism.  They have their state.  Now, their opponents, wanting the same thing and using the same methods are held to a higher standard.  Why?  So Israel can claim the entire enchilada?

What would you do with the Palestinians Aris?  You seem to think the Israeli's are angels who do no wrong.  So would you expel them from the West Bank and Gaza?  Where would you send over 4 million people that the pro-Israeli's want to pretend aren't "a people"?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Peace will only occur when two things happen. The UN stops supporting active terrorists and combatants in the mandated area for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and when the Israeli's exorcize their rights under international law and expel the terrorists and combatants to their native states. Jordan and or the rest of the Arab League.



Addendum:

When Israel recognizes that the Palestinians are a legitimate people with a legitimate grievance and when Israel stops it's program of building settlements in contested territory.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



I disagree.  Looking at his record in the "peace process" and the flaunting of any attempts to halt settlements - I think that statement reflected his REAL intent.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



That is not what you said - what you said was: As for the Arab Muslim colonists in Judea and Samaria I'd expel only those that weren't legitimate refugees.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ...that happened over 50 years ago... you'd think we'd have learned something, but hell no.  So a people, who had some of the most horrendous things done to them, will now turn around and justify the same?  Expelling 4.4 million people....in addition to the 5 million or so residing in refugee camps from previous expulsions and exodus due to conflict?  900,000 Jews  expelled from a variety of countries justifies expelling 4.4 million.  Some things don't change.
> ...



Is it NORMAL today?

If there is no nation to take them...how is it morally superior?

How is generations growing up in refugee camps for the sake of "cohesive" populations something to strive for?  Doesn't that sound rather like what Hitler was trying to achieve?  Except, then - no one would take the Jews.



> Those who are willing to stay and be at peace with Israel are welcome.  They always have been.  This is why Israel has the vibrant multi-ethnic culture that it does.  Its only the HOSTILE population who wishes to destroy Israel that should leave.
> 
> And there IS a Palestinian country to take them.  They don't want them, of course.



There is no Palestinian country to take them - that's just an excuse for ethnic cleansing - for forceably removing people from a land they have occupied for centuries.

You think this is a good thing - something we should support and be greatful for?

I disagree.  Totally and unequivocably (and spelling be damned).  There is no humanity or justness in that outlook.  It is regressive.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Peace will only occur when two things happen. The UN stops supporting active terrorists and combatants in the mandated area for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and when the Israeli's exorcize their rights under international law and expel the terrorists and combatants to their native states. Jordan and or the rest of the Arab League.
> ...



Who'm you call the palestinians are no different than who the rest of us call Jordanians. As such they have already been awarded 75% + of the mandated area and are not entitled to one more inch.

PS
There is no requirement for moral superiority but their is an obligation to provide peace. If the Arab Muslim colonists wanted peace, they wouldn't in the pickle they're in today.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. It is. It legitimately belongs to two sets of people who've lived there for eons. If they both have rights, then there needs to be a way to divide it. No one is going to be entirely happy.
> ...



There are no "Arab colonists".  If you are going to continue with that it's difficult to have a discussion.  I already pointed out what made Palestinians unique - if it isn't "unique enough" that is not my problem.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

You have not pointed out what makes who'm you call palestinians unique. 

I can show that 99% of the Arab genome is exactly similar to that of a chimp. Shall we insist on setting up a chimpanzee homeland in Meca ?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> You have not pointed out what makes who'm you call palestinians unique.
> 
> I can show that 99% of the Arab genome is exactly similar to that of a chimp. Shall we insist on setting up a chimpanzee homeland in Meca ?



Are you falling back on genetics then?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Not at all. But I can't imagine what argument you are thinking of when you suggest you've proven the Arab Muslim colonists are unique in some way. 

You didn't answer my question when I asked so I can only assume you are referring to the only argument you presented, which was the genetic one


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

I haven't relied on genetics though genetics show Palestinians closely related to many Jewish groups - infact, closer to some Jewish groups than other Jewish groups are.

I am not going to repeat what I posted about Palestinian culture - it's in the thread.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Um, I'm baffled, there is no unique Arab Muslim colonist culture. There is absolutely no difference between the culture of Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan than those on the right bank, less than 100' Away and originating form the exact same colonial expansion.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you could be talking about. I'll reread the thread but I don't recall any specific difference ever being listed or discussed. Can you give me a hint and give me at least a post number where to start ?


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Why must Jews leave all the square acres of land they lost when jordan occupied he land?  Jews gave up their land in Gaza for the sake of peace, which became a launching ground for more attacks.  Without some assurances of peace and cooperation, why should Israel force jews off the high ground?  If the PA did not full comply, why should they relinquish more land that would endanger Israel?  Is the PA going to compensate the jews for the land?  Why if arab muslims already live in Israel, shouldn't jews be allowed to live in a PA state if and when one does come about?

Refugees should be incorporated in other arab/muslim land or sent to the WB were there is land yet unused for them to build, farm or develop.  Why if Israel is not a muslim/arab free country should the PA be jew free and forced yet again off land?

If the PA and Israel are willing to cooperate on security patrols and prisoner bargains for young teens that brutally attack Israelis, can't they accept to live side by side with Israel and jews?

Hardliners want Israeli blood, others just want to get on with life. How do you bring them together and let Israel exist?  I tried for years to reason and help palestinians, thank you but I also have the scars of thanks as well for my years of efforts.  What I would suggest or have tried in the past is not so different now, and there will still be an impasse because of the extremists. 

Hate is far too indoctrinated in the people for should be and best compromises to even be tried.  The worst make it impossible for the best and moderates to work out what is best for them and Israel.  Too many want nothing less than absolutely no Israel or jews, they don't want to work out a compromise at all, ever.

How do you separate the good from the bad and give half a state and turn the other half into a death camp/prison, legally or morally, rather than let them kill you?

Blockades, sanctions, restriction, war, easing of restrictions, trying to take through intermediators.................., the answer to Israel is die from the hardliners.  PA is about to fall apart an the hardliners don't care and don't want to compromise with the PA, Israel or Egypt for the sake of the people.

What is reasonable, what is logical, what I think is best, what I would like to see, is just not at all within the realm of possibility where the hardliners are concerned.

I'll speak to the ration, but I don't have the will to fight against the absolute irrational and immovable.  Eventually I'll just put them on ignore after trying to get through them them.  I'll let the younger more energetic and ideological ones take the hard path and tilt with windmills and stone walls.  I have my own battles at home with a, sometimes violent, Alzheimer to try convince to work with me so I can care for.  It can be just as hard, and it just gets worse not better.

Same problems in a different package.  There is life span limit eventually for me, unforgettably for Israel and the palestinians, it has gone on for generations.  I accept and expect how things will end here, but over there, I don't see much light in the near future, without some major leadership and attitude changes.  I can be flexible to some extent for the sake of peace, for Israel they risk more attacks and more death if they give in too much.

I prefer my chair at this point in my life, I've already been through the war, I've done my time and then some.  I can observe, express my view, state the facts, share my experience, but I can't make the two (three, four, five,....) sides come together and make peace if some refuse.  Trying to make them see reason is not a certainty they are will to even consider it.

Sorry, my magic wand is in the repair shop


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...




I know we often (vehemently) disagree but I do think your viewpoint is worth more than most because of your real life experiences.  This is off topic but I'll say it anyway...I was listening to NPR "The World" talking about the Syrian conflict, and in this case about volunteer doctors going to the refugee camps.  It made me think of you - because of the things you had said you had done and experienced.

At any rate, I am sorry for the fact you are now having to deal with someone with alzhiemers, that is not a battle I would wish on anyone.  Peace.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote, could you please note what posts support your view that the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side of the Jordan are somehow different from those on the east bank. Less than 100' away.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Of all the people I have cared for and seen die, this is the hardest and least cooperative or appreciative. Emotionally hospice takes a toll, but this is mentally and physically crushing.  All the love and care can at time been seen as imprisonment and attack.  It can be very complicated.  I've dealt with children and grandchildren and even a spouse with differing illnesses, disabilities and emotional problem.  Now it is totally different.

There is only so far you can reason and give into for the sake of peace.  You can't let others harm you, others or themselves.

Trying to reason with Israel and the PA is much the same, neither should aggressively seek to harm, but there is point when response requires force when your life or country is at stake.

We have seen long periods of calm and then a series of violent attack by rocks, mortars, rockets, knives or cars.  When Israel responds, the world gets upset.

Palestinians, especially groups like hamas, need to be held accountable for the damage they do to their own, to Israeli and to the hope of peace and a PA statehood.  It is not all to be laid at Israel's feet.  More often than not is stems from some dispute between G and the WB, but they take their anger out on Israel for world publicity.

Israel is not the villain, not the devil, not an animal, not the aggressor, not the cause of every thing from a splinter to a natural disaster around the world.  First certain groups need to see them as people.  Short of slicing their own neck, Israel has at times bent over backwards and gotten nothing of grief and more bloodshed.  There has to be a give and take.  Small step and then bigger steps.  You don't start and the finish line and work backward for peace.

When you find people that can be leaders and guild their own people to face compromises that will benefit both sides, you have hit the jack pot.  They are a rare breed in the region and rarely live long lives.  Not a great prospect for a long and health future for a two state, two people peace agreement.  I've seen too many come and go over the decades.  I've seen bad people try to wiggle and bend eventually, but never quite bend enough.  I've seen good people break.

There are no easy answer, ever.  Even strategy gamesmanship works when there are irrational and unreasonable people in power, often to the point of fanatical.

It is not the west or even the east.  Gordian knots are easier to understand.  If you don't understand them, you will never get them to listen to you.  Time is more of an infinite concept where centuries are like minutes to the rest of the world.  Life and death have different values and meaning.

You can't find a western solution to a middle east problem.  It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  You might find a few areas of cooperation or advantage, but mostly it is just a wrong fit.

I'm not sure I even know how to really explain.  It is like thinking in french, not just knowing french words or phrases.  It is not a one for one translation process.

Maybe tomorrow I'll find a better way to explain.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote, could you please note what posts support your view that the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side of the Jordan are somehow different from those on the east bank. Less than 100' away.


Why would they need to be different?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 20, 2016)

They aren't,

thats the whole point. Without there being one single shred of discernable differences there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan, less than 100' from the Arab Muslim colonists on the east, deserve their own state separate from the 75% of the mandated area they already received.

Even if the Arab Muslim colonists on the west bank of the Jordan less than 100' from those on the east bank. for some reason are deserving of their own nation, why should it be carved out of Israel instead of Jordan ?

Either way there really is no effective argument for slicing a fourth state out of the land intended for an national Jewish homeland


----------



## Shusha (Jan 21, 2016)

Boston1 , post #95


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 21, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Do you think electing Hamas was a good move by the Palestinians to show their desire for peace?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> They aren't,
> 
> thats the whole point. Without there being one single shred of discernable differences there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan, less than 100' from the Arab Muslim colonists on the east, deserve their own state separate from the 75% of the mandated area they already received.
> 
> ...


there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims, blah, blah, blah​
What about the Arab Christians? You never mention them.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't,
> ...



Aw, bless you for asking.  Isn't it wonderfUL?  Arab Christians fighting for Israel by joining the Israeli army.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 21, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > i-n-d-i-g-*e*-n-o-u-s
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Maybe they are...maybe they aren't 

Your entire argument seems to boil down to the above statement​
OK Coyote, I reread the post in which you spell out why you believe the Arab Muslims who colonized Southern Syria’s provincial ( hows that for being neutral ;--) area are somehow a distinct people but really, its not making much sense. First the real question isn't if the palestinians are a distinct people, thats kinda a red herring, its if the people you are calling palestinians are any different than the people called Jordanians, less than 100' across a shallow river. And remember, the Jordanians already received 75% of the mandated area. Since its such a long post and relies on wiki so heavily lets just stick to the basics.

The premise of the entire post is that there is a distinct palestinian culture other than Judaic prior to the recreation of Israel. Which fails to address the issue of if there is any real difference between Jordanians and the people you refer to as palestinians. However Israel never existed prior to 1948 just like Jordan never existed, just like palestine never existed, ever, even today.

What there was were cultural groups, palestine doesn't appear anywhere in history, ever, as a culture, the term itself was a Roman insult, a joke designed to delegitimize the Judaic people, just as it is today. So for accuracy the only way to really identify these cultures up until the creation of the areas states is through some rather generalized terms. Judaic or Arab for instance. But its hard to argue that Israeli’s existed prior to 48 just like its hard to argue that Jordanians existed prior to 46. Whats even harder to argue is that there is any such people called palestinians when there has never been a palestine and when there is no discernible difference between them and the Jordanians.

Your next assertion is that Arab Muslim colonists were actually descendants from indigenous Judaic people. Who we know developed in this area from as far back as can be reasonably identified in the mid to early bronze age. However you provide no evidence to support this view.

Next we have a request to provide a list of unique foods, and language which make Judaic culture cohesive. Foods is easy, how about matza ball soup ;—) love that stuff, or baklava. Not my favorite. In terms of language thats also easy. Hebrew dates back to something like the 10th century BCE and developed in this exact area.

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwimqdior7vKAhVosoMKHWLdALIQFggcMAA&url=http://www.ethnologue.com/language/heb&usg=AFQjCNEja_Tcf1JXMv0Zm4ttqGfqEAgULA&sig2=g2GBDCFof8H5gamoZhF-Mw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

And while there are various dialects of Hebrew there are even more of English spoken within the US. So while you can say there are regional differences in any language you can’t say how long it takes to pick up the local accents/dialects. How long does it take to pick up a local accent ? Is a regional accent a defining characteristic of culture when regional accents exist within just about every culture ? When does an accent become a dialect, grammar ? My grammars sucks ;--) does that mean I am owed a country to be carved out of Meca ?

The fact is that Hebrew is a distinct langage and not just a dialect. Arabic is a distinct language and not just a dialect. The language argument actually works against you as language migration is easily traced. Hebrew originated in the exact area where Israel is now, Arabic originated on the Arabian peninsula and didn’t come into common usage in Judea until after the Arab conquest and colonization period of roughly the 9th century CE.

Your assertions from Wiki are weak at best. Wiki is a highly questionable source anyway but lets just take a look at a few of these claims.

Dialect, means nothing. People in Boston have an accent different than people in Rhode Island who have a different accent than people in Florida or Vermont. Regional accents and vernacular aren't dialects in which case having an accent doesn’t mean you also have a unique culture. The dialect argument simply doesn’t wash. Unless you can denote specific grammatical differences then your referring to an accent and not a dialect. Even then the distinction is weak as inner city kids in the US also tend to spell things wrong just as I do yet that doesn't mean there is a distinct culture.

Folks songs, again a very weak argument. Just because an artist plays a folk instrument and comes from a particular place that doesn’t mean there is suddenly a unique historical significance to a given piece of music. Again trying to build an argument based on where a given song is written is really weak.

You ask if we are erasing the palestinians by denying they are a people. Yes I suppose we are. The term palestinians was invented in about 1950 and it would appear by Arafat himself in an effort to destabilize Israel. The invention of a wronged ethnic group really was a stroke of genius, but its not fooling anyone who actually studies history. There was never a palestine ergo there was never a people called palestinians. Its an invention for political gain. These very same people were content to be Jordanians and before that, Southern Syrians. So whats the problem that they refuse to be Israeli’s ?

Your last assertion is that its not possible to prove a historical link to the original inhabitants. This is demonstrably false

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwifqMqitbvKAhWGmIMKHSm5D8MQFggrMAI&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Israel-Finkelstein/dp/B001VDSSCW&usg=AFQjCNEgA9xh4mqk7TpjLGiW8yBHTdiUGQ&sig2=YeCGvZOflW_hRzdPqZ4-RA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

In the end I don't see anything within your post that addresses the question of what makes the people you are referring to as palestinians any different from the the people known as the Jordanians who already recieved the lions share of the mandated area.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 21, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



It was not a popular election.  Hamas won by default because so many fatah spit the vote.  If it was a popular vote of the party, fatah won.
It was not a contest of hamas vs fatah, it was five fatah and one hamas running for the one seat.  Thee were a few seat where hamas was running uncontested but as a party, hamas did not "win".  Then they took Gaza by force and kicked out of kill fatah leaders.

No election since


----------



## Coyote (Jan 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> They aren't,
> 
> thats the whole point. Without there being one single shred of discernable differences there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan, less than 100' from the Arab Muslim colonists on the east, deserve their own state separate from the 75% of the mandated area they already received.
> 
> ...




Actually, the most effective argument, and in my opinion *the only argument* -  is that there is a substantial group of people who have lived on that land, since prior to the reinvention of Israel and who currently still live on that land.  The land in question is contested.  It doesn't matter in the least whether they are a unique people, or "different enough" (those damn goal posts) from those of neighboring - they have lived on that land for generations, centuries, millinia.  If Israel doesn't want to incorporate them into Israel (a one state solution with Israel annexing WB and Gaza) then the only remaining "solutions" are some sort of 2-state (or 3-state) solution or a mass expulsion of more than 4 million men, women, and children from lands they have held in their families for generations.

Let's explore that.

The reality of the inhabitants in that region is they are a mix of ancient peoples, the residue of multiple conquests, and a mix of more recent immigrations from other Arab states and from Europe.  I think that is historically and archaeologically well supported what ever "terminology" you choose to label it with.

In that region you have a what can only be called a humanitarian nightmare with no visible solution in sight.  You have Arab states in varying degrees of stability with varying degrees of control over extremists and some who empower extremists.  You have what currently look like two failing states: Libya and Iraq, and you have Syria - currently entering it's 6th year of civil war, and infested with ISIS.   You have huge numbers of people in refugee camps, both Palestinians from an earlier conflict and refugees fleeing the wars in Syria and Iraq.  I'm not sure what the total numbers are, but I read somewhere that currently there are more displaced people in the world than ever before and world resources are severely strained.  That's the overall playing field. 

Now, add into that the conflict between the Palestinians and Israeli's that has been going on for 50 years.  Like I said before - there are no angels in the conflict.  Both sides have acted in ways that perpetuate the conflict and prevent a peaceful resolution.  That is my opinion and we clearly disagree on it.

Jordan absorbed a huge number of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel.  Jordan currently has over 1 million refugees and assylum seekers from Syria and Iraq and has been one of the most generous countries in that regard both in the services and treatment provided and the numbers taken in despite a substantial strain on it's infrastructure.  Jordan has also taken in 2 million Palestinian refugees, most of whom have been given full citizenship.  

So...within this context, you propose to expel 4.4 million Palestinian men, women and children to add to the crisis simply so Israel can appropriate their land without the population.  That is your "solution" for Israel.

What will you do if Jordan says no to your expulsion?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Maybe they are...maybe they aren't 

Your entire argument seems to boil down to the above statement​
OK Coyote, I reread the post in which you spell out why you believe the Arab Muslims who colonized Southern Syria’s provincial ( hows that for being neutral ;--) area are somehow a distinct people but really, its not making much sense. First the real question isn't if the palestinians are a distinct people, thats kinda a red herring, its if the people you are calling palestinians are any different than the people called Jordanians, less than 100' across a shallow river. And remember, the Jordanians already received 75% of the mandated area. Since its such a long post and relies on wiki so heavily lets just stick to the basics.

The premise of the entire post is that there is a distinct palestinian culture other than Judaic prior to the recreation of Israel. Which fails to address the issue of if there is any real difference between Jordanians and the people you refer to as palestinians. However Israel never existed prior to 1948 just like Jordan never existed, just like palestine never existed, ever, even today.

What there was were cultural groups, palestine doesn't appear anywhere in history, ever, as a culture, the term itself was a Roman insult, a joke designed to delegitimize the Judaic people, just as it is today. So for accuracy the only way to really identify these cultures up until the creation of the areas states is through some rather generalized terms. Judaic or Arab for instance. But its hard to argue that Israeli’s existed prior to 48 just like its hard to argue that Jordanians existed prior to 46. Whats even harder to argue is that there is any such people called palestinians when there has never been a palestine and when there is no discernible difference between them and the Jordanians.

Your next assertion is that Arab Muslim colonists were actually descendants from indigenous Judaic people. Who we know developed in this area from as far back as can be reasonably identified in the mid to early bronze age. However you provide no evidence to support this view.

Next we have a request to provide a list of unique foods, and language which make Judaic culture cohesive. Foods is easy, how about matza ball soup ;—) love that stuff, or baklava. Not my favorite. In terms of language thats also easy. Hebrew dates back to something like the 10th century BCE and developed in this exact area.

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwimqdior7vKAhVosoMKHWLdALIQFggcMAA&url=http://www.ethnologue.com/language/heb&usg=AFQjCNEja_Tcf1JXMv0Zm4ttqGfqEAgULA&sig2=g2GBDCFof8H5gamoZhF-Mw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

And while there are various dialects of Hebrew there are even more of English spoken within the US. So while you can say there are regional differences in any language you can’t say how long it takes to pick up the local accents/dialects. How long does it take to pick up a local accent ? Is a regional accent a defining characteristic of culture when regional accents exist within just about every culture ? When does an accent become a dialect, grammar ? My grammars sucks ;--) does that mean I am owed a country to be carved out of Meca ?

The fact is that Hebrew is a distinct langage and not just a dialect. Arabic is a distinct language and not just a dialect. The language argument actually works against you as language migration is easily traced. Hebrew originated in the exact area where Israel is now, Arabic originated on the Arabian peninsula and didn’t come into common usage in Judea until after the Arab conquest and colonization period of roughly the 9th century CE.

Your assertions from Wiki are weak at best. Wiki is a highly questionable source anyway but lets just take a look at a few of these claims.

Dialect, means nothing. People in Boston have an accent different than people in Rhode Island who have a different accent than people in Florida or Vermont. Regional accents and vernacular aren't dialects in which case having an accent doesn’t mean you also have a unique culture. The dialect argument simply doesn’t wash. Unless you can denote specific grammatical differences then your referring to an accent and not a dialect. Even then the distinction is weak as inner city kids in the US also tend to spell things wrong just as I do yet that doesn't mean there is a distinct culture.

Folks songs, again a very weak argument. Just because an artist plays a folk instrument and comes from a particular place that doesn’t mean there is suddenly a unique historical significance to a given piece of music. Again trying to build an argument based on where a given song is written is really weak.

You ask if we are erasing the palestinians by denying they are a people. Yes I suppose we are. The term palestinians was invented in about 1950 and it would appear by Arafat himself in an effort to destabilize Israel. The invention of a wronged ethnic group really was a stroke of genius, but its not fooling anyone who actually studies history. There was never a palestine ergo there was never a people called palestinians. Its an invention for political gain. These very same people were content to be Jordanians and before that, Southern Syrians. So whats the problem that they refuse to be Israeli’s ?

Your last assertion is that its not possible to prove a historical link to the original inhabitants. This is demonstrably false

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwifqMqitbvKAhWGmIMKHSm5D8MQFggrMAI&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Israel-Finkelstein/dp/B001VDSSCW&usg=AFQjCNEgA9xh4mqk7TpjLGiW8yBHTdiUGQ&sig2=YeCGvZOflW_hRzdPqZ4-RA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

In the end I don't see anything within your post that addresses the question of what makes the people you are referring to as palestinians any different from the the people known as the Jordanians who already recieved the lions share of the mandated area.[/QUOTE]

Just addressing one point at the moment - in terms of a common language, Hebrew is not spoken by all Jews.  It was *reinvented as a spoken language* when Israel became a state.  Saying it is part of the culture is like saying Latin is because it's the church language of Christians even though it's not a spoken language and many don't even know it beyond a few memorized phrases.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 21, 2016)

Coyote said:


> .
> 
> Just addressing one point at the moment - in terms of a common language, Hebrew is not spoken by all Jews.  It was *reinvented as a spoken language* when Israel became a state.



Of course, the fact that it could be resurrected as a spoken language demonstrates that it was not lost, but maintained through thousands of years.  Many of the First Nations languages here in Canada are also being resurrected and learned by younger generations.  Its altogether a wonderful thing to preserve a culture.  That none of the youngest generations of First Nations peoples could speak the language in no way means it is not part of the culture.

Oh and the resurrection of the spoken language of Hebrew was begun some time before Israel became a state.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 21, 2016)

Actually I'd agree with you on this one

Quote

Now, add into that the conflict between the Palestinians and Israeli's that has been going on for 50 years. Like I said before - there are no angels in the conflict. Both sides have acted in ways that perpetuate the conflict and prevent a peaceful resolution. That is my opinion and we clearly disagree on it.

End Quote

So lets not get our nickers in a twist ;--) LOL ( sense of humor required ) The way I see it is both sides have been at war and war's ugly. We haven't really dug into war crimes yet but that ones a mess of bias and over emotional diatribe that I do my best to avoid. So I just stick to history.

There's no doubt the middle east is a disaster of waring factions and there is no doubt that Jordan is actually doing better than most. So no I'd rather not add to the chances of it breaking down into armed revolt like most of the rest.

The issue is if Israel should award the people you call palestinians with something like 35% of the country and allow an obviously hostile force to have autonomous rule with no restrictions on arms or military activity. Pure suicide for Israel is what we are really talking about. If you want to try and stabilize the middle east, dropping a bunch of fanatical muslims into the middle of Israel isn't the way to go about it. 

IMHO Jordan should be responsible for accepting any Arab who refused to live peacefully within Israel. The area was divided into two countries, one Arab and the other Judaic. Even if you don't want to recognize the distinctions between the two peoples.

If Jordan wants to offer 35% of its land area to the palestinians thats their business but I don't see why Israel is responsible for freeing what amounts to prisoners of war to continue the war unfettered.

The thing to remember is that the restrictions, the walls, the embargo has been very effective in slowing down the violence. Without them it would be pure chaos.

Its also important to remember the timeline of events. Israel had permission to set up its national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan. Israel did, the Arab League declared war and its been a war ever since.

IMHO the Arab league should be required to take back its armed forces as well as their descendants. How they divide them up is their business but no matter how you slice it the real argument ( although it is entertaining ) isn't about ethnicity its about combatants.

Something tells me we would have another interesting conversation about that subject and I did start a thread concerning the issue that unfortunately has received little attention. IMHO because its kinda no brainer and it really throws a wrench into the whole argument.

see
*The Geneva convention vs palestinian refugee status.*


But yeah, the heritage argument is entertaining but the deciding factor within the law is combatant status. Israel is in no way required to maintain a hostile combatant force within a refugee population and has every right to expel them regardless of who has agreed to accept them.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwigr43A1bvKAhWpkoMKHWM4BcEQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/375?OpenDocument&usg=AFQjCNGCBLSgqHU-pHGiDVqv1RF2szB_9w&sig2=D-UxQAdpKwTcflnjv1CfSw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Actually I'd agree with you on this one
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...



Talk about no mention of war crimes, Netanyahu should be tried & convicted for war crimes againast his own Israeli citizens.  Want peace?  Israel needs a leader who know the Palestinians well like king Hussein did.  LET THERE BE PEACE LAREADY!


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 21, 2016)

The war crimes issue is just petty bickering, I'l never engage that conversation as its just a shit fight. 

The facts are pretty basic. 

Ethnicity is an interesting topic but really isn't the main issue. 

What is preventing peace is the UN support of combatants within the refugee population. That and deporting the combatants. 

Minus the violently inclined I don't see to many obstructions to the peace process other than the Israeli's helping the pals to set up an actually functional government. So far the pals government has been mostly terrorist figure heads who in the end are legitimate targets.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The war crimes issue is just petty bickering, I'l never engage that conversation as its just a shit fight.
> 
> The facts are pretty basic.
> 
> ...



I don't think Abbas is...but "peace" is a hard sell to  his people with Netanyahu's actions and policies.  Hamas is another matter.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 22, 2016)

The only relevance Hamas has is that its the terrorist arm of the refugee population. The PA is basically a puppet regime with zero authority over the Arab Muslim colonists. But a great source of welfare dollars.

The facts are that the only road to peace lays in removing the intransigent and negotiating with whoever's left.

The fact is that until and unless the UNWRA is removed from influence within this sphere of the world there will be no peace. The Arab block controls the UN and virtually 100% of UNWRA employees are Arab Muslim colonists. Its an endless source of welfare dollars and terrorist infrastructure construction materials.

The UNWRA lends aid to combatants. Shelter, medical treatment, education, construction supplies, food and essentials. AND ARMS. This internationally funded incitement must end BEFORE a rational solution can be found. The UN should be expelled and tried as an illegal combatant from the middle east conflict.

The Israeli's are not the only people to gain a foothold in the mandated area. 75+% of the land area was awarded to the Arab Muslims. And today hostile Arab Muslim forces presently OCCUPY areas intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland well beyond the Jordan river boundary.

Why should Israel be expected to give up roughly 35% of its land area and the Jordanians 0% in this false narrative of a wronged indigenous people ?

Wouldn't the reasonable compromise be that we determine just how much more land the Arab Muslim colonists will demand before they are willing to allow Israel to live and let live ? And then divide it equitably 25/75 between Israel and Jordan ? Minus of course any areas critical to the future safety and wellbeing of Israel ;--)


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 22, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The war crimes issue is just petty bickering, I'l never engage that conversation as its just a shit fight.
> ...



I agree that peace is hard to sell with Netanyahu's actions & policies.  Peace offeringgs, a security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into violence.  Want peace?  Israel must learn from Jordan how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 25, 2016)

Another fact to consider is that every time the Palestinians kill one or more Israeli's, Israel will retalitate.  How many more dead Palestinians will it take to save the rest of the Palestinians?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Just as you do by refusing to recognise that the original palestinians were the Jews as neither the Christians or muslims had yet been invented. So you are no better than those you accuse of disenfranchising the new arrivals when you disenfranchise those who can show a 4,500 year occupancy of Palestine unbroken till the present day.

 What rights do they have under international law, and when did this rights come into force as team Palestine is known to use international laws retrospectively when the evidence starts stacking up against them


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > the bottom line is that the British mandate area has been split into two states. An Arab Muslim state and a Jewish state. With Gaza left over, which will eventually become a third Arab Muslim state.
> ...







 Then they cant be arab muslims can they, so they cant claim Palestine as an arab state. See how easy it is to destroy every claim you make using your own words. If they are arabs then they are invaders and immigrants and have no claims to the land. If they are not arabs then they have no claim to the land as they gave up their birthright when they converted to islam.

 How about a link that shows the Jews spoke Arabic when arab's as we know them were not around until the 7C. Before this time they were city states each with its own language, and Aramaic as the language of commerce. ( spoken by the Jews who where the merchants of the time )


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > col·o·ny
> ...






 The Palestinians are an international fraud foisted on the world by the arab muslims from the dregs of arab society. They are invaders and colonists as proven by the many accounts over the years, and when invited to colonise by the Ottomans they refused as the work was too hard for them to stomach.


 Now how about proof of these fantasy claims of yours from a reliable and trustworthy source that European Jews are the process of religious conversions, marriages outside of Judaism and the diaspora ?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 25, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



I posted it in another thread but I'll see if I can find it.

Just from a view point of population viability - there is no way they could have survived as a people without that - they would be the most inbred people on earth.

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News


----------



## Coyote (Jan 25, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



I don't think you are "destroying" anything nor do you seem to make a lot of sense.

Arab was broadly used to describe anyone in the Middle East, whether truly Arab or not.  You are also confusing historic time spans.  I'm talking about a period after the arabization of Palestine (which should have been clear if you read my post).  You're jumping to pre-Muslim Palestine and demanding a link for a claim I did not make.  Can you get any nuttier Phoenall?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 25, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



The "original" Palestinians were Greeks when you come right down to it.  Who exactly am I "disenfranchising"?  I'm not the one calling folks "colonists" or "squatters" or demanding mass expulsions.  Try to keep your facts striaight.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 25, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Actually the original palestinians would appear to be Jordanian as palestinians as a people only appear from about the 1960s and on with Arafats creation of the PLO. 

While the name might have gained in usage between the late zionist period to today its progressively more rare as one goes back into history. Eventually only appearing on a few documents and coins in about the 1st century CE 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Cgd0s6ZAqH5F5QlxD8ueZw&bvm=bv.112454388,d.amc

The first inhabitants of the Canaan area would appear to be the Hyksos or proto judaic people dating back to the stone age.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 26, 2016)

Getting back to consider the facts, both Israeli's & Palestinians now reside on the same disputed land at the same time with an ongoing conflict.  So how do they put it to an end & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 26, 2016)

The facts are that the Judaic people are the native inhabitants and that the Arab Muslims invaded the area, killing and slaughtering the indigenous people with each new colonial wave. 

What remains of the Arab Muslim colonists is not the indigenous people. Thats simply a fact. 

Another fact is that the remaining Arab Muslim colonists are so extremely racist and bigoted they must be held off are gunpoint lest they stab pregnant woman and kill innocent civilians. 

Another fact is that the UNWRA is not a neutral organization lending aid to refugees. Its staffed virtually entirely by Arab Muslims who often enough are also members of the various terrorist organizations of the Muslim Arab colonists. 

Its also a fact that the Geneva conventions fully support Israel's right to forcibly remove hostile combatants from its area of influence. 

We can review facts all day but in the end the only fact that really matters is that the Arab Muslims colonists aren't interested in peace. 

There's already one Arab Muslim country taking up 80% of the mandated area. There's another ( Gaza ) that is more interested in acting as a fire base against Israel than establishing itself as a state and now our Arab Muslim terrorist sympathizers are stumping for a third Arab Muslim state. 

The fact I'd be damn curious to hear is how many Arab Muslim states within the area intended for a national Jewish homeland are required before the racists and bigots among them will be satisfied ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 And try reading the study further where it says that these are just the views of the authors and have no actual basis in reality. It also stated that the lineage was traceable back to just 4 women who gave birth to the Jewish nation of today.

 The title of the link alone shows that it is pure conjecture when it states  "probably converted to Judaism"


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 When was this fantasy extant then as I have never seen any mention of all those in the M.E. being called arab.

The Jews spoke Hebrew and Aramaic even after the arabs invaded Jerusalem, and still spoke Hebrew and Aramaic 22 years later when they were themselves invaded and kicked out. There was no universal arab language until much later, and  Arabic of the 7C is vastly different to the Arabic of today_. _In fact it is as close as latin is to Arabic


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 26, 2016)

It becomes blurry in about the mid to late bronze age but archeology has a lot to offer and two of the world foremost authorities on middle east archeology ( Silberman and Finklestein ) have confirmed that the Hyksos did develop into the proto Judaic tribes in the Canaan valley area

Quote 

As to a Hyksos "conquest", some archaeologists depict the Hyksos as "northern hordes ... sweeping through Palestine and Egypt in swift chariots". Yet, others refer to a "creeping conquest", that is, a gradual infiltration of migrating nomadic or semi-nomadic people, who either slowly took over control of the country piecemeal, or, by a swift coup d’etat, put themselves at the head of the existing government. Archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes states:
It is no longer thought that the Hyksos rulers ... represent the invasion of a conquering horde of Asiatics ... they were wandering groups of Semites who had long come to Egypt for trade and other peaceful purposes.[13]
It is generally thought that the Hyksos were probably Semites who came from the Levant. Kamose's explicit statement about the Asiatic origins of Apophis is the strongest evidence for a Canaanite background for the majority of the Hyksos. However, other interpretations are possible.

End Quote


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 So what are you doing when you harp on about the Palestinians saying they will expel all the Israeli's from Palestine.

 Who gave the name to the greeks then as the Palestine of today is what the Romans called Judea and Samaria. The Greeks did not inhabit Palestine but Syria palestina and a coastal strip of land.

 You are disenfranchising the Jews who have more legal rights to inhabit Jewish Palestine than the illegal Islamic immigrants that you support. The Jews have International law on their side, while the muslims have nothing but left wing Nazi support.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 26, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Where am I harping on that?  Israeli's can stay, presumably, but as Palestinian citizens not Israeli citizens.




> Who gave the name to the greeks then as the Palestine of today is what the Romans called Judea and Samaria. The Greeks did not inhabit Palestine but Syria palestina and a coastal strip of land.
> 
> You are disenfranchising the Jews who have more legal rights to inhabit Jewish Palestine than the illegal Islamic immigrants that you support. The Jews have International law on their side, while the muslims have nothing but left wing Nazi support.



I'm not disenfranchising anyone.  I totally support Israel's right to exist and the right of Israeli's to be there.

There are no "illegal Islamic immigrants" - check international law on that.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Even today, the PA is not just arresting those who sell land but their families as well.  Those that sell land can be executed, without trial.
What do you think will happen to the jews who bought the land when the PA is in total control?  How long do you expect them to keep breathing?
Arabs can buy land in Israel, in areas of private land, but jews can't buy land in the WB?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 26, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Actually - *I've said, multiple times*, that there is a difference between words and likely outcome.  There is so much entrenched hate on both sides that it would be hard to guarantee safety and security - or for Jews to *trust *that guarantee.  None of that changes what Abbas actually said which you keep distorting.

Arabs can buy some land.  But they are prevented from living in Jewish only settlements aren't they?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 26, 2016)

The false equivalency is genuinely amazing


----------



## Coyote (Jan 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The false equivalency is genuinely amazing



What "false equivalency" is that?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 26, 2016)

You seem to think that the Judaic response to Arab aggression can be held up to the same candle as the Arab aggression. 

One is a purely defensive action ( that would be the Israeli actions ) 
The other, blatant racism with some genocidal intentions thrown in ( that would be the palestinians sending their teenagers out to stab pregnant Israeli woman ) 

Comparing an Israeli community that has for its own protection banned enemy combatants from its midst to the enemy who kills its own should they ever sell land to the Israeli's is disingenuous at best


----------



## Coyote (Jan 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> You seem to think that the Judaic response to Arab aggression can be held up to the same candle as the Arab aggression.



What do you mean "Judaic"?  I'm talking about Israel - a sovereign state, and it's actions.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean here or how it relates to what I posted but not all Israel's actions are "defensive" or moral.  You have to look at it in a case by case basis and in all those cases it's not "Judaic" or "Arab" - it's a state or a terrorist or, if you are talking about prior wars - other states.



> One is a purely defensive action ( that would be the Israeli actions )



Depends on the particular action.



> The other, blatant racism with some genocidal intentions thrown in ( that would be the palestinians sending their teenagers out to stab pregnant Israeli woman )



Throwing in the race card does nothing more than demean the entire debate - wa wa wa it's racism! 



> Comparing an Israeli community that has for its own protection banned enemy combatants from its midst to the enemy who kills its own should they ever sell land to the Israeli's is disingenuous at best



That wasn't even what I was talking about.  I'm talking about the kind of segregation like we used to have - you know, "white only" communities.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 26, 2016)

Looks like it was exactly what you were talking about 

Quote 

Arabs can buy some land. But they are prevented from living in Jewish only settlements aren't they?

End Quote 

The Judaic people were the first peoples of, well Judea. They can be traced back to the stone age and represent the indigenous population. 

Today they are known as the Israeli's however, there appears some confusion over some of them having returned to the Canaan area after a brief sojourn abroad. So I think it might help clear up some misconceptions if we just refer to the native people here as Judaic and the colonists as Arab Muslims. I hope that helps LMAO ;--) 

The race card is more than applicable given the stated goal of the Arabs to wash in Judaic blood and throw every last "Jew" into the sea. 

The issue of false equivalence is common in the revisionist narrative. Which relies heavily on blatant lies and misrepresentations. Kinda like equating the Israeli's defensive actions regarding palestinians to the horrendous acts of violence by the palestinians.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Not many, but there are some arab Israelis in the settlements, they are not strictly jewish only.
Palestinians work in and around the settlements, at Israeli pay scale, but palestinians do not live in the settlements that I could find.  There are palestinian villages near by.

In the new housing in East Jerusalem is not strictly jewish but has thousands of Israeli arabs moving in as well.  Many of the buildings torn down were without permits and substandard, or on land without deed that were illegally occupied by palestinians.

There is no flat excuse either way, but each lot(s) have to be examined on their own for deed, permits, etc., just as they are not totally jewish housing in all cases.  There are some neighborhoods or buildings for Orthodox that were built to meet certain standards when planned, such as kitches with double sets of cabinets or room for two refrigerators or special safety circuit breakers, fire retardants, sprinklers or timers built in for sabbath requirements.  I know there are special building codes, but not sure what they all are.  There is also widening of roads, infrastructure, social services, special access on sabbaths, special parks and schools, public transport, etc., that are all part of the planning.  Not sure what the zone limits are, but many orthodox building neighborhoods are also radio/TV/phone/car free on sabbaths.  Restriction non-orthodox would be unwilling to live by.

Just as different neighborhood association have their own rules, different settlements and building units would be designed specific to the needs of certain groups.  If others are willing to abide by the rules, they can apply to rent or own a unit there.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Looks like it was exactly what you were talking about
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...




Israel is a modern nation.  The indiginous population consists of many religious identities.  What we call Israeli's today may or may not have links to this "stone age" population. What IS known is, genetically, Israeli's and Palestinians are close cousins.  Thousands of years does not constitute a "brief" sojurn 

There are  no Arab colonists.  (are you yanking my chain?)

The race card diminishes what is a valid struggle of the Palestinian people for a state - whether or not you agree with it.  One can also toss the race card into the Israeli camp and the inquities in the justice system, permit system for new construction, right down to Netanyahu's own words about "Arab Israeli's".


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 26, 2016)

I think you're getting awfully cavalier with your use of the term indigenous. Israel is a modern nation, made up predominantly of indigenous people, because the majority of people are Judaic. A ethnic group which is monotheistic. who's culture developed in the Canaan area. Unlike the Arab Muslims who developed in the Arabian peninsula area roughly 4500 years later. 

Who, not what, we call Israelis today most certainly have links to the protojudaic Hyksos, through an examination of archeological evidence, Its virtually irrefutable.

From a genetic stand point very little can be proven. we could follow certain haplotypes and discover we are all chimps. but does that mean we should demand a homeland for chimps in Meca ? The genetic issue is wildly complex and I'm not particularly qualified to discern if a given marker is accurately depicting heritage or hair color. In which case I can't really argue it one way or another.

In terms of Arab colonists I'm sorta yanking your chain. Actually Monty's. That joyous little moment of confusion kept insisting the Israeli's were European colonists, so I've been having some fun with his use of the term and have been applying it to the Arab Muslims who entered the area of Judea in the 7th to 9th centuries CE because it applies more accurately.

Do I really think the Arab Muslims who might have entered Judea in this period deserve to be called colonists today. LOL ( looks around and says in a hushed tone ) no more than the Judaic people who returned to Judea after their European exile do, but don't tell Monty that ;--)

The racist call I believe is valid. What diminishes the Arab Muslim call for land is their refusal to act in a civilized manor.

The failure of the Arab Muslims to respect the social contract is legendary. What diminishes any credibility of Arab Muslim claims in Israel is stabbing pregnant woman in the streets and murdering mothers defending their children.

PS
That last was a spectacular example of a false equivalency


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 27, 2016)

Whatever israel does or doesn't do the Palestinians bitch about Israel.  Do you think maybe the Palestinians would do better to clean up  their own acts & bitch about their own problems to help their own people?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 I have and the muslims are deemed to be illegal immigrants at the very least, hostile alien immigrants if you prefer that should be expelled for stealing the land. If you support Israel's right to exist then you MUST support its right to control all of the land the Jews were granted in 1923 and not just the paltry 70% that the racist UN has allowed them to live on


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Because that is the covenant on that land. Just as I cant park a van outside my house if it has a company name or logo on the sides. In other places an external TV antenna is not allowed, and I believe in the US housing projects ban the erection of boundary fences to the from of some properties..


 What Abbas said mirrors what is in the Palestinian charter, that the only Jews/Israelis that would be allowed to live in a unified Palestine would be those born before the first Zionist set foot in Palestine. Why do you ignore the facts


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The false equivalency is genuinely amazing
> ...







 What laws enacted by the Israeli government stops arab muslims from buying any land in Israel, compared to the laws enacted by Abbas and co that bans the sale of land to Jews and makes it a capital crime.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to think that the Judaic response to Arab aggression can be held up to the same candle as the Arab aggression.
> ...







Why do we have to look at each individual case when it concerns the Jews, but have to look at the overall picture when it is the Palestinians. Can you see the disenfranchisement in your words. You cant say take each case separately apart from when I don't want to as it shows the Israeli's to be acting in accordance with international law.  Is it Israel a sovereign state or is it individuals that you want to use ?

 Find one that is not defensive then, as the actions are to protect against not just present attacks but future attacks as well

 And trying to derail the discussion by claiming it is using the race card when that is the whole crux of the problem shows that you don't want the overt racism being shown. To allow it is to admit that the Jews are a race, and doing this destroys half of your arguments.

Which do not exist in Israel, but certainly do exist in Palestine.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



By what law?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...




People aren't vans.

In the US, It is illegal to discrimminate against religion, race, gender or ethnicity in housing.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like it was exactly what you were talking about
> ...







 Depends on which school you subscribe to for your evidence. If there is a clear link between the bodies in Jewish cemeteries dating to the time of the Roman conquest and the European Jews  then they are linked quite firmly. If there is less than an 85% match between Palestinians and any of the Jews that make up the population of Israel then they are not closely linked. What is known from studying many genetic trials is that the Palestinians as a whole show a marked difference at the genetic level to the Jews. In fact they are not even third cousins according to the studies, and some have had to use such tactics as to claim that the modern Jews are descended from just 3 European women. ( they must have been as busy as the Palestinians to produce so many children that no interbreeding took place.

 If they are arabs then they have migrated from arabia to colonise the land. What don't you understand about that.

The Palestinian people already had a state granted in 1923, which they took up in 1948 after they were beaten back after trying to destroy Israel and wipe out the Jews. They then decided that their homeland would be better as a caliphate ran along sharia lines so declared war on the ruler of Jordan. So if anyone has diminished their struggle it is themselves, as for 65 years they did not make any demands for a separate state for the arab muslim immigrants.

 Is that like your African Americans, Irish Americans, Scots Americans etc. Does this make you just as racist ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







Try the mandate of Palestine and its findings over the years. Winston Churchill stood up in the house of commons and stated that the arabs had flooded into Palestine once the word went out that the Jews were to have their own homeland and the muslims would not be in control. Is that good enough for you the future Prime Minister of Britain declaring the arab illegal migration in parliament


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







So why are so many blacks homeless, and getting shot by your police ?

It is showing what a covenant on housing is, I read a case about a month ago where a Vet was evicted from his home for erecting a small antenna so he could operate his amateur radio transmitter because his housing project did not allow even a retractable antenna as found on many portable radios to be seen in the grounds of the project. He owned the property and paid for it outright and he was still evicted without force of law.



 By the way Palestinians drive vans so the same covenant would apply to them because of the van.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Paili's came pouring in by the thousands claiming it's their land as soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropolis.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



No.  You aren't citing any law.  What law "deems" them all "illegal immigrants"?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Human beings aren't retractable antennas either.

It's against US law to discrimminate in housing - you won't find any covenants saying "no blacks in this housing development".


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



NOBODY discriminates when it comes to housing!


----------



## Coyote (Jan 27, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I don't think anyone claimed that


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 28, 2016)

Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 What law deems the Israelis to be illegal immigrants as well, or that they are illegal settlers. All you have for them is islamonazi propaganda that seems to take more jurisprudence than actual law


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Are you sure as it is being shown that racism is alive and well in the states, and it might not be written down but it is still practised.

 But you miss the point, or is that the extremely large grey elephant in the room, that even the US has problems with human rights and civil rights. But all you want to do is concentrate on Israeli breaches based on US laws when those laws have no jurisdiction outside of the US. You may have a license to carry a concealed weapon in your home town it does not mean that it applies if you come to Europe.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 You just did by saying the housing projects don't say no blacks, when it is common place


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




.....and yet many in the US still do
US is not the middle east or the world.  Just because we are not supposed, can't wipe out the feeling of people so easily.  We see that everyday on this forum.

Consider that many don't want crosses hung in a building or non-christians not wanting to be in homes near churches.  Consider each groups has their own day off and are offended by businesses that are open on "their" particular sabbath.  No parking on certain sides of the road for jews to park and not have to move their car on Saturdays.  Parks closed to non-jews on Saturday in designated areas.
Old world orthodoxies and trying to accommodate so many faiths in conflict for such a small piece of land.

For some it is discrimination, for other accommodations, for others just keeping the peace.

No matter how clean (yes, I know they can be very clean) a pig is or how beloved a pet, muslims would call it discrimination to allow pigs or dog as pets in a building.  Those with pet would call it discrimination to keep them out because of their pet.
A building with christians that cook pork and bacon would be inappropriate for jews and muslims to live in.
Buildings where alcohol is permitted would be inappropriate for muslims.
Nudists have their own buildings in many cities, but others would consider it "unclean" to improper for a building to be nudist and discriminatory for those who wear clothing inside.
There are subdivisions and building where sex offenders cannot live or neighborhoods they must avoid.
Sometimes separate building and neighborhoods are required.  More an more there are smoke free buildings and homes and even allergy free homes being made.  Special construction of those with disabilities or special needs.  If the "right" space for special requirements are rare, is it fare for able-bodied to take those spaces away?  Ethnic neighborhoods should be forcibly integrated?  Half the homes and apartments in black neighborhoods should be sold to right whites to integrate?  Stores with higher priced merchandise in lower income areas that the people can't afford should replace thrift stores and corner bodegas?  Ethnic foods should open in areas where those ethnics groups don't live?  Why are there zoning regulations and neighborhood standards?  

Why should all building be open to the needs of muslims/palestinians and their specific requirements instead of for jews or christians?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I understand what you you are saying, but - *you criticize Palestinians* for not wanting Jews living in their communities and then you turn around and say *how it's ok for Jews to discrimminate against Palestinians?*

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?



It's not comparable because those Mexicans were not indigninous to the area.  The Palestinians - many of whom have roots going back over a thousand years, and even as long as the Jews - are.  

A better comparison would be if the US were annex Sonora and decide to kick out the native Mexicans.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Two different things here.

First - who's claiming that Israeli's are illegal immigrants?  I sure haven't.  Nice strawman though.

Second - illegal settlers.  That's based on international law in regards to how occupied territories are administered.  Here's an "islamonazi propaganda" source for you: ICRC service


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



No one is claiming racism is gone.  But in terms of the law it's illegal to have housing denied on the basis of race and when it is done, they can sue.  



> But you miss the point, or is that the extremely large grey elephant in the room, *that even the US has problems with human rights and civil rights*. But all you want to do is concentrate on Israeli breaches based on US laws when those laws have no jurisdiction outside of the US. You may have a license to carry a concealed weapon in your home town it does not mean that it applies if you come to Europe.



You're simply deflecting.  Of course the US has problems - like any other country.  What does that have to do with the price of fish in Gaza?  You complain about Palestinians not wanting Jews in their neighborhoods yet here you have the same thing going on in Israel where there are many Jewish only settlements and communities.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



No, I never said that.  I said it was illegal.  There are always going to be people who try to break the law.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



There are enough building that each can have their own particular space.  They don't all have to be in the same building or the same exact neighborhood to get along.

Israel is building for everyone.  Palestinians are building for muslim only, where christians are finding it harder to stay and live in the WB.  More and more christians are being forced out with no other place to go within the PA.
In Israel there are arab towns and bedouin town close to larger towns that are mixed.  Some ethnic groups prefer to be among their own.  Some muslims prefer not to live with jews and christians, especially where holy days and holidays are in conflict.

Israel allows for separation, it does no demand it if people are willing to abide by rules.  In Israel it is a way of avoiding conflict.  Other countries have minority communities and special areas for outsider workers.  There are towns across the world that are more friendly to foreigners and some very closed and provincial that distrust outsiders.

In the US Mormons, Mennonites and Amish don't generally mix with the "english" if they can avoid it.  There are areas where there is no electric, phones for cars.  Some areas are more Catholic, some more Protestant where people can choose to live.  Some more asian and some more italian.  There are areas where no one even speaks english in the US.  It was no all by design but where people could be closer to their own kind, with others they have a heritage in common.  Why if there is any separation in Israel is it discrimination or apartheid?  Why can't orthodox or muslims just prefer to be living near their own for practical reason?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The problem with all these arguments is that Israel isn't an occupying power. Until that issue is settled then the articles you present don't apply.

Another problem is that the Israeli government hasn't forced any movement of its own population. The people who live in the disputed territories do so voluntarily.

There's enough holes in the argument against Israel using land intended for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland to establish that state that there's really no end to the particulars of suggesting there is an occupation.


Quote 

With regard to Israel's legal status in the West Bank, the Levy Committee declared that Israel is not an occupying power. The panel arrived at that conclusion after considering two conflicting legal approaches on the question.


The first approach, presented by elements generally identified with the left, holds that Judea and Samaria are "occupied territories" under international law, ever since they were captured from the Jordanian kingdom in 1967.


(...)


Members of the panel accepted the legal opinion presented by the right. They explained that the generally accepted concept of occupation relates to short periods in which territory is capture from a sovereign state until the dispute between the two sides is resolved. *But Judea and Samaria have been under Israeli control for decades, and it is impossible to foresee a time when Israel will relinquish these territories, if ever.*

End Quote


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?
> ...




Mexican's believe they are indigenous in the west, especially the south west.  French speaking americans are indigenous to Louisiana.  There are chinese communities that have been in the states as long as whites christians.

Even in the middle east you will find the kurds, sunni, shiites, druze, zoroastrians and others living among their own.  Why do most languages live in their own neighborhoods or have their own countries?  Maybe vegetarians prefer to living in areas with fewer meat restaurants and stores.  Why do most Buddhists live near temples and not churches, and more asian grocers and asian medicine in those areas?  Why so few butchers in hindu neighborhoods? 

Why is it only prejudice if it involves jews or Israel but not other cultures or countries around the world?  Why must Israel take the palestinian refugees when other nations would execute them if they tried to return?  Why is it ok for palestinians to retain their "identity" but for kurds and armeneans it could mean persecution or death?

if iraq had equal representation in government for kurds, sunni and shiites, do you thing the government would have fallen apart so quickly?  US is made of 50 states so why shouldn't there be a  three state iraq, each with their own states government, but that share equal in how the country is ruled?

Why must kurds be wiped out in turkey instead of having their own safe zone or their own semi autonomous state within turkey?

Melting pot does not mean you can't find the carrots from the onion, just that the flavor enhance the whole.  When you serve dinner, you don't have to serve a stew or skillet dish, sometimes you proportion the meat, vegetables and starch on a plate side by side, not pureed in a blender.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 28, 2016)

If you look at the ICJ advisory opinion ( which I might add is nothing more than an opinion ) its pretty easy to find its chalk full of errors.

Quote

...under customary international law as reflected (...) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of *the hostile army*, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the *former eastern boundary of Palestine* under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

End Quote

The first and most obvious error is that Israel is not the "hostile army".

The term hostile used in this context is indicative of the aggressor and Israel is not the aggressor in this conflict. Had the opinion read "one or the other hostiles, or beligerants then I might have been able to read it as indicating Israel was ONE of the combatants, however the use of the word in singular can only be a reference to the Arab Muslim side. 

The second highlighted pericope represents a blatantly false statement. The Jordan at no point denoted a boundary to palestine, what it denoted was a boundary within palestine which designated the areas available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and the area not available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. As such, Israel is not occupying this area of Israel.

The opinion can be refuted on multiple levels but its not really worth it because again its only an opinion.

If we're discussing various facts then the exact facts are important. Israel is not occupying Arab Muslim land. Arab Muslims could be more accurately said to be occupying Israeli land.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Aris - I don't see any difference between Israel and Palestine in terms of exclusive communities.  When you say Israel is building for all - that's not really quite true.  How many new Jewish-only settlements have been constructed over the past decade?  How many Arab settlements?

Choosing to live within certain communities is different than having NO choice.  Do you see what I mean?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



*Why is it only prejudice if it involves jews or Israel but not other cultures or countries around the world?*  Why must Israel take the palestinian refugees when other nations would execute them if they tried to return?  Why is it ok for palestinians to retain their "identity" but for kurds and armeneans it could mean persecution or death?[/quote]

The Palestinians have roots that trace back as far as the Jews.  That puts them on the same footing in terms of rights.

Who is saying it's only prejudice if it involves Jews?  The same arguments were levied against South Africa, and against Burma. * No one is denying Kurds or Armeneans their right to demand an identity* - why are the Palestinians rights dependent on the rights of others? Each is a unique case.

Why is it ok for Jews to retain their "identity" but not Palestinians?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



What standing does the Levy Committee have?  They're a* politically appointed* committee, appointed by *Netanyahu*.  They certainly have their own agenda. What gives them any more standing than a Palestinian committee?  What makes them credible? Not much apparently: Levy Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does the UN say?  International law?

This article is prior to withdrawal from Gaza, so statements about Gaza no longer apply, but the rest does:

_"Occupation" is a legal status in international law, not just a description of the forceful means by which Israel has controlled the territories it seized in 1967. Although Israeli diplomats contest the designation of the territories as "occupied," and describe them as merely "administered" by Israel, there is no such status in international law.

_
*All competent legal authorities - including the International Court of Justice, the United Nations Security Council and Israel's own Supreme Court -- recognize the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights as occupied territories.*
_

International law imposes obligations and limitations on the actions of an occupying power, and the Charter of the United Nations bars acquisition of territory by war. Thus Israel has never had any legal rights of sovereignty over any of the lands it took in 1967, and never had any right to settle its own citizens there._​
The West Bank: If It's Not Occupation, Then What Is It?

_...The Levy Committee, headed by former court vice president Edmond Levy, recommends a fundamental change in the legal regime in the West Bank, *including the annulment of a long list of laws, High Court of Justice Rulings and procedures* in order to permit Jews to settle in all of Judea and Samaria._​_
What this means, if implemented, is simple: The Israeli government would treat West Bank land as if it were land in Israel proper (pre-1967 Israel). Now, of course, if Israel were to treat the land of the West Bank as part of Israel,* it would necessarily follow that it would have to treat the people who live on that land as Israeli citizens, extending them full voting rights, just as it extends citizenship to people who live in Israel proper, regardless of ethnicity. So: The natural consequence of this notion, if it is carried through to law, would be to extend voting rights to the Palestinians of the West Bank. This would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy, but the right-wing in Israel seems more enamored of land-ownership than it does of such antiquated notions as, you know, Zionism*._​
Frankly....the Levy Committee is nothing more than a political committee trying to justify land grabbing and revise history so as to make an occupation...not an occupation.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age. 

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention. 

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship. 

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ? 

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.
> 
> There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.
> 
> ...



There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The beauty of the Levy commission is that its recommendations are likely to become Israeli law. The ICC issued an opinion which actually has less authority as it has no chance of influencing Israeli law.

Huge difference. Although they both were politically appointed entities 

Oh and if the Israeli's do annex the disputed territories, which I wholeheartedly think they should. The interesting thing is that the op ed about the levy commission failed to consider that the Israeli's are under no obligation to offer citizenship to POWs


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.
> ...



actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century 

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians. 

Its one of the facts we should be considering.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time.  People have suddenly decided that some people are "invented" and thus have no rights even if their ancestors have occupied the same space for hundreds or thousands of years.  What better way to disenfranchise them that claim they don't exist.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Sure but at what point are they considered a separate people ? One must bear in mind that the first use of the term palestinian in reference to these particular people appears to be in 1967. 

previous to that they were Jordanians. 

So what differentiates Jordanians from palestinians. Is there a single distinguishable characteristic of culture that separates the palestiinians from any other of the middle east Arabs?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time.




 But only one did so in the middle part of the 21st century quite intentionally as a propaganda ploy calculated to appeal to ignorant Westerners.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



At this point, they can be considered a people.  They've formed their own identity.  They don't HAVE to be substantially different from Jordanians.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time.
> ...



What difference does it make?  Every people started somewhere.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




It makes a difference to intelligent people who wish to understand the intent involved.

Understood properly as an issue regarding Arabs and Jews, one can see who is the actual minority. Creating this fictitious group was nothing but a ploy to make the Jews look like the big, powerful group picking on the little guy instead of the truly big group -- Arabs -- persecuting Jews.

 It acted as a framing mechanism to fool the weak minded into supporting the majority's persecution of a minority by making it look as if it were the other way around.  .


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



They are people - human beings, who have lived in that area for a long time.  As human beings - they have fundamental rights.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> They are people - human beings, who have lived in that area for a long time.  As human beings - they have fundamental rights.



 Jewish history in the region predates the invention of the "Palestinians" by 3000 years, and they have rights as well.  Killing Jews is not a "right" and so in order to accommodate the ACTUAL rights of both Arabs and Jews, the Jews were given a tiny sliver of land while the Arabs control enormous expances.

 Sure -- you want the majority you support to own even more of the territory, and  this is obviously at the expense of the tiny minority you hate and persecute like you do, but there is no inherent "right" for Arab supremacists to have it all.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 28, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > They are people - human beings, who have lived in that area for a long time.  As human beings - they have fundamental rights.
> ...



Of course the Jewish people have rights.  Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states.  I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Of course the Jewish people have rights.  Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states.  I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.



  Ever hear of a place called Jordan?   

 It's the second state -- the arab portion --  and comprises 77% of the original mandate of Palestine.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Why wouldn't that allow just about any population group to declare themselves a unique cultural group and demand a country for themselves ?

My friends and I could declare ourselves a culture even though we have no cultural uniqueness outside existing established cultural groups and set up our countries with our own system of taxes ( none ) and education, fire and police. And demand a portion of the USA or China for our homeland saying we'd "hoped" for a nation of our own in that location and someone else is "occupying" our land ;--) .

I'm not disenfranchising a group of people when I say there must be a few discernible characteristics in order to qualify as a unique culture, I'm suggesting that group was never enfranchised in the first place.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


What a stupid argument.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Choosing to live within certain com

new housing units in the east jerusalem is not a one for one.  8000 jewish homes, 2,200 arab homes, proportional  to the population balance.  The most recent approved include 100 buildings for arabs.  Different homes and apartments for different needs.  New homes for all.

There might be many reason for the lack of arabs living in settlements with jews beside being excluded.  Jobs, location, size of homes, price, not being with lots of other arabs, not wanting to be with so many jews, not wanting to live in the west bank.

There might be a confusion or fear that being in the west bank, when and if jews pull out that arabs might have to stay as part of a population trade like a land trade of arab neighborhoods in Israel close to palestinian land.  As Israelis they don't want to part of a future palestinian state by default.

They might not want to be in conflict with palestinians because they are Israelis or in conflict with jews because they are not palestinians.  For arab Israelis it is still in some cases unsteady footing.  Maybe it is just easier to remain in Israel as arab israelis.  Maybe they prefer to just be close to family and friends.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 29, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the Jewish people have rights.  Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states.  I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.
> ...



You bring up a valid point.  Problem is Jordan will not grant their Palestinians a right of return.  Nor will any other Arab nation.  Palestinians want self determination without any intervention by Israel.  So where can this Palestinian State be located?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Why wouldn't that allow just about any population group to declare themselves a unique cultural group and demand a country for themselves ?
> 
> My friends and I could declare ourselves a culture even though we have no cultural uniqueness outside existing established cultural groups and set up our countries with our own system of taxes ( none ) and education, fire and police. And demand a portion of the USA or China for our homeland saying we'd "hoped" for a nation of our own in that location and someone else is "occupying" our land ;--) .
> 
> I'm not disenfranchising a group of people when I say there must be a few discernible characteristics in order to qualify as a unique culture, I'm suggesting that group was never enfranchised in the first place.



 Maybe some day, the United States can decide to persecute Canadians and then invent a proud people called Mainahs who have been in Main since time immortal with their proud traditions and proud sense of peoplehood and their proud desire to kill any Canadian they possibly can.

 Just imagine how that big, bad Canada would look then?!!

It's so transparent that only the extremely weak minded would fall for it.  It's nothing but a guise to create an entirely phony class of victim and thus elicit an emotional response from stupid people who salivate like Pavlov's pooch at the though of looking virtuous by supporting the poor victim's agenda.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 29, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> So where can this Palestinian State be located?




As these Arabs envision it, I'd say right about here:


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the Jewish people have rights.  Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states.  I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.
> ...



Are you proposing expelling some 4.4 million people to Jordan?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




No,  I am proposing that negotiations take place to redefine the borders between Jordan and Israel in keeping with the original intent. Some modifications from the original would be necessary due to facts on the ground.

Just because you believe in relocating hoards of  those who view murder of Jews to be the highest honor that can achieve  in their sick society, that does not mean I advocate sending them far away.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 The difference is the Jews don't use violence and terrorism to impose their views, they use diplomacy and try and find some middle ground. Like the fiasco in France at the moment that has resulted in the iranians throwing a hissy fit over the French custom of serving wine at a meal. Who is wrong and showing their intolerance the French for saying that the Iranian delegates do not have to drink the wine and they can have water instead, or the Iranians making demands that would put them in charge and being able to dictate the rules for the future meetings.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...




Analysis //Israel's discriminatory housing message: This is a Jewish state; Arabs out - National

_Every time the issue of Arabs living in small rural Jewish communities arises, the same question arises: Would Arabs be willing to let Jews live in their small rural communities? The goal of this question is to throw the ball back into the Arabs’ court and portray them as the bad guys, who don’t want Jews in their villages, and therefore have no right to demand to live in equivalent Jewish communities.

But the people who raise this claim ignore several important facts in an attempt to justify a fundamentally racist and discriminatory policy.

First, all the Arab villages – without exception – existed even before the state was established, and the vast majority of their houses were built on privately owned land that the owners inherited from their forebears, not on land provided by the state. Most of the rural Jewish communities, in contrast, were built on state land based on terms set by the state, and according to the High Court of Justice’s precedent-setting ruling in the Kaadan case in 2000, the state cannot discriminate in allocating land on the basis of a person’s ethnic or national background.

Second, Arab citizens of Israel currently own only about five percent of the country’s land, because most of what was once Arab-owned land has been expropriated over the years since 1948 via a series of draconian laws and decisions. In contrast, the regional councils where most of the Jewish communities in question are located control about 70 percent of the country’s land.

The fact that Arabs are barred from living in these areas due to their ethnicity, while almost any Jewish citizen who meets the relevant socioeconomic criteria can live there, means that Jews have considerably more options than Arabs when it comes to choosing a place to live._​
Apartheid Housing: Israeli Court Upholds 'Discriminatory' Laws

“Jewish State” to Evict 1000s of Arab-Israelis - The New Observer
_The Jewish state is to forcibly evict thousands of Arab-Israeli citizens from their homes in the Negev desert region of Israel to *make way for a large number of Jews-only settlements*, it has been revealed..._​
People on these threads over and over express outrage over Palestinians not wanting Jews to live in a Palestinian state, yet their own house is not exactly in good order at all.  Why this double standard?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?
> ...








 They say they were and have more evidence to support their claims than the Palestinians ever had. So how could many have roots going back over 1000 years when they have no lineage prior to 1948 when they arrived with the invading arab armies.

 A better comparison would be if the Americans annexed Texas and decided to kick out the Mexicans. Hold on didn't that already do that ?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



Let's stick to facts here - I oppose any forced expulsion of any group of civilians period.  What you propose or support is not entirely clear in this thread.  There is a thread on "What if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan" that discusses that as an option - maybe a good option.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 And you forget that the Oslo accords overrule that fantasy international law as it is an actual international law in itself. The Oslo accords make it legal for the Jews to build on land they hold title to, as does the UN charter and resolutions in regards to right of return. The Palestinians cant claim that they now own the land because they evicted the Jews in 1949 and passed a law making the Jews ownership illegal.

 Most of team Palestine at one time or another have stated that the Jews are illegal immigrants on the land granted to them as their NATIONal home. And this includes the west bank and Golan heights, forget gaza as Israel has no intentions of becoming embroiled in that cess pit ever again.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



They both go back centuries and even thousands of years.  They are brothers.  The "who was there first" really doesn't mean much when you are talking about those spans of time.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I suggest you speak for yourself and not others.  I have never stated either Jews or Palestinians are illegal immigrants.  There was  nothing with any force of law granting Jews (or Arabs) specific lands.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



If they weren't in the first place, they are now.  And unlike your examples - they have lived there as long as the Jews and whether they are a unique people or not, they are people.  The pro-Israel camp propoganda aim is to do as much as possible to eliminate those rights.  We have two sets of people, with extensive roots to the same land, who are made up of indiginous people and immigrants and who need to figure out a way to share the land.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Actually - no, they don't always use "diplomacy".  They have the power of a state behind them to force their way when they want.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



That's the looniest claim I've ever heard.  There were no Palestininas (except Jews) prior to 1948? History and genetics contradict you.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...









 If they can prove that it exists, if they cant then they have done themselves no favours. All that would happen is the owners would just turn them down on other reasons.

 Big difference is the Palestinians enforce it through violence, terrorism and rape. The Jews do it through covenants and courts that decide for the future generations. The Jews don't have it as official government policy to wipe out the Palestinians and to destroy their country. The Palestinians have it as their charter that they will not rest until the Jews have been wiped out and there will never be peace with Jews


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Let's stick to facts here - I oppose any forced expulsion of any group of civilians period.  What you propose or support is not entirely clear in this thread.  There is a thread on "What if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan" that discusses that as an option - maybe a good option.



I have said nothing that is not factual, and I was very clear in what I proposed.    If you support the flooding of Israel with Arabs who were not even alive in 1948, however,  or if you propose Israel allow entry to Arabs who moved into the region in the years before the establishment, you are the one not dealing in fact here.

My proposal involves no expulsion at all.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Let's stick to facts here - I oppose any forced expulsion of any group of civilians period.  What you propose or support is not entirely clear in this thread.  There is a thread on "What if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan" that discusses that as an option - maybe a good option.
> ...



No.  The "Right of Return" is not going to happen, that demand is going to have to be given up.  What I'm talking about is the status of the Occupied Territories.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




 I think Gaza should be administered by Egypt, and the west bank on east by Jordan.

 Failing that, a three state solution would be better than a two state solution.  A two state solution is not tenable due to geography.

 This would require finding Arabs who were actually interested in forming a state and not just killing Jews, though  As is, you might as well approach a badger's den and ask them to negotiate whether or not you can sit down and have a picnic.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 29, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


Egypt wants nothing to do with Gaza.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The appropriate legal procedure is outlined in the UNs own recommendations for the treatment of  refugees in war. They are best segregated from combatants upon their admission into the camps. 

But as we can all see the UN is ignoring its own regulations. 

I'd propose we set up aid and determination centers and end all aid other than what is distributed after each individual is categorized as a combatant a civilian or a refugee. 

At which point I'd suggest that all combatants, those aiding combatants and those suspected of being or aiding combatants be repatriated to a neutral third country.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The answer is really quite simple. 

There isn't a double standard, there's a security concern. The x Jordanians haven't exactly proven themselves the most peaceful of neighbors. Terrorist act after terrorist act has left them in the condition they are in today and they have yet to earn their way back into polite society. 

There's also the false equivalency again.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



I initially did not think that would work (west bank) but some of the discourse on the other thread made it seem very possible both in relieving Israel of the burden and with Jordan mentoring WB towards eventual autonomy.  It makes good sense.



> Failing that, a three state solution would be better than a two state solution.  A two state solution is not tenable due to geography.



Agree - there is not way to connect Gaza and address Israel's security concerns and territorial integrity.



> This would require finding Arabs who were actually interested in forming a state and not just killing Jews, though  As is, you might as well approach a badger's den and ask them to negotiate whether or not you can sit down and have a picnic.



If you mean Arabs among the Palestinians, I agree that they lack a unified leadership with the forsight and statesmanship needed to do this.  They need a Nelson Mandella.  If you mean other Arab states - Egypt and Jordan both have relations with Israel and a common need to settle the Palestinian issue.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


You're talking about putting 4.4 million civilians not currently in camps, into camps soley to make it more convenient for Israel to appropriate their property.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



There is most certainly a double standard that has been in place from the beginning.  You don't think the Palestinians might worry about security too?  The settler community isn't exactly peaceable.  No false equivalency, just false justification for two different standards.  Before criticizing Palestinians for a "no Israeli's" mentality...go examine the "no Arab" mentality in Israel.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



No I'm talking about doing what the UNs own guidelines says should be done. Setting up determination centers and acting on that determination.

The land is already Israel's It was Israel's from the day the mandate was authorized. It was Israel's when the Jordanians invaded and its Israel's today.

On your post 266 once again you've got the cart ahead of the horse. The Arabs declared war in 1948 and have yet to end the hostilities, as the defending party the Israeli's are fully within reason to maintain their guard until the X Jordanians have earned their way back into polite society.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




The Mandate was nothing more than an agreement between powers - it made no promises to either the Jews or the Arabs and did not have the power of law.   So claiming the entire region was Israel's is just opinion.

If you are talking about doing what the UN "should have done" then that would mean taking the entire civilian Palestinian population, and putting those you deem "refugees" into camps, and those you deem something else...

That's 4.4 million people.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 29, 2016)

Actually the mandate was a legal instrument and did carry the weight of law.

Which is why everyone keeps referring back to it. Its the last legally binding instrument concerning the area. Oh it expired, but its the last legal instrument. Although a strong argument could be made for Israel's declaration of statehood along with its functional government. Its rule of law and so forth.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


Occupations always have problems with security.

It comes with the territory.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Thus ISIS...Get the connection?
Muslims will be Muslims no matter what.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Right on.  Fianlly we agree.  "Occupations always have problems with security."  Israel must end the occupation by finding some incentive for the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Coyote (Jan 29, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Most Muslims despise what ISIS is doing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


They are not Islamic and they are not a state ~ Queen Rania


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


 
Queen Rania is wonderful.  She marries Abdula, king of Jordan & they refuse to grant Palestinians a right of return to Jordan & Jordan has open borders with Israel to boost their economy from vistors to Israel.  Truly, Jordan is the smartest player in the Middle East.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 29, 2016)

The Hashemite royals have allowed a great number of Palestinians to settle in Jordan and have given them Jordanian citizenship, to the point that Jordanians of Palestinian descent outnumber the native Bedouin.  

The native Jordanians aren't happy.

"Indigenous Bedouin from Jordan’s East Bank, who number about 3m, worry that America’s plans to persuade Palestinian leaders to strip generations of refugees of their claimed “right of return” to what is now Israel would reduce Jordan’s original inhabitants to a permanent minority. Tribal leaders fret that the refugees, barred from Israel, would campaign for full rights in Jordan, over time turning the kingdom into a second Palestinian state. The Bedouin would lose their preferential access to government jobs. They might also be deprived of the skewed electoral system that has hitherto ensured that they control Jordan’s parliament. “Kerry is destroying our home,” says a Jordanian analyst. “He is trying to solve one conflict by creating another.”


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.economist.com/news/middl...erging-american-plan-israel-palestine-kingdom[/FONT]


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 30, 2016)

Jordan knows Palestinians well.  Borders still closed to Palestinians but open to Israeli's.  Smart move by Jordan to boost their economy from travelers to Israel & keep their country safe from Palesttinains.


Does Jordan Want Palestinians In Control of The Border?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 30, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 They cant go back any further than 1400 years as that is when islam and modern arabs were invented. When well trusted politicians stand up and state officially that arab mohamedans have flooded into the mandate of Palestine illegally then it is time to take note of what really happened. Who is right on this the well trusted politician or the proven mohameden liars. The arab's were evicted in 1099 leaving just Christians and Jews in Palestine, Even the ottomans showed that the arab muslms were in the minority when the population was counted. They also showed that the arab muslims would not take up the offer of the land and farm it as the work was too hard for them to contemplate and so they left in 6 months of being handed the land. 3 times this happened  and so the Ottomans invited the Jews to migrate and make the desert bloom


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 30, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 See once again you deny INTERNATIONAL LAW when it is shown to be in the favour of the Jews. The LoN treaty setting up all the mandates worldwide were given force of law, if they didn't then not one of the nations so brought into existence is legal according to you. Just look at the date for the arab nations becoming fully fledged nations with no support from the mandatory partners anymore, not one was before 1946


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 30, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...









 The very ugly, very grey and very large elephant in the room is being ignored again. The muslims did not come into existence until 635 C.E. so how could they have been around as long as the Jews. And as the historical records show in 1099 the arab muslims were forcibly evicted never to have any sovereignty over the land from that date on.


 What rights are we trying to eliminate that don't actually exist in law. Why did the UN need to create a separate and distinct refugee agency just for the arab muslims who did not meet the criteria for being refugees in the first place. The biggest problem was the arab muslims did not have any tenure on the land and came with the invading armies, so the two year rule could not be used. Did you know that only arab muslims can make a claim under the UNWRA  regulations, and that the Jewish and Christians had to rely on help from other nations.


 I am still waiting for you to provide definitive proof that the arab muslims have any roots to the land, as even the mosque was not built until 30 years after mo'mads death.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 30, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 That status is enshrined in International law and it would take another treaty to alter it. The Palestinians of the west bank must have done the dirty on Arafat for him to have sold them down the river as he did. Or he thought that he would be able to get out of the treaty at a later date.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



Don't knock Arafat.  He was an outstanding leader.  He took his Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezelled their money & died of AIDS leaving the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  And let us give thanks that Hamas is doing so very well in filling Arafat's shoes.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Yes, they can go back more than 1400 years - they can precede Islam because they weren't Muslim at the time but converted - Christianity, Islam - whatever.  

Muslims were a majority from the Islamic conquest until Zionist immigration boosted the Jewish numbers.

Origins of Palestinians and Jews in Palestine/Israel
Origins of Palestinians and Jews in Palestine/Israel


----------



## Coyote (Jan 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Not according to the discussion in the Mandate thread.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 30, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Zionist immigration boosted the Jewish numbers.
> 
> l




 ......and Zionist immigration boosted the Muslim numbers as well, as Arabs also moved into the area for the economic opportunity Zionist development brought.

 It's really no different than what occurs today vis a vis the United States and Mexico.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 31, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Zionist immigration boosted the Jewish numbers.
> ...



So true.  As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 31, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Most Muslims despise what ISIS is doing.






......to other Muslims.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 31, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Most Muslims despise what ISIS is doing.
> ...



Isis is especially harmful to Palestinians.  Why is it that nearly all Muslims in Arab country detest Palestinians/


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 31, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



See for yourselves.

ISIS Threatens To Topple Hamas In Gaza


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 31, 2016)

ISIS is threat to everyone.  Muslims that understand the faith, not trying to politicize an apocalypse, know they do not represent islam.

The heads of most major legal schools of islam need together to denounce and excommunicate, takfir, all members and supporters of ISIS.

They need a clean and loud in unison, explanation of why.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jan 31, 2016)

Why is there so little world Muslim protests against their terrorist factions?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 1, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Why is there so little world Muslim protests against their terrorist factions?



Could it be because they will be next on their Muslim terrorist hit list?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 1, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Why is there so little world Muslim protests against their terrorist factions?




There is plenty.  Why do you ignore it?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 1, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there so little world Muslim protests against their terrorist factions?
> ...



Please enlighten us to this with documented links.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 1, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Does this one count?

http://churchandstate.org.uk/wordpr...13/01/soldiers-burnt-hell1-e1357850710177.jpg


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 2, 2016)

Seriously it seems to me that righteous Muslims must join together throughout the world to defeat the radical elements within their faith.  Without their help it is they who will suffer consequences from reactions by peoples of other faiths.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Because they are too "western." Even Hamas is considered too moderate.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



Palestinians are too "Western"?  Now THAT"S funny.  Bless you for the laugh.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Because they are too "western." Even Hamas is considered too moderate.




.....Too moderate for you, anyway.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 5, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


From your own link:

CAIRO, June 30 (Reuters) - Islamic State insurgents threatened on Tuesday to turn the Gaza Strip into another of their Middle East fiefdoms, accusing Hamas, the organization that rules the Palestinian territory, of being *insufficiently stringent about religious enforcement.*

Hamas is an Islamist movement that shares the jihadis' hostility to Israel but not their quest for a global religious war, *defining itself more within the framework of Palestinian nationalism.*​


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



"Palestinian nationalism!"  Now THAT"S funny considering what Hamas has done to the Palestinians.  Enjoy!

http://jij.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/JIJ-Fact-Sheet-1-A4-Ver-9-Hamas.pdf


----------



## montelatici (Feb 6, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Jerusalem Institute for Justice another Hasbara site.  You are such a tool. Their article for the day is:

*Israel’s Eternal And Undivided Capital*

LOL


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Truth hurts, eh Monte?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 6, 2016)

No more of Israel giving in to Palestinian demands.  The Palestinians need their own Palestinian State with self determination far away from Israel to provide for them.  The question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 6, 2016)

Your little game of claiming Palestinians are from anywhere but Palestine gets old. It is also illogical.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Your little game of claiming Palestinians are from anywhere but Palestine gets old. It is also illogical.



Oh buruther.  Live & learn.

The Truth about the Palestinian People


----------



## montelatici (Feb 7, 2016)

Do you only get your information from propaganda sites?  Not very good ones either.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Your little game of claiming Palestinians are from anywhere but Palestine gets old. It is also illogical.


As usual, you're fact-challenged. 

Claiming that Arab-Turk invaders/colonists are Pal'istanians is a bit of a stretch. Similarly, claiming that Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters are Pal'istanian is an even greater stretch. 

How else can we dumb that down for you?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






Apart from when the Crusaders invaded and conquered the land, they then kicked out the arab muslims aqfter they had held sovereignty for just 22 years. They never had any control of Palestine ever again, in fact the Ottomans refused them any control at all because they were so inept and incapable being nomadic farm workers


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 Do you mean the ones that you post saying the same thing about what is written on this thread. The LoN mandates are well documented and cover all parts of the world, with four mandate's in the M.E.  Lets see how much you know by naming the nations in control ?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Do you only get your information from propaganda sites?  Not very good ones either.



So let me get this straight.  If the site is pro USA &/or pro Israel, it is a propaganda site, right?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 8, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Do you only get your information from propaganda sites?  Not very good ones either.
> ...



Still no reply.  Sure looks like I got this one right.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 8, 2016)

Of course pro-Israel sites are propaganda, that's the definition of propaganda.  I don't know what you mean by pro-US sites, but if they are U.S. pro-Israel sites they are certainly propaganda, why do you think they are established.  That's where you get all your information from, of course you are brainwashed.  

If I only read Electronic Intifada and similar pro-Palestinian sites I would be brainwashed, too.  I don't read them, they are not sources for facts.

That's why I never use pro-Palestinian sites and rely on historical documents from recognized academic or governmental archives.  Or, on occasion news reports from news organizations from Europe which tend to be less partisan than U.S. media.

That's why I always have the facts and you and your friends always have the propaganda.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 8, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



What are you going on about?  The OTTOMAN's WERE Muslim.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 8, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



They're well documented yes - but that doesn't mean your understanding of them is correct.  I consider Rocco a trustworthy source, he explains the Mandate in a very understandable way (makes me wonder if he's a teacher  ):  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate



> The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish. The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done. It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews. The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews. It was mandate _(an official record of direction and guidance)_ speaking from the Allied Powers to the British. Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


 Most Mexicans are metzitzos, a combination of the Spaniard conquerors and Native Americans intermarrying.  So they are close to being the native population of that area.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Of course pro-Israel sites are propaganda, that's the definition of propaganda.  I don't know what you mean by pro-US sites, but if they are U.S. pro-Israel sites they are certainly propaganda, why do you think they are established.  That's where you get all your information from, of course you are brainwashed.
> 
> If I only read Electronic Intifada and similar pro-Palestinian sites I would be brainwashed, too.  I don't read them, they are not sources for facts.
> 
> ...



LMAO!  Oh now I got it.  I'll bet those brainwashed Zionists don't even subscribe to the fact based Palestine Monitor.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 8, 2016)

You never get anything.  No, the Zionist supporters get all their information from Zionist propaganda sites.  I get my information from the historical record contained in official archives.  That's why you and your friends lose every argument.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> You never get anything.  No, the Zionist supporters get all their information from Zionist propaganda sites.  I get my information from the historical record contained in official archives.  That's why you and your friends lose every argument.



Yeah right.  Like Israel's GENOCIDE on the Palestinians.  Oh Monte, we love you for the all the laughs you give us.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 8, 2016)

As you have never read the definition of genocide, and don't what it means, why do you even mention the word.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> As you have never read the definition of genocide, and don't what it means, why do you even mention the word.



Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' Land"?


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2016)

Hey MJB, did you hear the one about the Jews buying the land in Palestine?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> As you have never read the definition of genocide, and don't what it means, why do you even mention the word.



There is no "genocide" of Palestinians going on - that's a false claim and a very serious allegation.  Genocide: Bosnia, The Holocaust, Rwanda, Armenians...

I do think there is ethnic cleansing going on in certain areas through enforcement of restrictive residency laws and similar legislative tactics.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > As you have never read the definition of genocide, and don't what it means, why do you even mention the word.
> ...



Disagree:

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group;
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
ICRC service

Now look at what's going on and has been going on in Gaza and the West Bank and refer to the above; Numbers 1-4 certainly apply to the Zionist regime.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > As you have never read the definition of genocide, and don't what it means, why do you even mention the word.
> ...



"gen·o·cide
ˈjenəˌsīd/
_noun_

the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

Israelis are not deliberately killing Palestinians?
2,000 is not a large group?


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2016)

*By Gregory H. Stanton, President, Genocide Watch*

*Classification Symbolization Dehumanization Organization Polarization Preparation Extermination Denial*

Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear. Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages.  But all stages continue to operate throughout the process.

*1. CLASSIFICATION:* All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The Catholic church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a common language in countries like Tanzania has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early prevention of genocide.

*2. SYMBOLIZATION:* We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people “Jews” or “Gypsies”, or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980’s, code-words replaced them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, where the government refused to supply enough yellow badges and at least eighty percent of Jews did not wear them, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews.

*3. DEHUMANIZATION:* One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.

*4. ORGANIZATION:* Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility (the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or decentralized (terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations, as was done in post-genocide Rwanda.

*5. POLARIZATION:* Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators’ own group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d’état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions.

*6. PREPARATION:* Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is expropriated. They are often segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or the U.N. Security Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to prepare for its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees to come.

*7. EXTERMINATION* begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi). At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. (An unsafe “safe” area is worse than none at all.) The U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade, EU Rapid Response Force, or regional forces -- should be authorized to act by the U.N. Security Council if the genocide is small. For larger interventions, a multilateral force authorized by the U.N. should intervene. If the U.N. is paralyzed, regional alliances must act. It is time to recognize that the international responsibility to protect transcends the narrow interests of individual nation states. If strong nations will not provide troops to intervene directly, they should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene.

*8. DENIAL* is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav or Rwanda Tribunals, or an international tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or an International Criminal Court may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some may be brought to justice.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Ok, let's take #1 - killing members of the group.

Thus far, those actions have been undertaken primarily in defense and in reaction to rocket fire in Israel, and terrorist actions conducted on civilians in Israel and in the Occupied Territory settlements.  They aren't being killed solely because they are members of a particular group or religion.

#2  causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

That one has two different aspects.  One is, again, self defense and security and if Hamas launched rockets into civilian areas I don't think you can expect Israel to standby wagging a finger and shaking a head.

 The other is the treatment of Palestinians, particularly juveniles, in the justice system (particularly in comparison with Israeli citizens in the same territory).  I think that is unjust and wrong - but is it "genocide" in and of itself?  I don't think so.

#3 deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Possibly.  But it is hard to disentangle that from legitimate self defense.  What particular actions in this category can be seperated from self defense? Given Israel does have a substantial Arab (Palestinian) citizen population - how can you call it "genocide"?   I'll agree there is ethnic cleansing, and I agree that there are serious inequalities in the way Arab citizens are treated compared  to Jewish citizens.  But that is not genocide.

#4 imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

I've never heard of this happening.

#5 forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Never heard of this happening either.


I think the claim to genocide is very weak


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...




How can you disentangle that from legitimate self defense?


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 9, 2016)

Thread title "Consider The Facts"...
The facts are that Israel is doing some amazing stuff despite the "Christ killers" bullshit and it's full steam ahead.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2016)

1. Bombing an apartment building full of civilians or schools full of refugees containing people of a particular ethnic group is not legitimate self-defense. 
2. The all the various stages of genocide may not be achieved by the transgressor, nor may the transgressor be able eliminate all of the group he would like to eliminate.  It is still genocide.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> 1. Bombing an apartment building full of civilians or schools full of refugees containing people of a particular ethnic group is not legitimate self-defense.
> 2. The all the various stages of genocide may not be achieved by the transgressor, nor may the transgressor be able eliminate all of the group he would like to eliminate.  It is still genocide.


Yeah, yeah, Jewish babies are fair game but Muslim adults firing missiles from behind children is righteous.
You are so fucked up.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > As you have never read the definition of genocide, and don't what it means, why do you even mention the word.
> ...




and yet Israel just gave work permits to around 30,000 palestinians to work in Israel and get Israeli wages.

The "ethnic cleansing" is of terrorist, or people with illegal homes or land they do not have legal deeds for.

Israel cannot retreat from the high ground as long as palestinians choose war over peace.

The ethnic cleansing is hamas sending kids out to be killed.  They might as well be walking off a cliff for rivers of honey.  Hamas is killing their own, they are killing the palestinians that attack Israelis.  Might as well be suicide by cop.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 9, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...




Palestinians genocide of Israelis/jews


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2016)

I think you need to at least get up to a few hundred killed a year to have it considered large numbers as defined for genocide.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> The all the various stages of genocide may not be achieved by the transgressor, nor may the transgressor be able eliminate all of the group he would like to eliminate.  It is still genocide.



This statement only serves to negate any real measurement of actual genocide.  Its a way of saying, "If I believe that a particular group has a sinister intent and label them a transgressor then they are committing genocide regardless of the commission of any actual crimes or lack thereof."  It moves the measurement of genocide to an imagined intent -- rather than on any actual deeds by the so-called transgressor.  

The accusation of "genocide" by Israel is ridiculous.  Just another re-defining of words to ensure that Israel is demonized and the Palestinian narrative is sold to the unwary.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



And?  They have work permits but aren't allowed to live there.  Family reunification efforts have been pitifully small.



> The "ethnic cleansing" is of terrorist, or people with illegal homes or land they do not have legal deeds for.



Hardly.  U.N. rights investigator accuses Israel of 'ethnic cleansing'



> Israel cannot retreat from the high ground as long as palestinians choose war over peace.
> 
> The ethnic cleansing is hamas sending kids out to be killed.  They might as well be walking off a cliff for rivers of honey.  Hamas is killing their own, they are killing the palestinians that attack Israelis.  Might as well be suicide by cop.



Israel is systematically removing Palestinians and replacing them with Jewish-only housing communities.  That sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



There is no Palestinian genocide of Israeli's/jews - that's just as false as the claim of Israeli genocide on the Palestinians.  People need to learn what genocide means.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The all the various stages of genocide may not be achieved by the transgressor, nor may the transgressor be able eliminate all of the group he would like to eliminate.  It is still genocide.
> ...



Exactly.  It's like when people make cheap comparisons to the Holocaust and Hitler - it diminishes the horror of the real thing.  It cheapens it and is like a slap in the face to all those victims of mass graves.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I think you need to at least get up to a few hundred killed a year to have it considered large numbers as defined for genocide.



You need to have intent.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Canadians working in the US go home at the end of the day.

For countries that require are visiting visa and work visa.  We also have migrant workers that at the end of the season go home.  It is not like traveling more than 30 or 40 miles each way.  I would travel more than a hundred miles each way for a few years.

People that work in the city but live in the suburbs commute.

Sorry but palestinians are  not Israelis and they only get work permits.  It is a matter of security.
Arabs live and work in Israel.  Palestinians get a day pass.

The west bank lost thousands of jobs when companies move from the west bank to Israel.  Israel was creating jobs for palestinians, at Israeli pay rate which is at least double that the palestinian rate.

Jobs will be created in gaza they stop the attacks long enough for a multi billion dollar harbor.  They had jobs when hotels were built and full of tourists.  The unemployment was down when jews were living on their land in gaza.

It is all about palestinians putting down their weapons and picking up tools for building a nation.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> There is no Palestinian genocide of Israeli's/jews - that's just as false as the claim of Israeli genocide on the Palestinians.  People need to learn what genocide means.



I would argue that some very extreme groups have expressed some wish for genocide committed against the Jewish people -- but I agree with you, for the most part there is no Palestinian genocide of Jews either.  

Further, with or without current cause, I would say the Jewish people have an especial, if understandable, fear of genocide.

And yes, it cheapens the term to re-define it to sell your own narrative.  

Rocco said something yesterday about the assumption of sinister intent that some lay on the other side.  And it stuck me as true.  Without that assumption of sinister intent this conflict would be much easier to solve.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > There is no Palestinian genocide of Israeli's/jews - that's just as false as the claim of Israeli genocide on the Palestinians.  People need to learn what genocide means.
> ...



Ya, I read an article somewhere, that included opinion polls of Palestinian and Israeli civilians, and the widespread belief in each groups of the other's malign intent.  Each side believes the other intends to eliminate them.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Israel is systematically removing Palestinians and replacing them with Jewish-only housing communities.  That sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.



How and from where is Israel "systematically removing Palestinians"?  And where is intent to ethnically cleanse demonstrated?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Ya, I read an article somewhere, that included opinion polls of Palestinian and Israeli civilians, and the widespread belief in each groups of the other's malign intent.  Each side believes the other intends to eliminate them.



Agreed.  Though "eliminate" has a very different meaning than genocide.  

I do believe that there are large percentages of Palestinians whose goal is to eliminate Jewish sovereignty. Don't you?


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > There is no Palestinian genocide of Israeli's/jews - that's just as false as the claim of Israeli genocide on the Palestinians.  People need to learn what genocide means.
> ...




just calls and threats of wiping jews off the face of the earth.  These are people who wanted a crematorium large enough for the jews throughout the middle east and north africa.

Gaza Imam Wields Knife, Tells Congregation To Kill Jews


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ya, I read an article somewhere, that included opinion polls of Palestinian and Israeli civilians, and the widespread belief in each groups of the other's malign intent.  Each side believes the other intends to eliminate them.
> ...



Jewish sovereignty?   Perhaps.  But it looks like many still want their own state alongside Israel, not one state w/o Jewish sovereignty.

I like to look at this site for Palestinian public opinion polls - it's often enlightening - here's the latest one: Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No - 57 | PCPSR


----------



## Coyote (Feb 9, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




There are always extremists.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 9, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Yep.  57% support an armed intifada.  51% oppose a two state solution.  60% reject recognition of a Jewish State.  69% oppose a one state solution with Arabs and Jews enjoying equal rights.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 9, 2016)

Fact is Israel has the capability to commit genocide on the Palestinians but lack the desire.  Palestinians have the desire to commit genocide on the Israeli's but lack the capability.  And you can bet your bottom dollar Israel will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Fact is Israel has the capability to commit genocide on the Palestinians but lack the desire.  Palestinians have the desire to commit genocide on the Israeli's but lack the capability.  And you can bet your bottom dollar Israel will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.



You have shown that you don't know what genocide means, so how can you make any claims.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is Israel has the capability to commit genocide on the Palestinians but lack the desire.  Palestinians have the desire to commit genocide on the Israeli's but lack the capability.  And you can bet your bottom dollar Israel will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.
> ...


Actually, you have shown that YOU have no idea what genocide means.
Does genocide include hiring members of that targeted people for equal pay?


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The all the various stages of genocide may not be achieved by the transgressor, nor may the transgressor be able eliminate all of the group he would like to eliminate.  It is still genocide.
> ...





"Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948


Article I The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. 

Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such : 

Killing members of the group; 

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. "

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 78/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Gee, I wonder which document superseded this one?


----------



## Challenger (Feb 10, 2016)

Coyote said:
			
		

> Ok, let's take #1 - killing members of the group.
> 
> Thus far, those actions have been undertaken primarily in defense and in reaction to rocket fire in Israel, and terrorist actions conducted on civilians in Israel and in the Occupied Territory settlements.  They aren't being killed solely because they are members of a particular group or religion.
> 
> ...



The "self defence" plea used by the Zionists rests on proportionality of the response. If a rocket is fired at you, there are three possible responses;
Do nothing - unlikey response by the Zionists although they could take the matter to the ICC and/or UN to obtain a ruling that would sanction the Resistance (i.e. obtain a judgement/resolution allowing extreme military action if the attacks don't cease).
Retaliate - Here's where proportionality comes in; they shoot at you, you can legally shoot back at those firing at you with relative impunity. If you have weapons (i.e. guided missiles) that can kill or destroy the launch sites, this is using reasonable force to retaliate. However, carpet bombing an entire suburb (whether or not you warn the inhabitants in advance) most reasonable, rational people would consider that a disproportionate response which cannot be "self defence" Neither is destroying civilian infrastructure.
Shoot down the rocket before it hits anything important.- Iron Dome, most people would say that was sufficient for a "self defence" plea.

Killing those you identify as "terrorists" is legitimate self defence, wantonly killing civillians in large numbers in order to kill those you identify as "terrorists" is an act of genocide as defined.

Serious bodily or mental harm includes waging pychological warfare by having your jets routinely overfly the Gaza strip creating a sonic boom, or just by sending drones overhead on a daily basis to induce paranoia. Restricting movement, herding people into cages on a daily basis, restricting certain types of foodstuffs, routinely torturing prisoners, all cause bodily and mental harm; all acts of genocide as defined. 

"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" Seen Gaza recently. the Zionist Paradise may indeed contain a "Muslim Israeli" population, with ostensibly "equal rights" although there are both laws and social stigmas attached to that status. This does not in any way diminish the fact that a genocide of Palestinians is under way.

_""Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" I've never heard of this happening."_ In 1991 the fertility rate in Gaza was 8.3 children per woman, in 2014 this had halved to 4.4 according to Index Mundi The reasons why Gaza’s population is so young

Maybe the claim is not as weak as you think.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Thanks for pointing this out.  The top four acts you refer to from article ll are committed by the Palestinians upon the Isreli's.

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;


----------



## montelatici (Feb 10, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You forgot the part about "great numbers".  Isolated incidents carried out by individuals causing a dozen fatalities are not equivalent to government sanctioned and organized massacres of thousands of civilians in periods of less than a few weeks.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



OMG!  You mean Israel has "goverment sanctioned" massacres of thousands of Palestinians?  I didn't know that.  Please tell us more about this with documentation.  'Atta boy.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 10, 2016)

Were the thousands of Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children,  murdered in Gaza killed by unsanctioned private Jewish death squads?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Israel does regularly commit acts of genocide.

_*Punishable Acts​*The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:​_

*Killing members of the group* includes direct killing and actions causing death.

*Causing serious bodily or mental harm* includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

*Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group *includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

The international legal definition of genocide - Prevent Genocide International​
Of course the motive can be found by Israel's denial of the existence of Palestinians.

Israel has destroyed homes, uprooted food producing trees, bulldozed and poisoned crops, destroyed cisterns and wells, and denied medical care.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 10, 2016)

You take precautions to prevent damage, but you don't want them trying again to fire on you.  you dont leave the door open in hopes you can slam the door closed in time, you make sure they cannot try again.  You take out the locations and those involved.

This is not a game where they practice good sportsmanship shake hands and try again tomorrow.  This is palestinians trying in any possible to kill Israelis.  Just because they are not efficient, more bang than boom, does not mean they are not dangerous killers waging their own war on Israel.
Israel has every right and obligation to respond in self defense, not to slap them on the hand but to eliminate the threat.

If all you do is block, you will get tired (which is what the palestinians hope), if you want to be left alone, you put them down hard so they know not to mess with you.

Palestinians might not care about life, but Israelis are not going to sacrifice themselves because palestinians don't believe in peace.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 10, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> You take out the locations and those involved



Yes, you have the precision weapons and surveillance to do this. There is no excuse in flattening whole neighbourhoods to take out a rocket launch site. Proportionality; the former is legitimate self defence, the latter a crime against humanity as per the genocide definition. 



aris2chat said:


> Israel has every right and obligation to respond in self defense, not to slap them on the hand but to eliminate the threat.



Occupiers don't necessarily have a right of "self defence"



aris2chat said:


> if you want to be left alone, you put them down hard so they know not to mess with you.



That's worked well in the past:
Operation Summer Rains
Operation Autumn Clouds
Operation Hot Winter
Operation Cast Lead
Operation Returning Echo
Operation Pillar of Defence
Operation Protective Edge

The resistance is still there, resisting.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



About half and half for a two state solution.  They don't show the actual questions being asked but there is a difference between "60% reject recognition of a Jewish State" and recognizing Israel's right to exist as a state.  Demanding it be recognized as a "Jewish State" and a democratic state is problematic for Israel's non-Jewish citizens and many secular Jews.  57% support an armed infitada over negotiations to secure a Palestinian state.  

According to this Israeli poll - there is a substantial minority who do not believe Arabs and Jews should have equal rights: Poll: 45% of Israeli Jews don’t think Arabs should have equal rights | +972 Magazine

According to Poll finds nearly half Israelis feel two-state solution is dead: 

_Some 87% of the Jewish public sees only a small chance that “sometime in the future Jews and Arabs will be able to live in a single state as citizens with equal rights who recognize each other’s rights.” The Arab public’s assessments were similar to those of the Jewish public’s – 68% regard the chances of egalitarian coexistence as small._​
Also a substantial number don't trust Netanyahu's commitment to a two state solution either.

I see a lot of similar frustrations across both sides.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Fact is Israel has the capability to commit genocide on the Palestinians but lack the desire.  Palestinians have the desire to commit genocide on the Israeli's but lack the capability.  And you can bet your bottom dollar Israel will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.



A desire to have a Palestinian state is the same as a desire to commit genocide.  That's a fact too.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What SHOULD Israel do when militants across the border are shooting rockets into their civilian populations and the government there does nothing to curb it?  How long should the government tolerate it before engaging in strong retaliation to end it once and for all?

There were a number of aspects to "Protective Edge" (I think that was the one using white phospherous) that were wrong - disproportionate, civilians were trapped and unable to escape, and aid was prevented from entering.  But that doesn't qualify as genocide.

Israel could have -  if it wanted - reduced Gaza to rubble.  It could shut off all supplies, water and power.  Israel also endures a substantial amount of provocation before acting on it.  And, despite very real inequalities, Israel does have a substantial Arab (Palestinian) citizen population with the same rights as the Jewish population.  How does "genocide" fit with that? I think in this instance - you have asymmetric warfare - not genocide and much of what you see is the result of decades of conflict and no resolution in sight.



> Killing those you identify as "terrorists" is legitimate self defence, wantonly killing civillians in large numbers in order to kill those you identify as "terrorists" is an act of genocide as defined.



What do you do when the terrorists are amongst civilian populations?  If a terrorist bombed a school bus of children...do you do nothing?  Is going after him the same as "wantonly" killing civilians in large numbers?  I'll give Israel credit - it does make efforts to target an individual terrorist as specifically and narrowly as possible with smart bomb technology.  It could, instead, level the block.  I don't see this as genocide.



> Serious bodily or mental harm includes waging pychological warfare by having your jets routinely overfly the Gaza strip creating a sonic boom, or just by sending drones overhead on a daily basis to induce paranoia. Restricting movement, herding people into cages on a daily basis, restricting certain types of foodstuffs, routinely torturing prisoners, all cause bodily and mental harm; all acts of genocide as defined.



Possibly...except you still need "intent" - some things are collective punishment.  What food stuff is restricted?  Torturing prisoners is wrong but not genocide.



> "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" Seen Gaza recently. the Zionist Paradise may indeed contain a "Muslim Israeli" population, with ostensibly "equal rights" although there are both laws and social stigmas attached to that status. This does not in any way diminish the fact that a genocide of Palestinians is under way.



Kind of like being black in America once was?  Social stigma is not genocide.



> _""Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" I've never heard of this happening."_ In 1991 the fertility rate in Gaza was 8.3 children per woman, in 2014 this had halved to 4.4 according to Index Mundi The reasons why Gaza’s population is so young
> 
> Maybe the claim is not as weak as you think.



Nothing in that article indicates measures imposed intended to prevent births.  Intent is lacking.

Compare the Palestinians with the Azidi's and Rohinga:

The Azidi's have long been persecuted - and are now actively hunted down.  Their men and boys are killed, their women and girls raped and enslaved.  Their culture is being eradicated and their small population sent into mass graves.

The Rohinga are herded into concentration camps and can not leave except if they choose to leave the country.  They have no citizenship.  They are not allowed to work.  Their entire sustenance is that provided by foreign aid groups.  They are not allowed to be educated (the passing on of culture).  They are not allowed to marry or have children without governement permission.


I see a lot of wrongs committed against the Palestinians but not genocide.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 10, 2016)

Perhaps if Israel were not making war on Gaza, a blockade is an act of war as the Israelis insist with respect to the Gulf of Aqaba,, perhaps the people of Gaza would not retaliate.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Perhaps if Israel were not making war on Gaza, a blockade is an act of war as the Israelis insist with respect to the Gulf of Aqaba,, perhaps the people of Gaza would not retaliate.





It's a case of what came first - the chicken or the egg - Gaza's been sending rockets for years.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 10, 2016)

You are aware that Israel has blockaded Gaza, vis-a-vis the non-Jews  since 1967.  The first resistance with rockets was maybe a decade ago.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> You are aware that Israel has blockaded Gaza, vis-a-vis the non-Jews  since 1967.  The first resistance with rockets was maybe a decade ago.



2001.

I thought you were referring to the current blockade - what blockade do you mean?


----------



## montelatici (Feb 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that Israel has blockaded Gaza, vis-a-vis the non-Jews  since 1967.  The first resistance with rockets was maybe a decade ago.
> ...



Gaza has been occupied by the Israelis since 1967 and has been subject to Israeli controls since then.  The Israelis did not end the controls on air space and territorial sea when they removed the settlers and troops from within Gaza.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


So let them move in with their Egyptian "brothers".


----------



## montelatici (Feb 10, 2016)

That's always the Zionist solution, ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> That's always the Zionist solution, ethnic cleansing.


Well, the Christians grabbed burning at the Stake and the Muslims took beheading.
What's left?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps if Israel were not making war on Gaza, a blockade is an act of war as the Israelis insist with respect to the Gulf of Aqaba,, perhaps the people of Gaza would not retaliate.
> ...



Its not a case of chicken and egg -- Israel disengaged from Gaza and for all intents and purposes ceded the territory to self-governance.  It was an invitation to develop peacefully side-by-side Israel.  And that peace was rejected in favour of war by Hamas in both word and deed.  The blockade is a response to those acts of war.

Even so, the SOLUTION to the problem is for Hamas to unilaterally stop the attacks on Israel.  There is nothing for Gaza to make war for -- there is nothing from them to gain by attacking Israel -- there is nothing to WIN.  There is no border or territorial dispute, so there is no land to gain by fighting.  There is nothing to fight FOR.

Israel can not possibly lift the blockade without a peace treaty and real, substantial evidence that Gaza is wiling to co-operate.  Its a serious security issue and she is obligated to protect her citizens until she has a peaceful neighbor.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 10, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > That's always the Zionist solution, ethnic cleansing.
> ...



We could go back to Biblical times and stoning. " Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."  That would disqualify most of us.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


That quote is from TNT.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Except they didn't - they maintained control of borders, airspace and coastal waters. They continued to control what goes in and out of Gaza including food, power and water and people.  They "ceded" nothing - they returned territory perhaps, because it wasn't rightfully theirs to cede.  But for all intents and purposes the Gazans were given a very restricted semi-autonomous status.



> Even so, the SOLUTION to the problem is for Hamas to unilaterally stop the attacks on Israel.  There is nothing for Gaza to make war for -- there is nothing from them to gain by attacking Israel -- there is nothing to WIN.  There is no border or territorial dispute, so there is no land to gain by fighting.  There is nothing to fight FOR.



I agree it should stop the attacks - they don't gain anything and what the Gazans need to do is show the international community they can govern even under Israel's restrictive measures in order to put pressure on Israel to release them.  But - they do have something to gain - full autonomy, control over their borders, coastland and airspace, the ability to function and be recognized as a sovereign state.



> Israel can not possibly lift the blockade without a peace treaty and real, substantial evidence that Gaza is wiling to co-operate.  Its a serious security issue and she is obligated to protect her citizens until she has a peaceful neighbor.




I disagree - the blockade hurts civilians and has had little effect on Hamas.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Except they didn't - they maintained control of borders, airspace and coastal waters. They continued to control what goes in and out of Gaza including food, power and water and people.  They "ceded" nothing - they returned territory perhaps, because it wasn't rightfully theirs to cede.  But for all intents and purposes the Gazans were given a very restricted semi-autonomous status.



Hamas stated clearly through both word and deed that they would NOT accept peace with Israel.  That was the cause of the blockade.  Again, the blockade was and is a security issue for Israel that will not be resolved until Israel is secure and her citizens are no longer subject to attack.  THAT is Gaza's chicken and Gaza's egg.  




> I agree it should stop the attacks - they don't gain anything and what the Gazans need to do is show the international community they can govern even under Israel's restrictive measures in order to put pressure on Israel to release them.  But - they do have something to gain - full autonomy, control over their borders, coastland and airspace, the ability to function and be recognized as a sovereign state.



I agree.  But they can not gain that through violence and war.  Those things will ONLY come through peace.  Which was my point.  



> I disagree - the blockade hurts civilians and has had little effect on Hamas.



But you speak as though they are two different things.  The people of Gaza largely support Hamas.  That's how all that concrete builds tunnels instead of homes.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 10, 2016)

and palestinians literally bites that hand that feeds them, they torch the UNRWA offices.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Except they didn't - they maintained control of borders, airspace and coastal waters. They continued to control what goes in and out of Gaza including food, power and water and people.  They "ceded" nothing - they returned territory perhaps, because it wasn't rightfully theirs to cede.  But for all intents and purposes the Gazans were given a very restricted semi-autonomous status.
> ...



I'm not talking about the blockade - you said that Israel "for all intents and purposes ceded the territory to self-governance" - but they didn't.  When they disengaged from Gaza - they maintained control of most aspects.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I'm not talking about the blockade - you said that Israel "for all intents and purposes ceded the territory to self-governance" - but they didn't.  When they disengaged from Gaza - they maintained control of most aspects.



The agreement states:  _In any future permanent status arrangements there will be no Israeli towns or villages in the Gaza strip._

THAT was the intent and purpose. 

For security reasons, Israel temporarily retained control over air space and coastal waters, and monitored the border, always acknowledging that this was reflective of the requirement for self-defense at the present time.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 10, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Gaza cannot possibly stop resisting without the lifting of the blockade


Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



The blockade has always been in effect.  Israelis never relinquished control of the borders, territorial sea and air space.  Besides, they have re-entered and caused mayhem and murder on several occasions.  Gaza is still under occupation, as all neutral parties agree. The Israelis moved the settlers out and kept troops and naval assets on the perimeter in order to control the population with fewer resources.   The Israelis will never lift the blockade as they have no intention of surrendering the territorial sea which forms part of the gas reserves they intend to exploit. 

Whether the Palestinians launch rockets or not, the blockade will not be lifted.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


When Hamas took office in 2006 they called for a ceasefire. Even though Israel never reciprocated, Hamas held that ceasefire for 16 months.

So Israel is just lying (again) about Hamas violence being the cause of the siege.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> When Hamas took office in 2006 they called for a ceasefire. Even though Israel never reciprocated, Hamas held that ceasefire for 16 months.



Wait, what?  You are telling me there is a 16 month period where there were no rockets fired at Israel.  Pray tell, which months were those?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 11, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > When Hamas took office in 2006 they called for a ceasefire. Even though Israel never reciprocated, Hamas held that ceasefire for 16 months.
> ...


*JERUSALEM (CNN) -- An Israeli navy gunboat fired shells onto a northern Gaza beach Friday, killing at least seven people and prompting the military wing of Hamas to call off a 16-month-old cease-fire with Israel. *

CNN.com - Beach strike shakes Hamas cease-fire - Jun 9, 2006


----------



## Challenger (Feb 11, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Hamas stated clearly through both word and deed that they would NOT accept peace with Israel.



When did the Zionist paradise ever offer peace to Hamas?



Shusha said:


> The agreement states: _In any future permanent status arrangements there will be no Israeli towns or villages in the Gaza strip._



There was no agreement, you are just quoting from the Sharon plan to move settlers into the West Bank


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You're a bit fact challenged there, Bunky. The islamo-rocket launches from  the Islamic terrorist Pal'istanians didn't survive a 16 month long halt.

Rocket fire from Gaza and Palestinian ceasefire violations after Operation Cast Lead (Jan 2009)


Indiscriminate Fire: Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in the Gaza Strip: Summary



You should read the Hamas Charter for an instructive lesson in the goals of Hamas and Islamist ideology in general.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 11, 2016)

How can ANYONE or ANY NATION make peace with an enemy who praises death over life?  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 11, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


MFA.gov?  Lying sack of shit organization extraordinaire.

From September 2005 through May 2007, the same period covered by the rocket attack statistics cited above, the IDF fired 14,617 artillery shells into Gaza. This fire killed at least 59 people, wounded another 270 people, and did significant damage to many civilian structures.6 Of the 38 Palestinians killed through September 2006, 17 were children under the age of 16, 12 were women, and one was a 60-year-old man; Human Rights Watch, in its field investigations, identified 5 of the remaining 8 men as civilians.7 A subsequent artillery attack on November 8 killed or mortally wounded 23 and injured at least 40 Palestinians, all civilians.

Indiscriminate Fire: Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in the Gaza Strip: Summary​
Thanks for he link.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 11, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> How can ANYONE or ANY NATION make peace with an enemy who praises death over life?  It's called Palestinian mentality.



How can anyone or any nation make peace with an invader who has no intention of making peace?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You're quite welcome for the link. 

The facts do quite readily dismiss your silly claims to some alleged cease fire that the Hamas Death Cultists supposedly agreed to.


From the link:

From September 2005 through May 2007, Palestinian armed groups fired almost 2,700 rockets into Israel, killing 4 Israeli civilians, and injuring 75 civilians and at least 9 soldiers, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) (see Appendices III-V for casualty and weapons numbers). Two of those deaths occurred in the last two weeks of May 2007.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 11, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




“We Want the Dead to Fill the Streets”: Palestinian Band Praises Bus Bombings

death is glory and luxury in the gardens without want.
They are, it seems, unwilling to do the hard work to create that garden on earth in G/WB and find peace with Israel.  They still can't peace with their own.

Every time some radical in Israel speaks out, everyone from around the world jump all over them.
Hamas puts a six minute video on TV and the world ignore it.

Israel hits part of a UNRWA building storing rockets it is crime.  Palestinians torch UNRWA or hamas steal building supplies for tunnels and the world wages a finger or does nothing.

Palestinians stab Israelis, many killed, but if Israel shots them it's excessive or because they are teens they should be let off to try again another day.

The crime is sending children and teens out as soldiers and martyrs because when Israeli police or IDF respond or defend Israel is make for propaganda if Israel genocide of children or cruel and excessive force against innocent babies, babies with knives, gun, bombs, rocks intent on killing Israelis.

Palestinian children lost their innocence when hamas brainwashed them with children tv and class room activity teaching them to die in glory by killing Israelis.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Aren't dead 'Pal'istanians a win-win for the Hamas Death Cult?

_We love death more than you love life_™

Did you forget the slogan?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Of course pro-Israel sites are propaganda, that's the definition of propaganda.  I don't know what you mean by pro-US sites, but if they are U.S. pro-Israel sites they are certainly propaganda, why do you think they are established.  That's where you get all your information from, of course you are brainwashed.
> 
> If I only read Electronic Intifada and similar pro-Palestinian sites I would be brainwashed, too.  I don't read them, they are not sources for facts.
> 
> ...








So whqat doesw it make those sites that are anti Jewish and anti American, fountains of truth ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Of course pro-Israel sites are propaganda, that's the definition of propaganda.  I don't know what you mean by pro-US sites, but if they are U.S. pro-Israel sites they are certainly propaganda, why do you think they are established.  That's where you get all your information from, of course you are brainwashed.
> 
> If I only read Electronic Intifada and similar pro-Palestinian sites I would be brainwashed, too.  I don't read them, they are not sources for facts.
> 
> ...








 So what about the UN archives then when they support Israel and the Jews do they suddenly become propaganda sources. How many times have you been shown that your "source" from the UN archives and university libraries are based on islamonazi propaganda so stopped using certain sections because they proved you wrong.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 11, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 But not arab muslims, the same as Presbyterians are not Catholics. Why do you think it is that Iranian muslims are fighting against Saudi muslims. You do realise that the Ottomans are looked down on by the rest of the M.E muslims because they are Persians and seen as second class citizens. It is all down to the age old Sunni/Shi'ite battles and differences that have been waging since the death of mo'mad.
 You really should look at the history of islam and see why the Ottomans did not give the arab muslims sovereignty over any of their lands, and they had to wait until 1923 and the LoN before they could claim any of their lands.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 11, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Once again you deny the facts as written in the mandate of Palestine that explicitly states that the land was to be partitioned and the smaller part to be allocated as the Jewish NATIONal home. The Jewish agency was a fundamental part of the mandate and worked with the mandatory power to bring about the independence of the Jewish nation. The arab muslims refused to have any dealings with the LoN and resorted to violence and terrorism to try and force the issue their way. Those are the words Roccor has used many times in the past.


 Even your link sets in stone the facts regarding the Jewish National home.   From your link

 The Council of the League of Nations:

 Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

*Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

*Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country*; and

 Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

 Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and 

 Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

 Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;

 Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> You never get anything.  No, the Zionist supporters get all their information from Zionist propaganda sites.  I get my information from the historical record contained in official archives.  That's why you and your friends lose every argument.









 Like the official UN archives that you use as evidence until they are read further and destroy your stance.


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> 
> Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.
> 
> The Truth about the Palestinian People


Right wingers tell their children you need to move the wealth of the nation to the rich because they will create jobs.

Right wingers tell their children education is for snobs.  Or worse, it will make you vote Democrat.

Right wingers tell their children the president was born in Kenya.

Right wingers tell their children science is a faith.

Right wingers tell their children the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Right wingers tell their children vaccines are bad for you.

Right wingers tell their children Mexicans are rapists and black people are lazy.

Right wingers tell their children money comes from trickling rich people.

Right wingers believe all these things are true so they must be.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 11, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> 
> Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.
> 
> The Truth about the Palestinian People



Facts? Well not so much, "Judea was an autonomous state in the Persian Empire following the return from Babylonian exile thanks to Cyrus, King of Persia.".....No.

Judea didn't exist during Cyrus reign, the region was part of the Satrapy of Eber-Nari (lands beyond the river). Under Xerxes the Satrapy was split into "Babylonia" and "Eber-Nari". At some point Eber- Nari was sub-divided into provinces, Phoenicia, Judah, Samaria, and Arabian tribal area. Phoenicia comprised several city-states ruled by vassel Kings, Judah and Samaria by governors who reported to the Satrap, but who were largely left alone to govern as they saw fit and the Arabian tribal area, ruled by local chieftains. So, not a state but a province. See “Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid Rule,” _Cambridge Ancient History vol _IV, 1988 edition, pp. 139-64 for more detail.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



That makes no sense.  Presbyterians and Catholics are two different denominations of Christianity.  "Arab muslim" is  not a denomination of Islam.



> Why do you think it is that Iranian muslims are fighting against Saudi muslims. You do realise that the Ottomans are looked down on by the rest of the M.E muslims because they are Persians and seen as second class citizens. It is all down to the age old Sunni/Shi'ite battles and differences that have been waging since the death of mo'mad.



You're mixing up ethnic divisions with religious divisions.



> You really should look at the history of islam and see why the Ottomans did not give the arab muslims sovereignty over any of their lands, and they had to wait until 1923 and the LoN before they could claim any of their lands.



What does this have to do with anything?  Muslims were a majority for many years.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> 
> Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.
> 
> The Truth about the Palestinian People



Facts are not necessarily "well documented" particularly with something as subjective as history.  As they say - history is written by the victor, and it's the winner that controls the narrative.  One good example is how the conflicts between indiginous Americans and American settlers were portrayed and how that narrative has changed.  Or, how about the "happy slave" narrative?

Facts work in mathamatics.  In history, where fiction and fact meld depending on who is narrating and interpreting?  Not so much.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 13, 2016)

But the fact remains that the restrictions placed against the Arab Muslims within the mandate area are so because of their own failure to halt the violence even after the war by any measure is lost. 

They could have been living free and successful lives had they chosen to but instead they chose to commit one terrorist act after another. In which case Israel is OBLIGATED by international law to do something for the safety and wellbeing of its citizens, even if that means walling off some communities. 

One must keep the cart behind the horse.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> ...



Truth cannot be verified as facts.  Facts can be verified as truth.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 14, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


Could you verify when Israel legally acquired any land?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 14, 2016)

rdean said:


> Right wingers tell their children you need to move the wealth of the nation to the rich because they will create jobs.
> 
> Right wingers tell their children education is for snobs.  Or worse, it will make you vote Democrat.
> 
> ...



 and intelligent people realize that they don't need to resort to such childish and stupid framing mechanisms.

 The day you free yourself from this need to divide the world into left vs right will be the day you learn to understand it.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 14, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I believe you tore up that document.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.




 Truth is truth. You only want it to be subjective when acknowledging it undermines your agenda.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 14, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.
> ...



What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory?  Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory?  Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?




 Truth is truth.  

 It may be common for the profoundly illiberal portion of the hard left to embrace relativism when out-debated, but that is merely a crutch used to avoid the truth.

 The truth is is that Arabs began their campaigns of terrorism against Jews before the establishment of Israel, the truth is that they only identified as Arabs at that time, the truth is that many moved into the area as a result of the economic development Jews created, the truth is that approximately 700,000 left for various reasons when they attacked the fledgling State, and the truth is that soon thereafter, 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands.

 You simply select what you call truth and ignore anything that is true according to your extreme pro-Arab agenda.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 14, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory?  Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?
> ...



Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example.  The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war.  Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military.  So which is truth?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



There lies the problem.  No claims can be verified by "truth" because as you yourself say, "truth is subjective."  An enigmna in the eye of the beholder as stated in the OP.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I think it was all 3.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Truth can be fact only if it can be documented by verification.  Here is an example?  Anyone care to deny it?

In all of the Middle East, Israel is the only nation to protect the holy sites of all faiths & the rights of all to worship in them as they wish, even in Jerusalem.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.
> 
> One example.  The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war.  Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military.  So which is truth?




 Arabs did not tell Palestinians to flee, they told fellow Arabs to flee. The "Palestinian" identity had not yet been invented.  Similarly, Arabs fled voluntarily because of the war started by Arabs and other Arabs who were actively engaged in hostile actions they initiated were expelled. All these things are true.

What is not true is your attempt to create some sort of separate identity retroactively.

 Arabs initiated a war and Arabs left for a variety of reasons. Soon thereafter, Arabs expelled a greater Jewish  population from Arab lands despite the fact these populations predated the Arabs and despite the fact they were not engaged in hostilities.

 Truth is not subject to your particular agenda despite the many times you claim it is malleable. Truth is what actually happened, and since this thread was initiated in order to get to the truth, your notion that the truth is as slippery as you want it to be is antithetical to its stated purpose.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



And thats the funny part, thats not even remotely a truth or a fact.

You ask "who has the greater right - the one who ( is ) inhabiting it or the one who owns it". 

We've seen a thousand times how Israel is well within its rights to everything west of the Jordan and we've seen how the Arab League declared war and attacked. We also know that the Zionists were peacefully buying land when they were attacked. So the elements of armed conflict come into play. In which case ownership is decided by force of arms. By 1967 that principal is still in effect. It wasn't until AFTER the war of 67 that the Arab dominated UN RETROACTIVELY made land acquisition in warfare illegal. Odd coincidence ?

Your assumption that the person inhabiting the land doesn't also own it is highly subjective as was the implication that there are rights involved.

When the Arabs declared war, all rights went out the window and ownership fell to the victor. Now while the international community didn't recognize Jordans claim the resident Arabs didn't complain. Yet when Jordan lost the area in 67 now all of a sudden the Arabs there are freaking out.

Rights, ownership or habitation really don't have anything to do with it. Clearly its racism and bigotry. The Arabs just can't handle Jewish neighbors.


----------



## wrathbone (Feb 14, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.
> ...


You enjoy splitting hairs with a sledgehammer, Dog?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 14, 2016)

wrathbone said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



There are no hairs being split with a sledgehammer here.  You can only know what is truth through documented verifyable facts.  I repeat ---. Here is an example?  Anyone care to deny it?

In all of the Middle East, Israel is the only nation to protect the holy sites of all faiths & the rights of all to worship in them as they wish, even in Jerusalem.


----------



## wrathbone (Feb 14, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> wrathbone said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


I am a full supporter of Israel and their policies.


----------



## wrathbone (Feb 14, 2016)

The extreme Islamic initiative is to destroy Western culture and infra-structure, bottom line.   At some point we'll have to unleash the full might of our military in conjunction with Israel and a coalition super-army to combat and exterminate Islamic oppressors in the entire mid-east region. One million man standing army and complete annihilation of this Islamic extremist perspective...   Anyone have a problem with that point of view?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 14, 2016)

wrathbone said:


> The extreme Islamic initiative is to destroy Western culture and infra-structure, bottom line.   At some point we'll have to unleash the full might of our military in conjunction with Israel and a coalition super-army to combat and exterminate Islamic oppressors in the entire mid-east region. One million man standing army and complete annihilation of this Islamic extremist perspective...   Anyone have a problem with that point of view?



Sounds like World War 3!!


----------



## wrathbone (Feb 14, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> wrathbone said:
> 
> 
> > The extreme Islamic initiative is to destroy Western culture and infra-structure, bottom line.   At some point we'll have to unleash the full might of our military in conjunction with Israel and a coalition super-army to combat and exterminate Islamic oppressors in the entire mid-east region. One million man standing army and complete annihilation of this Islamic extremist perspective...   Anyone have a problem with that point of view?
> ...



Actually if skillfully executed, it has become the necessary evil and will in fact prevent WW3, as strange as that may sound.  How many more country's will be destabilized by the cancer defined as Islamic extremism?  Right now, muslims are killing other muslims in the most brutal fashion.  Let it grow or kibosh?   Why are Westerners to blame for their horrible religious beliefs?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 14, 2016)

wrathbone said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > wrathbone said:
> ...



In many documented cases they have even killed their own offspring to honor God.  And these are the people the Pali's & their suporters want the USA & Israel to make peace with.


----------



## wrathbone (Feb 14, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> wrathbone said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



Those groups of people who share this ideology are the exact threat to all civilization.....  they're fanatics, so to annihilate this threat is pure Nationalism and self-preservation.  Don't worry, Dogma-Mann....we'll do all the heavy lifting so you can play arm-chair judge, jury, and procrastinator.....Ha!.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 15, 2016)

wrathbone said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > wrathbone said:
> ...





wrathbone said:


> The extreme Islamic initiative is to destroy Western culture and infra-structure, bottom line.   At some point we'll have to unleash the full might of our military in conjunction with Israel and a coalition super-army to combat and exterminate Islamic oppressors in the entire mid-east region. One million man standing army and complete annihilation of this Islamic extremist perspective...   Anyone have a problem with that point of view?



Jordan sure didn't have a problem with that.  So sad that it took Black September to communicate a lasting peace from Palestinians.         And who knows Palestinians better than Jordan?  Want peace from Palestinians?  When will Israel learn from Jordan how to achieve it?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 15, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> wrathbone said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Seriously, how does ANYONE or ANY NATION negotiate peace with people who prefer death over life?


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 15, 2016)

PA: No more negotiations with Israel, ever

There is no negotiations, its one of the three no's 

Oft repeated by the Arab Muslims amidst all the other complaints about how Israel isn't playing fair at the negotiating table. 

Another inconvenient fact that tends to trip up the entire pali diatribe


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

wrathbone said:


> The extreme Islamic initiative is to destroy Western culture and infra-structure, bottom line.   At some point we'll have to unleash the full might of our military in conjunction with Israel and a coalition super-army to combat and exterminate Islamic oppressors in the entire mid-east region. One million man standing army and complete annihilation of this Islamic extremist perspective...   Anyone have a problem with that point of view?



Not very realistic.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.
> ...




The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is one of those truths. Do you deny it?  I notice you ignore it while focusing on the Jewish expulsion (also a truth).


----------



## wrathbone (Feb 15, 2016)

When Israel became Israel 20th century, many thought all Palestinians would eventually migrate to Saudi Arabia and other dominate Muslim culture country's.   But many did not, so they've become orphans of the middle east spawning the growth of radical Islam via Arafat and various terror organizations.  This thousand year war between shiites and sunnis has almost become a moot point in all the chatter...


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

wrathbone said:


> When Israel became Israel 20th century, many thought all Palestinians would eventually migrate to Saudi Arabia and other dominate Muslim culture country's.   But many did not, so they've become orphans of the middle east spawning the growth of radical Islam via Arafat and various terror organizations.  This thousand year war between shiites and sunnis has almost become a moot point in all the chatter...



I don't think the Palestinians are all that radical nor have they been much involved in extremist religious activity.  In fact, in polls - they strongly oppose such groups as ISIS.  Their violence has been  mainly directed towards Israel for the purpose of getting a state.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...




I think rights clearly have something to do with it.  The excuse often given for expelling people from a place (for example the Beduoin) is that they don't "own" the property.  Another example - and this was what I was thinking when I stated what I did - is we have laws that allow a person who has been "squatting" on abandoned property the right to that property after a certain number of years - even though there is an "owner".


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is one of those truths. Do you deny it?  I notice you ignore it while focusing on the Jewish expulsion (also a truth).




Not all Arabs did flee voluntarily, true. I did not ignore it at all, and I acknowledged it.  Just because you ignore the greater number of Jews who were forced from Arab lands and play this nonsensical game of assigning an identity to them retroactively, that does not mean I ignore the smaller number of Arabs who were, indeed,  forced out after they initiated hostilities.  Many Arabs did leave voluntarily, but the ones more closely aligned with the Nazi Al Husseini were too belligerent and had to be forced due to such. .

  No "Palestinians" left for any reason, however, since their identity at the time was simply as Arabs.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 15, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



We don't have to go back far to see refugees as the consequence of war.  There are thousands of Syrian and Iraqi refugees flooding Europe right now.  I'm sure most of the refugees at that time also wanted to escape a war zone in order to keep safe, and out of harm's way.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> wrathbone said:
> 
> 
> > When Israel became Israel 20th century, many thought all Palestinians would eventually migrate to Saudi Arabia and other dominate Muslim culture country's.   But many did not, so they've become orphans of the middle east spawning the growth of radical Islam via Arafat and various terror organizations.  This thousand year war between shiites and sunnis has almost become a moot point in all the chatter...
> ...



Thanks for bringing that up.  Yes indeed, Isis is bad news for Palestinians.  Doesn't it seem a bit odd how we hear no Palestinian or Palestinian supporter complaints about that & yet they bitch about Israel???  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...




I've never ignored expulsions - the Jews who were expelled have every right to compensation.  That, I've said before.

Many villages were forceably emptied by Israeli forces.

850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab states between 1948 and 1970's.  726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the 1948 conflict.  800,000 – 900,000 registered as refugees by 1961.

I'm not seeing much of a "greater number" or "smaller number" here.

So...where is the truth in these numbers?

How many really left voluntarily?  Many Jews and many Palestinians fled out of fear of conflict or retribution.  Many were expelled.  The numbers look to be about the same.  So...what "truth" are you talking about here?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab states between 1948 and 1970's.  726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the 1948 conflict.  800,000 – 900,000 registered as refugees by 1961.
> 
> I'm not seeing much of a "greater number" or "smaller number" here.
> 
> ...




 I don't know about you, but I realized that 850 is greater than 726 by the time I was 4 years old.   

 The truth here is that you have two populations -- Jewish and Arabs, and these populations have been winnowed. Creating this magical new people called "palestinian" does not change that truth one iota.

 The Arabs need to give it a rest, because they have already given a tat greater than the much-imagined tit.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

..


Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab states between 1948 and 1970's.  726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the 1948 conflict.  800,000 – 900,000 registered as refugees by 1961.
> ...



850 between 1948 - 1970's....30 years
726 in just 1948 alone
800-900 registered refugees by 1961 (13 years)

Hard to get truly accurate numbers on either side - but 800-900 and 850 has no appreciable difference.

They aren't a "magical new people" - every "people" starts somewhere somewhen.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You might have a point if we were talking about peacetime, but Israel is still at war which the Arab League declared all the way back in 1948.

In wartime its not as much about ownership as civilian vs combatant treatment by the controlling power.

Geneva Conventions.

Whats interesting about the application of the Geneva Conventions is that Israel doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the conventions within its borders.

But for as confusing as the issue of what laws apply is, there is no real question that the area designated for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was everything west of the Jordan. In which case there can be no belligerent occupation on the Israeli part.

I think what you are trying to interject is individual rights, in which case customary law requires land owners to possess a tittle or deed to the land they claim they own.

From there several issues come into play. The Zionists have been more than willing to purchase land. This is not theft. just because someone else might be using a car, loaned to it by the owner, doesn't mean I can't purchase that car from the actual owner and drive off with it.

The next issue is one of security. The Arab Muslims continue their violent acts of war against Israel at which point Israel is well within its rights to take countermeasures. In this case security barriers. The rout of the barriers has been decided by the Israeli courts so not much arguing that one.

No matter how you slice it no land was stolen, it was lost by the Arab League who refused to accept its own refugees and defeated armies back into their prospective countries.

How those Arabs remaining in Israel and insisting on continuing the war are deserving of rights is the real question. I'd say before we can unilaterally assign rights we'd have to first designate who among them are combatants and who might be civilians.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 15, 2016)

No, ISIS' Attack on Palestinians Doesn't Expose a Double Standard on Israel


----------



## Shusha (Feb 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I don't think the Palestinians are all that radical nor have they been much involved in extremist religious activity.  In fact, in polls - they strongly oppose such groups as ISIS.  Their violence has been  mainly directed towards Israel for the purpose of getting a state.



I entirely disagree.  If their purpose was "getting a State" they would have had one a dozen times over by now.  They could have had it for the asking yesterday.  They can still have it for the asking tomorrow.  And I'm sorry, but in my world preventing a religious group from visiting and praying on their own holy site so that you can have exclusive use of it IS radical extremist activity.  The more so when it is backed up by stabbing hundreds of innocent Israeli citizens.  

This isn't about peace and getting a State.  If it was, they would be acting like good neighbors.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the Palestinians are all that radical nor have they been much involved in extremist religious activity.  In fact, in polls - they strongly oppose such groups as ISIS.  Their violence has been  mainly directed towards Israel for the purpose of getting a state.
> ...



I think it IS about getting a state - it's the terms of it that are at issue.  Religion plays a part, primarily because religion is not logical or rational and those religious sites are highly emotional.  I don't happen to agree with the intolerance, but I don't see the Palestinian violence as a part of Islamic extremism.  It's directed at Israel.  I do think that there is a movement that is attempting to make it seem as if it is and I think the purpose is to further demonize and descredit the Palestinian cause.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the Palestinians are all that radical nor have they been much involved in extremist religious activity.  In fact, in polls - they strongly oppose such groups as ISIS.  Their violence has been  mainly directed towards Israel for the purpose of getting a state.
> ...



In all seriousness - how many states have been won without violence, often extreme violence?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 15, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


The right of return for the Jews and the Palestinians are two separate and unrelated issues. One is a claim by the Jews against Arab states. The other is a claim by the Palestinians against Israel.

They have nothing in common.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The right of return for the Jews and the Palestinians are two separate and unrelated issues. One is a claim by the Jews against Arab states. The other is a claim by the Palestinians against Israel.
> 
> They have nothing in common.



Which right of return for the Jews are you speaking of?  The right of return of the Jewish people to their homeland and place of origin from which they were forcibly removed?  Or the right of return of the Jewish people to Arab nations from which they were forcibly removed?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I think it IS about getting a state - it's the terms of it that are at issue.



Sure.  So its not actually about getting a State, its about getting a State with terms they like.  So already the goalposts have shifted.  So what is it that they want, that they haven't been offered?  And is what they are demanding reasonable under the circumstances?  You and I have discussed the practical issues on my Palestine Solution thread.  The practical issues are relatively easy to solve, imo.  You and I could draw up a plan in an afternoon. 




> Religion plays a part, primarily because religion is not logical or rational and those religious sites are highly emotional.  I don't happen to agree with the intolerance, but I don't see the Palestinian violence as a part of Islamic extremism.  It's directed at Israel.  I do think that there is a movement that is attempting to make it seem as if it is and I think the purpose is to further demonize and descredit the Palestinian cause.



I disagree with you entirely, again.  A shared holy site -- with both people having equal and fair access to the site -- is a reasonable and moral goal.  The fact that Muslims refuse to entertain this idea is at the very heart of Muslim extremism.  It is the foundation of it. 

Its not directed at Israel -- its directed at the Jewish people.  (And frankly, though I argue vehemently for fair and equal shared access to the Jewish Temple for ALL -- I am painfully aware of the essential unfairness, disrespect and deep, essential loss of one group usurping the holy site, stories and history of another people). 

The stabbings (one of a long line of essentially pointless random attacks against innocents) serves no purpose in furthering conflict resolution or gaining a State.  Peacefully living with your neighbor would.  But so would praying on the Temple Mount next to a Jew.  Its two sides of the same coin.  They don't seem to have it in them.  One continues to hope.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 15, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


Israel makes up its own "facts" as it goes along.
-------------------------
The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to *Palestinian nationality* was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, *shall become Palestinian citizens.”*​
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


You can tell us right now what document has superseded this.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think it IS about getting a state - it's the terms of it that are at issue.
> ...



Terms are always an issue - both with the Palestinians and the Israeli's.  But the that doesn't change the fact it IS about getting a state, not spreading Islamic extremism.



> > Religion plays a part, primarily because religion is not logical or rational and those religious sites are highly emotional.  I don't happen to agree with the intolerance, but I don't see the Palestinian violence as a part of Islamic extremism.  It's directed at Israel.  I do think that there is a movement that is attempting to make it seem as if it is and I think the purpose is to further demonize and descredit the Palestinian cause.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with you entirely, again.  *A shared holy site -- with both people having equal and fair access to the site -- is a reasonable and moral goal.*  The fact that Muslims refuse to entertain this idea is at the very heart of Muslim extremism.  It is the foundation of it.



I agree, it is.  Not sure I agree that that is the heart of Muslim extremism nor do I think that is at the heart of the Palestinian movement.



> Its not directed at Israel -- its directed at the Jewish people.  (And frankly, though I argue vehemently for fair and equal shared access to the Jewish Temple for ALL -- I am painfully aware of the essential unfairness, disrespect and deep, essential loss of one group usurping the holy site, stories and history of another people).
> 
> *The stabbings (one of a long line of essentially pointless random attacks against innocents serves no purpose in furthering conflict resolution or gaining a State.  Peacefully living with your neighbor would.  But so would praying on the Temple Mount next to a Jew.  Its two sides of the same coin.  They don't seem to have it in them.  One continues to hope*.



I agree.  The first step towards peace is greater tolerance and mutual acceptance, and that is lacking though Israel has it's factions too.

Sites that are holy to multiple groups should be shared, and I will agree Israel has done a good and fair job at protecting holy sites and allowing access while keeping violence down as much as possible.  Muslims need to learn to be more tolerant.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 15, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


None.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


So you're going to leave it to RoccoR or Boston to show us where you're wrong as usual.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 15, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I await their response.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2016)

All Media


Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Articles: The Expulsion Libel: 1948 Arab
All Media
Arab sources on the 1948 exodus - Israel & Judaism Studies


----------



## Shusha (Feb 15, 2016)

Yep.  And its ironic in the extreme that the exchange of populations which happened during or after many many conflicts prior to 1948 but which, uniquely, did not happen in Israel is the source of the current accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israel.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Yep.  And its ironic in the extreme that the exchange of populations which happened during or after many many conflicts prior to 1948 but which, uniquely, did not happen in Israel is the source of the current accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israel.



Ironic, indeed.  There was once a million Jews living in Arab lands, descendants of those who  lived there before Islam . Today there are just a few thousand.

 Despite this, these antisemites such as those in this thread try to claim it was actually Jews who engaged in  some sort of ethnic clensing. 

unreal!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 15, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.  And its ironic in the extreme that the exchange of populations which happened during or after many many conflicts prior to 1948 but which, uniquely, did not happen in Israel is the source of the current accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israel.
> ...


The Jews should push for their right to return like the Palestinians are.

Why don't I heart of that happening?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Jews should push for their right to return like the Palestinians are.
> 
> Why don't I heart of that happening?



We don't think we would survive the trying.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 16, 2016)

As usual we've been over this before. But just for fun lets look at the link Tinmore provided.

Reminds me of Monty in that obviously someone didn't read this before presenting it. Its really not evidence of anything resembling citizenship, at this time there was no such place or people called palestine regardless of the ipso facto use of the term. 

From
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Quote

During this period Palestine was first placed under military rule and then under civil administration. From 9 December 1917 (when the province of Jerusalem was occupied by the British army as part of World War I in which Britain and Turkey were enemies) until the adoption of the Palestine Mandate on 24 July 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, the international legal status of the country remained undetermined. As a result, the nationality of Palestine inhabitants, like that of the inhabitants of other ex-Ottoman territories at the time, remained similarly undetermined.

End Quote

Its a no brainer, no decisions were made regardless of the ipso facto use of the terms palestinian or citizenship concerning the legal status of this area or its inhabitants, Jewish or Muslim.

We then find that after 1922 the Mandate is adopted in which there is a citizenship order. An order that while forgoing the creation of any state within the mandated area did seek to define people living in the area as citizens of the mandate. This order was bitterly rejected by the Arab League as they felt it discriminated against the national status of Arabs living in the mandate but not wishing to abandon their existing national affiliations.

Any questions concerning citizenship and to what one might be a citizen were dispelled in 1954 with the addendum to Jordan's citizenship laws.

Quote

In 1949, the Jordanian Council of Ministers added an article to their Citizenship Law of 1928 that read

All those who at the time when this Law goes into effect habitually reside in Transjordan or in the Western part [of the Jordan] which is being administered by [the Kingdom], and who were holders of Palestinian citizenship, shall be deemed as Jordanians enjoying all rights of Jordanians and bearing all the attendant obligations.

End Quote

So really the only time frame that matters is in the 1922 to 28 area or a mere 6 years.

And to further complicate matters the British din't even remotely address the citizenship issue within the mandate requirements until 1925

In those few years of the mandate period Britain was constrained by the mandate to offer citizenship to people residing in the mandate area while at the same time not constrained to designate what these people were citizens of.

So again we have legal limbo. OK so now you are a citizen, but a citizen of what ? The British never formed a nation called palestine and so there can be no palestinian nationals. Its pretty basic. You were a citizen of the mandate, until the mandate expired

Also if you look at immigration within this time frame we can see that most Arabs were recently came to the mandate area.






With the Arab complaint about the citizenship law being that it didn't include these recent immigrants.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwie06qQ0_vKAhWGtIMKHZvrB4MQFgg1MAQ&url=http://www.opendemocracy.net/lauren-banko/creation-of-palestinian-citizenship-under-international-mandate-1918-1925&usg=AFQjCNH3gM7_5ZFcFyrab8mSbBM3T5xafw&sig2=tlrHeVCzXFcUPefHVFNgEQ

Quote

The extent of protection offered for native Ottomans before a peace treaty was signed remained questionable.  The draft laid out very few points that could be used to construct a proper nationality law and indeed did not differentiate between nationality and citizenship or the status of Palestinian nationals vis-à-vis Britain.  Colonial officials discussed the issue of citizenship at length in the years before the mandate was officially given to the British in 1923, but a complete order on the topic did not appear in the 1922 Order-in-Council or elsewhere until HMG introduced the citizenship order-in-council in 1925.

End Quote

we've now reduced the time frame to a period of just 3 years, where a defacto citizen of an undefined nation would be eligible for such citizenship by several means.

From the previous link

Quote

Amid the confusion and the competing opinions over sovereignty, the discussions of Palestinian nationality centered on the status of the Palestinians. Were they meant to be treated as British-protected persons, Ottoman subjects, foreigners, or nationals of an 'A' mandate? Furthermore, what did these statuses mean outside of Palestine?  What was to be the status of non-Ottoman Jewish immigrants to Palestine?  Dependent on their country of origin, these immigrants were subjected to different consequences when they arrived in Palestine and applied for provisional certificates of nationality.  British-protected persons, Jews or otherwise, were not considered colonial subjects or naturalized citizens of the power whose protection they were under.

End Quote

Note also

Quote

Despite the ratification of Lausanne in September 1924, internal differences of opinion within the British government continued to have an impact on the status of Palestinians.  The Foreign Office wrote to the Home Office that Palestine did ‘not bear the slightest resemblances to an independent state’ and its citizens had no such status as belonging to one in international law.

( snip )

By July, the draft order had ‘nationality’ crossed out and replaced with ‘citizenship’.  Only shortly before the order passed, the Colonial Office changed ‘subject’ to ‘citizen’ in all places and made a note that ‘national’ in the Treaty of Lausanne meant both subject and citizen in the Citizenship Order.

End Quote

which should pretty much put an end to any nonsense about citizenship to any non existent state called palestine.

The entire argument is simply a rehash of the legal limbo that existed during the mandated period.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 So you don't know that islam is built on tiers and at the top is the arab or true muslim. Then you have the Persian muslim who follows another branch of islam. Or if you prefer sunni and Shi'ite muslims, that even they will tell you are not the same religion. Then you have the Kurds who are third class muslims, and killed by both Sunni and Shi'ite sects.  It is the same with Catholics and Protestants, both Christian sects that are far from being compatible. Which is why they are still at war with each other. The most obvious difference is birth control that is illegal in Catholic nations, but legal in protestant ones.


 Are you 100% sure of this as the many links from the pro Jew side show that the arab muslims were in the minority for all but 22 years since the Roman conquest. They never held any sovereignty or any legal title to the land from 1099 till the present day. Even the Ottomans refused to allow them to be the owners and kept them under a feudal system until the surrender of the land in 1919. Your whole argument was based around the Jews being recent arrivals from Europe until the evidence showed the majority came from the surrounding lands, now you are using residency of muslims that is unproven as your reason to stop the Jews from having a NATIONal home.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Jews should push for their right to return like the Palestinians are.
> ...







 Or because they don't need to as no concept exists in law. But reclaiming stolen property is a concept covered by law and this is what the Jews are doing.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...







 Because there is no actual legal concept, it is a fantasy put about by land grabbing islamonazi propagandists


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If as you seem to believe the Palestinian cause is to gain a Palestinian state, where do you propose it should be established?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 16, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> If as you seem to believe the Palestinian cause is to gain a Palestinian state, where do you propose it should be established?




 Please allow this visual guide to help.  Such location has been highlighted for you for ease of recognition, and it appears in Orange.










 Of course, the statement that the so-called Palestinians have only been wanting a state is a blatant lie.  They could have had a state at just about any time since 1949, but preferred their agenda of killing Jews over any actual desire for a state. Heck, Arafat walked away from a state for only receiving 96% of his demands instead of 100%, so it is pretty obvious that there has never been any intention of negotiating in good faith.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 16, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > If as you seem to believe the Palestinian cause is to gain a Palestinian state, where do you propose it should be established?
> ...



That is well documented.  However I for one am strongly in favor of a Palestinian State with self determination so the Pali's won't have Israel to suck off of to provide for them any longer.  The problem is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a return back to the native homelands.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 16, 2016)

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it. 

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Actually you don't have a clue what my argument is - and I don't have a clue what yours is.  I'm using demographics - population statistics - sovereignty has nothing to do with being a majority demographic or not.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.
> 
> Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway



No.  It isn't.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.
> ...



Of course it is. The early Arabs were largely a nomadic herding people of the Arabian peninsula and what is now the Sinai area. Although the Egyptians were constantly throwing them out.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> All Media
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> ...



From pro-Israeli sources...and who has controlled the historical narrative on this exodus?  Israel, until the 80's, kept this material secret.  Israeli government archives indicated a different story.

_In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.


A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.

The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

_

*Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.*
*The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).*
*Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]*
_Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
_Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
_Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
_Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
_The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
_Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
_Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
_Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Those early Arabs are the Beduoins of today.  The Palestinians are a mix of peoples, including indiginous.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



The Palestinians are not all Arab.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 16, 2016)

The Original Arab invasion is what first brought Arab Muslim colonists to Judea. Although its doubtful a significant number really remained in Jerusalem. 

Demographic history of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although I don't often put much stock in WIKI 

Stragglers trickled into judea over the centuries

The second Arab invasion occurred in the early 20th century 

see
Redirect Notice





And were a mixture of Arab peoples from both Europe and the more traditional Arab areas. 

There is no indication that these people were ever indigenous to the Canaan valley area. 

Its really a no brainer. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area are immigrants, the majority of which settled there in the early 20th century


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



That's the first time I heard anyone say that.  They identify themselves as Arabs.  The first paragraph in the PLO Charter says that they're part of the larger Arab Nation.
Are you talking about the fact that the Philistines, of long ago, were originally a sea-faring people from Greece?  Then you might want to do some DNA testing.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 16, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




Also the indigenous Jewish Palestinians were not Arabs.  The claim that Israel is stealing, or occupying Palestinian land is absurd unless they are claiming Israel is stealing its own native land.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians.pdf


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 16, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



forget the DNA testing. The main take away from DNA is that we are all 99% chimpanzee. Beyond that one might pick whatever markers one wants and it will 99% of the time only show something else we might all have in near perfect similarity with a chimp. 

The DNA evidence is so easily manipulated that its virtually impossible to distinguish honest research from dishonest. 

Always read the critiques of any paper you are considering when evaluating a given interpretation of DNA evidence. 

Its a fact ;--)


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 16, 2016)

>>
Demographer U.O. Schmelz's analysis of the Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron _kaza_s (Ottoman districts), by place of birth, showed that of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey.[18] Schmelz conjectured:
The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—_just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector_.[19]​While Schmelz restricted his research of the 1905 Palestinian census to the official Ottoman registrations and used these registrations with only minor critical comment, he did acknowledge that "stable population models assume the absence of external migrations, _a condition which was obviously not met by all the subpopulations_" that Schmelz enumerated.[20]
Like U.O. Schmelz, Roberto Bachi expressed some reservation about the virtual non-existence of data and discussion concerning migration into and within Palestine. He writes:
Between 1800 and 1914, the Muslim population had a yearly average increase in the order of magnitude of roughly 6-7 per thousand. This can be compared to the very crude estimate of about 4 per thousand for the "less developed countries" of the world (in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) between 1800 and 1910. _It is possible that part of the growth of the Muslim population was due to immigration_.[21]​Although Bachi did not pursue the linkage between undocumented immigration into Palestine and the 6 (or 7) to 4 per thousand differential in growth rates between Palestine and the other less developed countries (LDCs), the idea that at least one-third of Palestine's population growth may be attributed to immigration is—using Bachi's own growth rate differentials—not an entirely unreasonable one.
Lacking verifiable evidence did not prevent Bachi from stating the obvious concerning internal migration within Palestine:
The great economic development of the coastal plains—largely due to Jewish immigration—was accompanied both in 1922-1931 and in 1931-1944 by a much stronger increase of the Muslim and Christian populations in this region than that registered in other regions. This was probably due to two reasons: stronger decrease in mortality of the non-Jewish population in the neighborhood of Jewish areas and _internal migration toward the more developed zones_.[22]<<

>>It is not surprising then that the British census data produce an Arab Palestinian population growth for 1922-31 that turns out to be generated by natural increase and legal migrations alone. Applying a 2.5 per annum growth rate[30] to a population stock of 589,177 for 1922 generates a 1931 population estimate of 735,799 or 97.6 percent of the 753,822 recorded in the 1931 census.<<

>>Applying the 2.5 per annum natural rate of population growth to the 1922 Arab Palestinian population generates an _expected_ population size for 1931 of 398,498 or 64,790 less than the actual population recorded in the British census. By imputation, this unaccounted population increase must have been either illegal immigration not accounted for in the British census and/or registered Arab Palestinians moving from outside the Jewish-identified sub-districts to those sub-districts so identified. This 1922-31 Arab migration into the Jewish sub-districts represented 11.8 percent of the total 1931 Arab population residing in those sub-districts and as much as 36.8 percent of its 1922-31 growth.<<
​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> >>
> Demographer U.O. Schmelz's analysis of the Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron _kaza_s (Ottoman districts), by place of birth, showed that of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey.[18] Schmelz conjectured:
> The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—_just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector_.[19]​While Schmelz restricted his research of the 1905 Palestinian census to the official Ottoman registrations and used these registrations with only minor critical comment, he did acknowledge that "stable population models assume the absence of external migrations, _a condition which was obviously not met by all the subpopulations_" that Schmelz enumerated.[20]
> Like U.O. Schmelz, Roberto Bachi expressed some reservation about the virtual non-existence of data and discussion concerning migration into and within Palestine. He writes:
> ...


Schmelz *conjectured:*
The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—_just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector_.​
Migration from rural to urban centers was common throughout the world particularly those areas that were experiencing industrialization. This was happening in Palestine but it had little to do with the Jews.

The Jewish colonists had a society that was kept as separate from the Palestinian society as possible. Very little of the colonial economy trickled into the native population.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Being a majority does not give you automatic rights to be the lands rulers, which is why the Ottomans ruled and not the arab muslims.  They were not allowed to rule by the lands sovereign owners, and were kept down by brute force, so how can any one with an iota of intelligence say that the arab muslims has ownership of Palestine prior to 1988. The evidence from Islamic sources show that the Jews were the majority population in the sanjak of Jerusalem, showing the arab muslims had no claims on demographics either. And still you ignore the truth because it supports the Jews rights. If the Ottomans or the LoN had granted the arab muslims the whole of Palestine under the mandate of 1923 then you would be screeching about international law supporting their claim, and the Jews should be ran off the land. But seeing as the international law was in the Jews favour you ignore it or deny it exists. You just cant stand to see the Jews come out on top can you, and just have to find some way to attack them for your ednablers.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.
> ...









 If they are arab then they come from the Arabian peninsular, making them immigrants and not indigenous. The Jews having settled in Judea and Samaria some 4000 to 5000 years ago, about the same time the arabs settled in arabia, are indigenous to the area.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > All Media
> ...








 From an islamonazi source you mean, as the author is a supporter of Palestine and a detractor of Israel


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Wrong way round the Bedouins are the early arabs, these were taken over by mo'mad when he started his campaign of world domination. The few left are the original converts to islam who kept their nomadic lifestyle and did not want to settle in one place. Yet another sect of islam that is different to the Persian and arab sects


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > >>
> ...







Yep best case scenario based on current scientific evidence. What don't you understand about no other part of the third world at that time could increase at the rate the arab muslims where in Palestine. Not even in arab muslim areas that showed an actual decrease in population.



 Ever thought that the reason for that is arab muslim arrogance and aloofness. The same traits we are seeing in Europe today with the muslims driving a wedge between them and us.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 What are they then, using the term as the arab muslims use it ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








 I think she is trying damage limitation and will come out with them being Christians, Jews, atheists and other religions.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> As usual we've been over this before. But just for fun lets look at the link Tinmore provided.
> 
> Reminds me of Monty in that obviously someone didn't read this before presenting it. Its really not evidence of anything resembling citizenship, at this time there was no such place or people called palestine regardless of the ipso facto use of the term.
> 
> ...


You are confusing your timeline.

From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks. Two months after that signing Britain began the Mandate for Palestine. Those are two separate sets of rules. What was allowed/required under one set of rules was not necessarily compatible with the other.

By the time Britain took responsibility of its Mandate, Palestine's international borders were defined. Palestinian nationality was already determined by international legal norms and the Treaty of Lausanne. Palestine had already become a successor state.

Britain had to work within those limits and had no authority to change those things.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Palestinians have been Palestinians since the Treaty of Lausanne. All of this Arab, Muslim, Christian, blah, blah, blah, is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > As usual we've been over this before. But just for fun lets look at the link Tinmore provided.
> ...








 Why do you make up these LIES after being shown that the land was surrendered by the Ottomans, not once but twice. And that the LoN were the occupying power until 1923 when the Mandate of Palestine named Britain as the mandatory power for both sections of Palestine. The only borders delineated where those of the mandate of Palestine, there is no treaty that claims the land to be the nation of Palestine.  Just what are these international legal norms you claim declare Palestine not just a nationality but also a nation, what treaty put them in place ?
 When did the treaty making Palestine a successor state get signed then, and who signed it for the Palestinian people ?

Yes Briain had to work within limits which is why your many posts claiming Britain did this and Britain did that are nothing more than a pack of lies.


 You are trying to use late 20C international laws retrospectively because you don't want the Jews to exist anywhere you hate them that much.    You really need to take a remedial course in English as you confuse the term mandate and nation thinking they mean the same thing. Look at your source for the claim of Palestine being given international borders and you will see that it means  THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE SPELT OUT FOR ALL BUT YOU TO SEE.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...








 Again you are wrong as the Romans named the Jews as the Palestinians before there were any Christians or muslims. The name then passed into common usage to mean Jew until the end of WW1 when the arab muslims found they had no cause to answer to


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 17, 2016)




----------



## RoccoR (Feb 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to backup and look again.


1 November, 1922: Abolition of Mehmed VI and the Office of the Ottoman Sultan.
29 October, 1923: Independence of the Republic of Turkey.
3 March, 1924:  Abdülmecid II and the Office of Ottoman Caliphate did not dissolve until 1924.
6 August 1924: Treaty of Lausanne effective date
_*SOURCE:*_ CIA Fact Book 2016 Turkey​


P F Tinmore said:


> You are confusing your timeline.
> 
> From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks. Two months after that signing Britain began the Mandate for Palestine. Those are two separate sets of rules. What was allowed/required under one set of rules was not necessarily compatible with the other.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

All of Syria was surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1918.

The last Ottoman Sultan was still Ruler until 1 November 1922 (not 1917).  However, under Article 16, Mudros Armistice, all Ottoman forces surrendered.


*Armistice of Mudros*

*"Armistice of Mudros,* (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the Port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies."​
The Republic of Turkey did not declare Independence until the last quarter 1923.  So there could be no Turkish Sovereignty over anything until FIRST there was a Turkey.

Whatever your point was, it could not be dependent on your statement:  "From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks."

The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) _(establishing effective control)_ until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You need to backup and look again.
> 
> ...


OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 17, 2016)

Well that was entertaining. Four excelant explanations and then we get a

Quote 

OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?

End Quote 

WOW 

It negates your post completely is what it does. All of our explanations do. There was never a state of palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Well that was entertaining. Four excelant explanations and then we get a
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...


Where does Rocco's post say that?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Britain took the responsibility for the EOTA and the Civil Administration well before the Mandate for Palestine was culminated.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Treaty of Lausanne (written by the Allied Powers) does not conflict with the:

•  San Remo Agreement (Written by the Allied Powers)
•  Palestine Order in Council (Written by the Allied Powers)
•  Mandate for Palestine (Written by the Allied Powers)​The Allied Powers did not write conflicting document at cross-purposes to their intent.  There is nothing special about the Treaty of Lausanne relative to the Mandatory Power issuing Nationality and Citizenship guidance for the Territory under the administration of the Mandate.

No, the Government of Palestine was to be determined by the Allied Powers.  The future of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) was to be determined by Allied Powers:


*ARTICLE 16*.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty,* the future of these territories *and islands being settled or *to be settled by the parties concerned*.​
It must be remembered that, nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne, is the Government of Palestine (GoP) mentioned.  The succession is blanket by Article 16.  

Separately, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) made note that:

•   On May 20th, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine had been given to Great Britain and on July 1st the British Government replaced its military occupation of Palestine by a civil administration. ​
Further, the PICJ made the association (at the time of that Judgement) there was an association between the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject,under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to be constructed in Palestine. 
_*SOURCE:*_ PCIJ Judgement #5 --- 26 March 1925.​
In that part of the timeline, His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power was the Government of Palestine, not only with the rights --- but also the obligations.  The Treaty make no change to that determination; Article 16 applies.

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine.  This is consistent with the Order in Council and the Mandate itself.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Britain took the responsibility for the EOTA and the Civil Administration well before the Mandate for Palestine was culminated.
> 
> ...


OK, but Palestine was still a successor state. The nationality is Palestinian and they are citizens of Palestine. They have inalienable rights as confirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Well that was entertaining. Four excelant explanations and then we get a
> ...



Rocco's didn't 

YOURS DID

I'm sorry you are having trouble following the conversation


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Britain took the responsibility for the EOTA and the Civil Administration well before the Mandate for Palestine was culminated.
> 
> ...


The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, *acting* as the Government for Palestine.​
The Mandatory was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. Palestine existed separate from the Mandate.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

That would be 100% wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There was no political subdivision _(of the Ottoman Empire)_ called Palestine.  Palestine, as a legal entity, was defined by the Order in Counsel, with boundaries as may be determined by the Allied Powers.  Palestine is the short title for the "Territory to which the Mandate Applies."

Your suggestion that the character of the Mandate being temporary, had some impact on nationality and citizenship is not really a criteria for anything.  The Allied Powers created the Treaty, and the Allied Powers were in a position to amend the Treaty as was necessary to achieve their objective.  The treaty (Part I --- Section II --- Nationality) was sufficient for the needs of the Allied Powers and the British Mandatory's needs.

Palestine _(the territory)_ DID NOT exist separate from the Mandate. Without the precession of authority documents drawn-up by the Allied Powers and the surveys establishing the boundaries, Palestine could NOT be a defined geographic region accepted to be in the jurisdiction of a particular governmental entity.  That is why the Allied Powers established Palestine as a legal entity.

The sovereign power in 1918 transferred to the Allied Powers first to the EOTA -- then designating Great Britain as the Mandatory.  In 1948, the British handed-off the control to the UN Palestine Commission as the Successor Government.  There was never a designated successor _(state or government)_ called Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...




I included direct arab quote, and not the first.
I try to draw from all sources.

The minimally 2/1 arab immigration for better standard of living, jobs, higher wages and more educational opportunities because of jews is significant.  The arabs who ran because of the arab nations attacking Israel where half the arabs left, was not totally to escape Israelis but to move outof the way so arab armies could massacre the jews.  The percentage "forced"out was minimal.  The arab who stayed have the highest quality and benefits of the working class in the area and earn twice what they would doing the same work in neighboring countries.

Problem so many forget is that without the jews most of those job and conditions would no longer exist.  We have seen what happened to the jobs and standard of living when jews left gaza.

As businesses pull out of the west bank, incomes and tax losses amount to almost 1.4 billion for the palestinians.

If they had such strong ties, they probably stayed.  If they were migrants that came for jobs, they probably left for the promises of the the arab states to wipe them out and share the riches.

Israel has already allowed over a 100,000 refugees to reenter Israel through several programs like family reunification.  Israel has also give some 30,000 more work permits for palestinians to enter Israel.

Israel has tried and been ready to sign peace and cooperation agreements.  It was the palestinian that left the table and opted for violence.  Now they can't even come to terms with their own people or hold new elections.


~~~~~~
We don't legally let canadians and mexicans vote in our election, so why should palestinians vote in Israeli elections?  They are supposed to hold their own.
Israel elects arab to the Knesset and other offices.  Arabs in Israel have representation, a voice.  Though not required, many arab to serve in the military, they serve their country and their Israeli people.
~~~~~~~

Palestinians attend university in Israel, they are treated in Israeli hospitals, they train to be doctors and take those skills back to their people.

~~~~~~~

Facts are that Israel does more to help palestinians have the skills necessary to build their own nation that can live in peace with Israel.

There are serious problems to work out, but if the palestinans won't talk, how can they come to terms?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 18, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Good points.  Bottom line is the Palestinians need Israel to better their lives.  Let us hope someday, someway the Pali's will understand that.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 18, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> [
> Good points.  Bottom line is the Palestinians need Israel to better their lives.  Let us hope someday, someway the Pali's will understand that.




I think that ship has already sailed.  By creating themselves as the perpetual victim, they would compromise all that money that pours in from useful idiots were they to actually turn their efforts to something constructive.

 The only real chance came long ago, when the Nazi al-Husseini clan became more influential than the more moderate Nashashibi clan, and .Raghib Nashashibi had to flee due to the Nazi putting a price on his head.

Ever since, the same attitudes have prevailed.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...








 Very simply because your post is shown to be a pack of LIES, and has no link to reality. If Turkey did not exist how could it have sovereignty of land that had been surrendered by the Ottoman empire to the LoN.

 You need to look at what you are writing as you are getting more and more confused by the truth


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Well that was entertaining. Four excelant explanations and then we get a
> ...








 Where does it say in any official papers of that era that Palestine was a state, and that sovereignty was passed to the arab muslim immigrants to turn it into yet another failed Islamic caliphate


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Where does it state that in any of the treaties of that era, they deliberately omit any mention of Palestine being a successor state because there was never a state of Palestine.
 Their nationality was not Palestinian but mandatory Palestinian, and the rights they had in 1988 did not exist in 1917 so cant be granted retrospectively. This means they had no rights to sovereignty over the land until the law granted them such rights. So until the law grants them right of return they don't have that right until the day it is passed, they have shown their free determination many times so that right has never been breached nor has their right to defend themselves ( this is not the same as attacking which you get confused about, if they attack Israel then they don't have a right to claim self defence )


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 LINK ?


 Again you are confusing the Mandate of Palestine being a legal entity and the  British mandate being a temporary administration. They are not the same thing


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 18, 2016)

MJB12741, et al,

I think maybe I've unintentionally sidetracked the discussion.



MJB12741 said:


> "Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder.  If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?
> 
> Facts however are documented.  Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.
> 
> The Truth about the Palestinian People


*(COMMENT)*

I thought it was interesting that a key member of the Middle East Quartet_ [(United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European Union)]_ spoke-up having an Крещение _(epiphany)_ and joining the rest of the Quartet.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold on Thursday that Russia is keen on seeing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process resume. It shows some agreement between the Quartet on the issue of re-igniting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations without preconditions.  Surprising even though Three members of the Quartet have been extremely critical of Israel most recent interaction with the Arab Palestinians.  This has created an unbalanced dynamic in diplomatic sentiment.  Looking at the Middle East from the Big Picture view, the politics is further complicated by the extremely confusing and developing relationships between NATO Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)_(a paramilitary group and designated Terrorist Organization)_, and the struggle with DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) and its Opposing Forces.  

If DAESH stabilizes, it could result in the redrawing the Border Lines.  In the mean time, the pro-Palestinian Terrorist Group Hezbollah is not without it meddling.  Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah Leader, is accusing Saudi Arabian and Turkey of pushing for the continuation of the anti-DAESH conflict.  It is not immediately clear if Hezbollah is accusing them of forming a conspiracy, or if the two countries are independently working the issue from two different perspectives.

*(SIDE BAR)*

Oddly enough, the objectives of the PKK and struggle with Turkey in search or their national identity, is not so different from that of the Arab Palestinian and its relationship with Israel.  And just as odd, is the fact that the origins of the conflict dates back to before the Treaty of Sevres (1920); and the lack in the fulfillment of Part I - Section III, on establishment of the independent Kurdish State.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 18, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> That would be 100% wrong.
> 
> ...


Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important issue. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could commence. Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, I've answered your questions on this quite carefully.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *(COMMENT)*
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First time the Allied Forces engaged in hostile military operations in the Middle East was o/a _(on or about)_  29 October 1914  --- although actual combat operations did not began until January 1915; opposing the German led forces of the Ottoman Empire [_Fourth Army (Syria)])_.   And o/a 30 October 1918, combat operations ceased once the Armistice of Mudros was concluded.  During that period, the Allied Forces participated in five military campaigns:

•  Sinai and Palestine Campaign,
•  Mesopotamian Campaign,
•  Caucasus Campaign,
•  Persian Campaign,
•  Gallipoli Campaign...​Just as we say, the Battle of the Ardennes (1914) was the second of the Battle of the Frontiers (WWI), where the Ardennes was not a separate political subdivision, everyone back then knew where it was.  It was a name for the rough terrain and heavily forested region extending across parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg; but with no set boundaries.  So it was that Palestine, a regional name, described a region extending across the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem.  It WAS NOT, as you imply, a separate political subdivision ---  BUT A PART of several politically distinct subdivisions.

•  Did the dirt and sand of Palestine exist before the Mandate Period?  Yes it did.
•  Did it have such boundaries or its own distinct government? No it did not.​It should be noted that Palestine is not the only regional area in the world that has the vague territorial description.  Appalachia, in the Eastern United States, also "lacks definite physiographical or topographical boundaries; and there has been some disagreement over what exactly the region encompasses."  However, just as there is not disagreement that Appalachia or The Ardennes, has no distinct government or separate nationality/citizenship, so it was with the pre-WWI Palestine.

Unless there is some catastrophic geological event that sucks-up Appalachia, The Ardennes, and Palestine, those names associated with those undefined regions, have been used for centuries --- and will continue to be used for centuries more.  This neither adds anything of substance to the Argument (your argument), or credibility to the suggestion that the use of the word "Palestine" at the turn of the century in the years prior to the Great War, denotes anything politically relative to the territory.

Before WWI, Palestine was a region of the Middle East that encompassed land that extended over the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem.  After the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, is was again land that fell under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration of those same former Ottoman subdivisions.  After the issue of Mandates and the establishment of civil administration, the Allied Powers formalized the boundaries.

*(SUMMARY --- ONE MORE TIME)*

So, in the sense that the 1914 territory of Palestine existed after the Mandates, is wrong --- completely wrong.  Prior to the Mandates, Palestine was an undefined "Regional Name" and after the Mandates, Palestine became a legal entity under the administration of the Mandatory having defined territorial limits.

You should not attempt to word your questions such that the word "Palestine" implies one and only one ethnic, nationality, citizenship, or culture.  Over the last century, all that has changed or was altered several times.  The pre-War names for the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut, Aleppo, Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem were very different things back then, in comparison to today.  Even the Name "Syria" meant something different back then, compared to what it means today.  And if DAESH is able to establish their Caliphate --- it will again make changes.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 19, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, I've answered your questions on this quite carefully.
> 
> ...


Keep dancing, Rocco. 

What part of that refutes my post?


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 19, 2016)

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.
> 
> You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.
> 
> The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.



Right you are.  But once again, there lies the problem that no Arab state want anything to do with Palestinians.  How grateful they are that Israel now has to deal with them.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.
> 
> You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.
> 
> The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.



To be really technical about it, there are 57 countries with the Muslim religion.  22 of those countries speak Arabic and belong to the Arab League.  Jordan once was part of the Palestine Mandate.  So the greedy Mohammedans (as they used to be called), want 58 or 59 Muslim states (depending on whether the West Bank and Gaza will be divided); 23 or 24 Arab states; and 2 or 3 Palestinian states.  Obviously, the Muslims do not have enough land, resources or oil.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 19, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.
> ...


Why is it their job to clean up after Israel.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



"Clean up after Israel"?  Pali's never had it so good.  Do you believe the Pali's would be better off leaving Israel to go back to living in some surrounding Arab country?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









 It is you dancing around the reality as it only had to exist as an undefined area on a map. The area was delineqated in part by the Roman empire sometime in 70 C.E.
 The mandate never left but the mandatory power did, the legal aspects of the mandate of Palestine are still in existence as the land has not been fully claimed under the mandate terms


 ONCE AGAIN YOU CONFUSE THE MANDATORY POWER WITH THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE. TWO SEPERATE AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITIES


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 All of it as Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, and then in name only. Before that it was a name given to an area like the Bermuda Triangle, Death Valley, Badlands, Pampas and the Russian Steppes.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








 It isn't, but it is their job to clean up the mess that have started in the M.E. with their invasions of Israel over the years.

 Maybe the UN should institute a system of fines on any nation that declares war on another, once the war is over the fimnes are collected and then the invaders ran of the land


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 19, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Pali squatters should not have any rights on the land.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 19, 2016)

Exactly MJ 

The reality is exactly the opposite as what the Arab Muslims would have us believe. Its the Arabs who are occupying Israeli land. 

Everything west of the Jordan is or was that is made available for the creation of a national Jewish Homeland 

After the 48 war it was Jordan in the disputed territories who were occupying Israeli land and Egypt in Gaza who was occupying Israeli land. 

After the 67 war it was still Arab Muslims allied with Jordan who were occupying Israeli land in the disputed territories. and Arab Muslims allied with Egypt occupying Israeli land in Gaza. 

I call for an end to the occupation and the removal of all hostiles from Israeli areas of influence


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 20, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Exactly MJ
> 
> The reality is exactly the opposite as what the Arab Muslims would have us believe. Its the Arabs who are occupying Israeli land.
> 
> ...



I'm still trying to figure out how the Pali's & their supporters claim "Israel is stealing, or occupying 'Palestinian' land" when the Jews were native Palestinians for thousands of years before Islam.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 21, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly MJ
> ...



Again, consider the facts as to who is stealing who's land. Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqsa Mosque?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 21, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Oh wait, I forgot.  Documented facts are just Zionist hasbara.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 21, 2016)

facts mean nothing to these kinda people. Dogma is about the only thing they seem to have on their side. Fact are just inconveniences to be ignored. 

Check the thread from the go and notice how facts actually don't have anything whatsoever to do with the terrorist Arab Muslim mind set.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 22, 2016)

We fled not expelled
Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: 01/14 Links Pt2: 1948 Palestinian: “We Fled...They Didn’t Expel Us”; Lies about Israel, lies about Jews


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 22, 2016)

Here is more Zionist hasbara.  And if you don't believe me, just ask any of the Pali supporters.

1972 - Terrorists Attack at the Olympic Games in Munich


----------



## Coyote (Feb 22, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> We fled not expelled
> Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: 01/14 Links Pt2: 1948 Palestinian: “We Fled...They Didn’t Expel Us”; Lies about Israel, lies about Jews



Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' _The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem_.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.

A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.

The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":


Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 22, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > We fled not expelled
> ...



Wiki isn't peer reviewed and is highly suspect in its objectivity. No serious scholar uses it for anything but the most rudimentary stuff and even then I'd have that paper handed back to me if it ever made it to review. Just for using Wiki. 

If we're going to go with facts, I don't think Wiki is our best source.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 22, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > We fled not expelled
> ...



Haganah was fouded out of ncecessity as the British were not able to stop or even contol Palestinian riots & the flow of weapons to Palestinian terrorists.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 23, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Wiki isn't peer reviewed and is highly suspect in its objectivity.



Wikipedia *is* peer reviewed and often edited for biased content; it takes it's stand on a neutral point of view very seriously, so much so that in 2010 the Hasbara machine tageted it... "Last week, Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopaedia that has long been a battlefield in the narrative war, became an official target of "Zionist editing".

Two right-wing Zionist groups in Israel, the Yesha Council of Settlements and Israel Sheli, have set up a training course to teach individuals about methods of editing and influencing online content to reflect a particular ideological view point. In this way it is hoped that Westerners will, subconsciously, take as fact Israeli propaganda consisting of "all the correct arguments and explanations" in defence of Israel and its image.

One of the course organisers explained: "...we want to be there [on the internet]; to influence what is written there, how it's written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature". 

A course participant said, "In general, it's so important for us to be online working to defend ourselves and to prove to the world and to ourselves that we are just and we are right." 

The type of "problem" the course hopes its newly-trained editors will "fix" is Wikipedia's use of the word "occupied" to describe the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967; one participant has taken issue with the map of Israel being portrayed "without the Golan Heights or Judea and Samaria", known more generally as the Syrian Golan Heights and the occupied West Bank." Defending the indefensible: Israel's Wikipedia war

I agree however, Wikipedia is best used for the sources attributed to articles than the articles themselves, and as with all publications from any source, it's always worth doing a fact check.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 23, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



In fact the British were remakably efficient at controlling the flow of weapons to the Palestinians; one reason the Zionists were so successful in expelling them.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly MJ
> ...







I am trying to work out which treaty by which sovereign ruler gave the Palestinians sovereignty over the land granted to the Jews for their national home. Still have not found it after years of looking


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wiki isn't peer reviewed and is highly suspect in its objectivity.
> ...








 Wiki has always been suspect as anyone can become an editor and edit any of the entries. This is why it is open to abuse and the owners don't care as long as the money keeps flowing. This is proven by looking at the history of wiki articles, and you will find that the vast majority are edited by Islamic sources, not Jewish ( look at the IP address for examples as these are nation specific )  

 This is why so many pro terrorists ask for links so they can show that wiki says different to other sources and so the other sources must by hasbara


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 And how about a non islamonazi/neo Marxist sourced to prove your claim.


 OR WILL YOU IGNORE THIS POST AND CARRY ON WITH YOUR LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > We fled not expelled
> ...








 And if you bother to look you find that this has been edited by many islamonazi sources to tie in with their stories.  Proving that wiki is not a very good source of evidence


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Ridiculous.  Show us some documentation to back up your silly statement.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wiki isn't peer reviewed and is highly suspect in its objectivity.
> ...




That is why there are reference so people can see for themselves.

Classes help clean up hate speech and propaganda and insert facts and references.  They also post details of news events, supporting info and links

Wiki is so much more than just Israeli arab related.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Palestinian state is a 'fantasy', says son of Hamas founder

All Media


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 23, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...





aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Thank you for staying with a documented fact rather than Pali supporter types of just biased claim statements.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 23, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



The Wikipedia entry was also a documented fact.  No more a biased claim statement than anything else presented.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 23, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...




It does matter if the documentation is a bias or hate site/book/document or a scholar, expert or news article and if there is follow up to that news story.
Wiki is good for quick, simple starting point if you know little or nothing about a topic, but it should not be then end all authority.  Wiki is an easy reference but it is constantly being updated and corrected.  It is not intended as a propaganda site and in most cases is not.

We can for the most part accept wiki articles, but if we know there are error and can provide other proof, we should do so.  We are not quoting wiki for a theses.  There is not good reason for rejecting everything just because it is from wiki either.

I do take facts with a grain of salt if there is not footnote or reference or there is a note about waiting authentication.

I like to take the references as starting point for research since I am not sitting in the middle of a major library.

Even news reporters and researchers get things wrong from time to time.  We should try if possible to get several sites or articles to use along with wiki if necessary.  I would hope most of us would know the hate sites by now and avoid them altogether.

When on site or articles references their source as a hate site "beware".  Some sites with a strong bias do get their stories from legitimate sources but put their own opinions with the story, does not mean they are wrong.

MEMRI might seem bias if you only see a few articles from them, but they are just a translations service for the news, TV and events.  Originals are there to prove the translations are correct and not fabricated by MEMRI.

If a source is wrong or outdated, I'm sure someone will notice and bring it to our attention.

I have noticed some poster confuse opinions, speculations and supposition with facts.  I'm sure in most cases those will be pointed out as well by others.

We are not writing a college paper, just participating in a forum and sharing opinions.  I would hope most opinions are based on fact or experience and not just pure passion or hate.

I would also hope most poster are here for their enjoyment and education, not to incite a mob reaction to events and issues.

JMHO


----------



## Coyote (Feb 23, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



What I like about wiki is - everyone can contribute, on all sides of an issue.  It also requires sourcing so you can run down sources and evaluate them independently of Wiki - if there are insufficient sources, citations or if there is strong bias it is noted.  I can't think of any other site that provides as good an unbiased starting points.

I totally agree with you on confusing opinions, speculations and supposition with facts.  I also think a lot of "hate sites" do exactly that, they may have a kernal of truth but they fill it in with opinions, inflammatory language and sometimes outright dishonesty (such as posting pictures from some other event and implying they are relevant to the article).  I find certain language brings out "red flags" and makes me skeptical of the article's agenda - language that makes shoddy Nazi comparisons, uses words like evil, implies all of a group are rapists, murderers, racists etc....inflammatory language usually means the article has little basis in facts, in my opinion.  That's how I view it.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 23, 2016)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




But you can take those names, places, event, dates and details and do you own search for more factual information and supporting evidence.

Though rare, some sites bring my attention to items I have not heard and cause me to do my own searches.  They might use sources in another language or from sources I don't usually read or might have missed.  If I know they are bias, I take that into consideration.  Sometimes I just want to know what nonsense rhetoric and lies are being spouted (forewarned is forearmed).


----------



## Challenger (Feb 24, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Here's one example, an effective war diary of the 6th Airbourne Division With 6th Airborne Division in Palestine 1945-48: Amazon.co.uk: Dare Wilson: 9781844157716: Books
the book catalogues the division's operations against Zionist terrorists who were by and large, the major problem. The Palestinian muslims had been crushed prior to WW2 and were reduced to a few village militias armed at best with antiquated wapons, even so the Division managed to confiscate 8 mortars, 3 MMGs, 8LMGs, 42 SMGs, 97 rifles, 29 pistols, 2 mines, 211 grenades, and 13,130 rounds of ammunition. Agreed this is a paltry amount, compared with what the Division confiscated from Zionist terrorists, see apendix M on page 250 for a full account.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 24, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



How is this in any way relevant to my post?


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 24, 2016)

Challenger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



#1 on your list was Haganah.  So I told you why it was formed.  Good luck with your reading disorder.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 24, 2016)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...




The Arab Muslims were crushed prior to WWII ? Care to elaborate on that little fantasy ? 

If your referring to the Arab Revolt then you might want to actually do a little reading. It was the Arabs who out of racism and bigotry, began a series of terrorist acts which ended with what a thousand hanged, a few thousand shot dead and maybe 20,000 wounded. 

Once again they brought it on themselves yet now you want to act as if the 90+% remaining were somehow peace loving upstanding citizens who'd never consider harming a Judaic person ? I"m not buying it.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 24, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



They make no mention of all the Palestinian lives saved in Israeli hospitals.  Why is that?


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 24, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



Because this isn't about reality, its about justifying the racism and hatred of the Arab Muslims for the Judaic people


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 24, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



YES indeed.  History has proven that reality & Palestinian mentality don't mix.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 25, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



That was Coyote, not me. I was referring to Aris2chat's weird post. Good luck with *your* reading disorder, I read fine thanks.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 25, 2016)

MJB12741 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



Because it's the Zionists that injured them in the first place, it's the very least they can do. Problem is, the IOF keeps stopping Palestinians from reaching their own hospitals, that's the scandal.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 25, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...








The rebellion was against British policies and continuing Zionist immigration, it started out as a general strike but at the end most of the effective Muslim Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison, or in exile. What weapons and ammunition the native Palestinians had accumulated were lost, as was approximately 10% of it's population of fighting men. The British armed and trained Zionist militias in terrorist tactics (see Orde Wingate's "Special night Squads), a policy that backfired on them later, it has to be said.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 25, 2016)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




LOL!  Oh now I get it.  Given a choice, Palestinians in serious condition would prefer be treated in a Palestinian run hostpital, right?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 25, 2016)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...







 maybe, just maybe if the arab muslims had not started the violence in the first place then they would not have been injured in the return fire.  Far too many records of attacks on the unarmed placid Jews for you or anyone else to say the blame lies with the Jews, there are documented cases of palestinians demanding the Jizya tax only to be told that it will no longer be paid as the Jews have their own defenders now. This would lead to vicious attacks on the Jews and the fledgling IDF rushing to their aid, and dealing with the Palestinian attackers.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 25, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...








 Only half the story again rat boy, want to fill in the holes before I do and show how devious you are. How the arab's constantly refused to have anything to do with the mandate so they resorted to violence to settle the dispute. How they used common objects as lethal weapons, and attacked from cover. The Palestinians instigated the violence from the word go and you cant alter the facts no matter how much you LIE.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 25, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Indeed, the Palestinians rejected everything about the British/Zionist colonial project.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 25, 2016)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



You must be having those reading problems again. The title has the term "facts" in it, which seems to be something you missed.

The Arab Muslims have been caught time and time again transporting arms and fighters hiding in ambulances. A flagrant violation of international law.


And you wonder why the IDF might stop an ambulance LOL

Now there's a simple fact you might want to deal with before posting again


----------



## Challenger (Feb 25, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The title has the term "facts" in it, which seems to be something you missed.



Really.

*2008*
*December*
*Dawlat 'Abd al-Fatah 'Abdallah Mahana*
53 years old, resident of Jabalya R.C, North Gaza District, died on 01 Dec 2008 in Jabalya, North Gaza District, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed *Additional information: She had cancer of the bowel and liver. Israel prevented her from reaching Ramallah via the Erez crossing to receive medical care.


*November*
*Na'el 'Abd a-Rahman Khamis al-Kurdi*
21 years old, resident of Gaza city, injured on 17 Nov 2008 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care, and died on 17 Nov 2007. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed *Additional information: a cancer patient, Israel refused to let him leave the Gaza Strip to obtain medical treatment.


*Amin Muhammad Khalil Fayad*
28 years old, resident of Gaza city, died on 07 Nov 2008 in Beit Hanoun, North Gaza District, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed *Additional information: Cancer patient. Israel prevented his entry for medical care several times, until his situation deteriorated and he died in a Gaza hospital.


*October*
*Khaled 'Abd a-Rahman Hussein Abu Shamaleh*
39 years old, resident of Khan Yunis, died on 17 Oct 2008 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed *Additional information: He suffered a viral liver infection. Israel delayed his entry for medical care when the GSS pressured him to collaborate with Israel and he refused.


*September*
*Menatallah 'Abd al-Halim Nayef Zo'rub*
1 year old, resident of Rafah, died on 21 Sep 2008 in Rafah, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed* Additional information: She died after Israel prevented her mother from accompanying her for treatment in Israel. Her father, who had received an entry permit, was unable to accompany her because he was also a cancer patient and his situation was critical. The father died on 29 May 2009.


*July*
*Iyad Salman Salem al-Hamaydah*
36 years old, resident of Rafah, died on 09 Jul 2008 in Rafah, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed *Additional information: He had kidney disease, and Israel refused to allow him to receive medical care in East Jerusalem.


*May*
*Muhammad Hamdan Hamidan Abu Hweishel*
68 years old, resident of Deir al-Balah, died on 11 May 2008 in Deir al-Balah, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed* Additional information: He had a malignant bladder disease. Israel refused his request to have further treatment in Israel for several months.


*Subhiya Sa'id 'Othman Rashwan*
62 years old, resident of Gaza city, died on 03 May 2008 in Khan Yunis, following a delay in receiving medical care. Additional information: She had a brain tumor. Israel delayed her entry for treatment in Jerusalem several times.


*January*
*Ratebah Muhammad Ibrahim al-Khatib*
45 years old, resident of Gaza city, died on 22 Jan 2008 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed* Additional information: She suffered from liver and bone cancer. She died after her requests to receive medical treatment in Israel were denied several times.


*Fatmeh 'Ali Da'ud a-Lidawi*
44 years old, resident of Gaza city, died on 21 Jan 2008 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed *Additional information: She was ill with spleen and liver problems. Israeli officials delayed her entry into Israel for five days after her scheduled appointment. On the day she was allowed to enter, officials delayed her passage through Erez Crossing for a few hours, and she arrived in serious condition at Ichilov Hospital, where she died a week later.


*Shirin Isma'il 'Abdallah Abu Shawareb*
9 years old, resident of a-Nuseirat Camp, Deir al-Balah District, died on 15 Jan 2008 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care. *Did not participate in hostilities when killed* Additional information: She had spleen and liver disease. Israel delayed her entry for medical care five days beyond the date of her appointment. On the day her entry was permitted, she was again delayed for several hours at the Erez checkpoint, and arrived in serious condition at Ichilov Hospital, where she died a week later.


*Yihya Mustafa Salim al-Jamal*
54 years old, resident of Gaza city, died on 12 Jan 2008 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care. Additional information: He died after Israel twice refused him entry for medical care. He had obtained two hospital appointments, the first for 19 November 2007 and the second for 3 December 2007, but in neither case did he obtain an entry permit.


Palestinians who died following an infringement of the right to medical treatment  in the Gaza Strip, before Operation "Cast Lead"


----------



## Challenger (Feb 25, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Pallywood, obviously.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 25, 2016)

So you are saying that the pali's staged the scene and they filmed themselves all jumping into a UN ambulance ? Brilliant, way to shoot yourself in the foot, again. 

Try this one
See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...C1eX94zhSPSG7-vQy-aqDQ&bvm=bv.115277099,d.cGc

or this one 


Just because you don't have the courage to admit it. Doesn't mean its not happening. 

Now there's a fact you seem to be having trouble with.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 25, 2016)

*Moderation Note:*

*This topic has lost it's Mojo. It's a GOOD discussion. But not on the original topic.. *

*If anyone wants to me to snip out the NEW topic and start a thread with it --- PM me.. *

*This one closed.*.


----------

