Myths, Hypotheses and Facts Concerning the Origin of Peoples

[toastman]

The Jews and the Palestinians are largely the same. They were both there prior to the reinvention of Israel. The same people. From the same source I quoted from before:

Unlike people of other factions, the Jews have gone into practically into every country in the world and assimilated into the society.However, unlike the other factions, Jews retained their integrity as a people in those countries. Almost like an island in a country. They don't mix with others. They are not the same as Arabs.

They retain their religion. Arabs are an ethnic group. Jews are a religious group.

Exactly, which is why your statement in post #97 is kind of contradicting

 

[HistoryBefore67]

What about the Armenians and Christians? Same people too?

What about the Bedouins? Also the same?

How about the Italians? After all, their ancestors were Romans, and some of the Romans lived in Judea and Samaria. Also the same?

How about the camels?

The suggestion that the Jews and the "Palestinian" Arabs are the same people is insulting to the intelligence of every multi-celled organism on the planet.

The Jews and the Palestinians are largely the same. They were both there prior to the reinvention of Israel. The same people. From the same source I quoted from before:

Sand argues that it is likely that the ancestry of most contemporary Jews stems mainly from outside the ancient Land of Israel and that a "nation-race" of Jews with a common origin never existed. Just as most contemporary Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims, Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, a proselytising religion. Many of the present day world Jewish population are descendants of European, Russian and African groups.

According to Sand, the original Jews living in Israel, contrary to popular belief, were not exiled following the Bar Kokhba revolt.[16] Sand argues that most of the Jews were not exiled by the Romans, and were permitted to remain in the country. Many Jews converted to Islam following the Arab conquest, and were assimilated among the conquerors. He concludes that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews.[17] Sand writes that the story of the exile was a myth promoted by early Christians to recruit Jews to the new faith. They portrayed that event as a divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel. Sand writes that "Christians wanted later generations of Jews to believe that their ancestors had been exiled as a punishment from God."

That's your idea of a source?

Why don't you post the multitude of reviews of Sand's book that confirm that its about as historically accurate as Monty Python's Life of Brian.

 

[Hossfly]

What about the Armenians and Christians? Same people too?

What about the Bedouins? Also the same?

How about the Italians? After all, their ancestors were Romans, and some of the Romans lived in Judea and Samaria. Also the same?

How about the camels?

The suggestion that the Jews and the "Palestinian" Arabs are the same people is insulting to the intelligence of every multi-celled organism on the planet.

The Jews and the Palestinians are largely the same. They were both there prior to the reinvention of Israel. The same people. From the same source I quoted from before:

Sand argues that it is likely that the ancestry of most contemporary Jews stems mainly from outside the ancient Land of Israel and that a "nation-race" of Jews with a common origin never existed. Just as most contemporary Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims, Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, a proselytising religion. Many of the present day world Jewish population are descendants of European, Russian and African groups.

According to Sand, the original Jews living in Israel, contrary to popular belief, were not exiled following the Bar Kokhba revolt.[16] Sand argues that most of the Jews were not exiled by the Romans, and were permitted to remain in the country. Many Jews converted to Islam following the Arab conquest, and were assimilated among the conquerors. He concludes that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews.[17] Sand writes that the story of the exile was a myth promoted by early Christians to recruit Jews to the new faith. They portrayed that event as a divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel. Sand writes that "Christians wanted later generations of Jews to believe that their ancestors had been exiled as a punishment from God."

That's your idea of a source?

Why don't you post the multitude of reviews of Sand's book that confirm that its about as historically accurate as Monty Python's Life of Brian.

It would be interesting to see Professor Menashe Harel of Hebrew University debate this Sands guy about there not being a Jewish people. However, I think many of us realize that the pro Palis just lap up everything Sands says since they drag him up from time to time..

Menashe Harel

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

This is correct; we agree.

You can't unmake anything. You can't change what has been done. To do so would be inhumane. But likewise you can't ignore the fact that the Palestinians are a people NOW and they deserve a state and a homeland every bit as much as the Jews did. Whether anyone is a "real" people is irrelevent to NOW.

(COMMENT)

No one really denied the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) statehood. Unless you want to count the Arab High Council, who refused to participate in the UNSC Implementation process of GA Res 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

José, et al,

I don't mean to single you out in this regard. But the statement made here is representative in a fashion of the position taken by many Hostile Arab/Palestinians (HoAP).

These are the laws of mankind, invader...

Share the land you stole from us or be attacked with deadly force for as long as we see fit.

(REMEMBERING)

The following statement was issued today by the Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (9 April 2008):]

The Secretary-General condemns the terrorist attack today by Palestinian militants against the Nahal Oz depot in southern Israel, in which two Israeli civilian contractors working to supply fuel to the Gaza Strip were killed and others injured.

He is gravely concerned at the prospect of an escalation in violence and, while recognizing Israel’s legitimate right to self-defence, deplores the reported civilian casualties among Palestinians during Israeli military operations this afternoon. The United Nations calls for the protection of all civilians in the conflict.

SOURCE: SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS TERRORIST ATTACK BY PALESTINIAN MILITANTS AGAINST DEPOT IN SOUTHERN ISRAEL

The Secretary-General condemns the Palestinian terror attack that caused the death of six Israeli civilians and injury to four others at the Karni crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip yesterday evening. He wishes to express his deepest condolences to the families of those killed and injured.

The Secretary-General hopes that this terrible incident will not be allowed to undermine the recent positive steps made by both parties. He also calls on the new Palestinian leadership to make all possible attempts to bring to justice the organizers and perpetrators of this attack.

The Secretary-General emphasizes again that violence cannot provide a solution to the conflict, and that only through negotiation can peace be achieved.

SOURCE: SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS PALESTINIAN TERROR ATTACK ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails.

SOURCE: No Policy to Fight Terrorism Can Succeed without Addressing Conditions Promoting Its Spread, Secretary-General Tells Security Council Debate

(COMMENT)

When I evaluate your statement ("or be attacked with deadly force for as long as we see fit"), I see this as both intimidation to promote a pro-Palestinian political agenda and as a form by which HoAP is instigating and encouraging the use of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States (Israel) and their citizens. This is something that The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (A/RES/60/288) is suppose to directly challenge in Plan of Action Annex (Part II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism).

Is it unusual? (Rhetorical) No! I've seen it many times in this discussion group.

But, just as the UN Secretary-General says, "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." I know that it is very often claimed that the Palestinian has some special right to organized effort within the civil population of the Occupied Territories to resist the illegally Israeli control as the occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. And that this right to resist is tied directly to the right of self-determination. But this right does not extend to the use of terrorism and asymmetric armed conflict.

Remember, it was the Arab High Council that refused to participate. The UN, the US, the Allied Powers, nor the Israelis blocked (in any way) the ability of the HoAP to declare independence within the partitioned portion of GA Resolution 181(II); a portion much bigger than is available today.

My position is that the HoAP has no grievance, no goal, and no cause that can excuse or justify its past history of terrorist behaviors and acts; nor an just cause to pursue hostile armed aggression. And your comment: "or be attacked with deadly force for as long as we see fit" directly promotes violations the spirit of existing international law (the threat of violence, carried out for political purposes).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

What about the Armenians and Christians? Same people too?

What about the Bedouins? Also the same?

How about the Italians? After all, their ancestors were Romans, and some of the Romans lived in Judea and Samaria. Also the same?

How about the camels?

The suggestion that the Jews and the "Palestinian" Arabs are the same people is insulting to the intelligence of every multi-celled organism on the planet.

The Jews and the Palestinians are largely the same. They were both there prior to the reinvention of Israel. The same people. From the same source I quoted from before:

Sand argues that it is likely that the ancestry of most contemporary Jews stems mainly from outside the ancient Land of Israel and that a "nation-race" of Jews with a common origin never existed. Just as most contemporary Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims, Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, a proselytising religion. Many of the present day world Jewish population are descendants of European, Russian and African groups.

According to Sand, the original Jews living in Israel, contrary to popular belief, were not exiled following the Bar Kokhba revolt.[16] Sand argues that most of the Jews were not exiled by the Romans, and were permitted to remain in the country. Many Jews converted to Islam following the Arab conquest, and were assimilated among the conquerors. He concludes that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews.[17] Sand writes that the story of the exile was a myth promoted by early Christians to recruit Jews to the new faith. They portrayed that event as a divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel. Sand writes that "Christians wanted later generations of Jews to believe that their ancestors had been exiled as a punishment from God."

Shlomo Sand, squawk! Shlomo Sand, Shlomo Sand, squawk! Debunked!

When challenged regarding DNA results that suggest that his thesis that the Jews are really descended from the Khazars and other groups, Sand was quick to dismiss those claims, suggesting that the studies point to other conclusions or are flawed. Yet now another study has been published that also refutes his thesis.

Now, really, after having to read him, view him and watch people who hate Jews and even those who don’t hate Jews but wish to undermine Israel, use his book and claims to disparage Israel and the Jewish people in general, is it too much to ask of Dr. Sand to apologize and send a refund to buyers of his, um, science fiction?
Here’s an article about the study:

- See more at: Should Shlomo Sand offer a refund on his book now that another study has refuted it?
To better understand the ways in which current Jewish groups are related, Dr. Burns and his colleagues, including principal investigator Harry Ostrer, M.D., professor of pediatrics, pathology and medicine at NYU, performed a genome-wide analysis of the three major groups formed by the Diasporas (the scattering of Jews into Europe, and throughout the Middle East): Eastern European Ashkenazim; Italian, Greek, and Turkish Sephardim; and Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Mizrahim Jews.
A total of 237 participants were recruited from Jewish communities in the metropolitan New York region, Seattle, Athens, Rome and Israel. Subjects were included only if all four grandparents came from the same Jewish community. The results were compared with a genetic analysis of 418 people from non-Jewish groups around the world.
The researchers found that Jews from the major Diaspora groups formed a distinct population cluster, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations. Each of the Diaspora groups also formed its own cluster within the larger Jewish cluster. Further, each group demonstrated Middle-Eastern ancestry and varying degrees of mixing with surrounding populations. The genetic analysis showed that the two major groups, Middle Eastern Jews and European Jews, diverged from each other approximately 2,500 years ago.
“The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history,” said Dr. Ostrer of NYU. “Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blond hair.”

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Its not my style to reveal too much about myself on sites like this. Nonetheless, I will make the following statement that will reveal something about what I do for a living.

If this debate was being held in a federal district court, and Mr. Sand's findings were offered in the form of expert testimony, they would be subjected to what is called a Daubert motion. The purpose of such a motion is to evaluate whether proposed expert testimony is based upon scientific methodology that meets minimum standards within the relevant scientific community.

I can tell you that, in most cases, Daubert motions are close calls, and it is difficult to predict how the judge will rule.

In the case of Sand's book, however, it would not be difficult at all to predict the outcome of the motion. There is absolutely no way that his unscientific, unsupported, repeatedly debunked, and obviously outcome-driven, "analysis" would be accepted as expert testimony.

 

[Coyote]

The researchers found that Jews from the major Diaspora groups formed a distinct population cluster, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations. Each of the Diaspora groups also formed its own cluster within the larger Jewish cluster. Further, each group demonstrated Middle-Eastern ancestry and varying degrees of mixing with surrounding populations. The genetic analysis showed that the two major groups, Middle Eastern Jews and European Jews, diverged from each other approximately 2,500 years ago.

“The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history,” said Dr. Ostrer of NYU. “Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blond hair.”
- See more at: Should Shlomo Sand offer a refund on his book now that another study has refuted it? | Jewlicious THE Jewish Blog

Again - they really aren't a race - they are a mixture of peoples that include some of the same people as the "Palestinians".

In an effort to define the relatedness of contemporary Jewish people (European, Mizrahi and Sephardim), the authors conducted a genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) (they left out the eighth, which is called Brooklynite) and compared them with surrounding non-Jewish groups and found that their are distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. - See more at: http://www.jewlicious.com/2010/06/you-mean-im-not-a-khazar/#sthash.QIF0HUmw.dpuf

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Jews are not exclusively a race. Who said they were?

There is a racial component that, in part, defines the Jewish people. There is also a religious component, a historical component, a linguistic component, and a cultural component.

The contention that, factoring all of these components, Jews and "Palestinian" Arabs are "the same people" is patently absurd.

What's worse is that it is an unhelpful tangent that takes us away from any meaningful discussion of the issues.

 

[Coyote]

The researchers found that Jews from the major Diaspora groups formed a distinct population cluster, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations. Each of the Diaspora groups also formed its own cluster within the larger Jewish cluster. Further, each group demonstrated Middle-Eastern ancestry and varying degrees of mixing with surrounding populations. The genetic analysis showed that the two major groups, Middle Eastern Jews and European Jews, diverged from each other approximately 2,500 years ago.

“The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history,” said Dr. Ostrer of NYU. “Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blond hair.”
- See more at: Should Shlomo Sand offer a refund on his book now that another study has refuted it? | Jewlicious THE Jewish Blog

Again - they really aren't a race - they are a mixture of peoples that include some of the same people as the "Palestinians".

In an effort to define the relatedness of contemporary Jewish people (European, Mizrahi and Sephardim), the authors conducted a genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) (they left out the eighth, which is called Brooklynite) and compared them with surrounding non-Jewish groups and found that their are distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. - See more at: You Mean I?m Not a Khazar? | Jewlicious THE Jewish Blog

Edited to add: this sort of stuff is why I find the whole attempt to argue that one group has greater legitimacy over another group by attempting to marginalize one or the other on the basis of how "old" they are to be ridiculous when they've basically lived together on the same lines for centuries before Europeans started meddling and creating boundaries.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Edited to add: this sort of stuff is why I find the whole attempt to argue that one group has greater legitimacy over another group by attempting to marginalize one or the other on the basis of how "old" they are to be ridiculous when they've basically lived together on the same lines for centuries before Europeans started meddling and creating boundaries.

The reason why the Jews are more "legitimate" than the "Palestinians" is that the term "Jew" denotes a member of a specific group of people that has been around for centuries, while the term "Palestinian" denotes a member of an arbitrarily designated segment of the Arabs population that was separated from the greater Arab population for purely strategic reasons (as is acknowledged in my signature quote).

 

[Coyote]

Jews are not exclusively a race. Who said they were?

There is a racial component that, in part, defines the Jewish people. There is also a religious component, a historical component, a linguistic component, and a cultural component.

The contention that, factoring all of these components, Jews and "Palestinian" Arabs are "the same people" is patently absurd.

What's worse is that it is an unhelpful tangent that takes us away from any meaningful discussion of the issues.

It's not absurd - there is substantial overlap genetically and culturally (in reference to the Palestinian Jews). The differences are not great genetically or culturally when you are talking about the native Jewish population that existed in Palestine prior to the recreation of Israel.

I agree - it is an unhelpful tangent and that applies to the OP as well. You have two groups of people with considerable overlap who have existed together for centuries - intermixed, converted to different religions, been overun by various entities and then you try to seperate them out as distinct entities and ignore the overlap because as long as you can do that you can marginalize one at the expense of the other in terms of who has a "right" to be there.

 

[Coyote]

Edited to add: this sort of stuff is why I find the whole attempt to argue that one group has greater legitimacy over another group by attempting to marginalize one or the other on the basis of how "old" they are to be ridiculous when they've basically lived together on the same lines for centuries before Europeans started meddling and creating boundaries.

The reason why the Jews are more "legitimate" than the "Palestinians" is that the term "Jew" denotes a member of a specific group of people that has been around for centuries, while the term "Palestinian" denotes a member of an arbitrarily designated segment of the Arabs population that was separated from the greater Arab population for purely strategic reasons (as is acknowledged in my signature quote).

You and I will totally disagree on this because I don't see it as "groups of people" - I see it as individuals who have lived there for centuries, have deep ties to the region, and a right to continue to live there. It makes no difference on what they call themselves.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwBSWN4s9JU]palestinians are a myth says hamas member "they are just saudis and egyptians" - YouTube[/ame]

"palestinian" common family names:

Just like "Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti" born in "tikrit iraq"
The family names(Nisbah نسب&#1577 of Arabs who now occupy judea reveal their country of origin:
"Masri" OR "al-masri" =from Egypt ,Hamas member of Parliament in gaza, Mushir al-Masri (the word "masri" littelery means "the egyption" in arabic !).

"Khamis"= from Bahrain "Salem Hanna Khamis"
"al-ubayyidi" or "al-Obeidi"= from sudan "al-ubayyid"
"al-Faruqi"= Mosul iraq
"al-Araj" = Morocco,a member of the Saadi Dynasty "Hussein al-Araj"
"al-Lubnani" =the lebanese
"al-Mughrabi" = the Moroccan ("Maghreb" -- meaning "West" in Arabic, and usually referring to North Africa or specifically to Morocco) ,"Dalal Mughrabi"
"al-Djazair"=the Algerian
"al-Qurashi"=saudi arabia "clan of Quraish"
"al-azd" =yemen "Azd tribe"
"al-Yamani"= the Yemeni "Issam Al Yamani"
"al-Afghani" = the Afghan
"Al-Sidawi" = from "Sidon" lebanon
"Al-fayyumi" = from "Faiyum" egypt
"al-Hijazi" or "Hijazi" = present-day saudi arabia "Ahlam Higazi, a "Palestinian" artist from Hebron"
"al-Hindi" =the Indian "Amin al-Hindi"
"al-Tamimi" or "Tamimi" = from the tribe or clan of Banu-Tamim "Azzam Tamimi"
"Hamati" = from syria ( HAMA city)
"Omayya" = from saudi arabia "Banu Omayya tribe" "Omayya Joha" "palestinian artist" "
"Othman" = turkey
"murad" =yemen "murad tribe"
"Alawi" = from syria (minority religious group in syria)
"Iraqi" =from Iraq.
"halabi" =from aleppo syria
"Dajani"= from saudi arabia
"Mattar" = from YEMEN (the village of BANI Mattar)
"al-baghdadi"= from bagdad iraq.
"Tarabulsi"= Tarabulus-Tripoli, Lebanon.
"Hourani" =Houran Syria.
"Zubeidi"= from iraq "Zubeidi tribe" "Zakaria Zubeidi"
"al-Husayni" =saudi arabia.
"Saudi" =Saudi Arabia.
"Metzarwah"=egypt.
"Barda***********wil" ="salah bardawil" HAMAS legislator in gaza,egypt "bardawil lake" area
"nashashibi"= syria.
"Bushnak" =bosnia
"zoabi"= from iraq "Haneen Zoabi".
"Turki" =turkey "Daud Turki"
"al-Kurd" = kurdistan.
"Haddadins" = YEMEN descended from Ghassanid Christian Arabs.
"Arab Abu-Kishk" = Egypt.(Bedouins)
"Arab al shakirat" = Egypt (Bedouins)
"Arab al zabidat" = Egypt (Bedouins)
"Arab al aramsha" = Egypt (Bedouins)
"Abu Sitta" =In Arabic' Abu means father and sitta means six. Translated it actually means father of six. The Abu Sitta family primarily received this name because around the year 1700, a well known knight of the large Al-Tarabeen tribe always had six slaves (i.e. fedawyah, bodyguards), 3 on each side, with him. They were with him wherever he went, day or night. Hence the name "ABU SITTA." =Egypt (Bedouins) "Salman Abu Sitta "
"Nuba, Hebron" =founded by the "nuba people"
Even "Arafat", the most famous fakestinian and leader of the terrorist grup the  P.L.O, is not native to judea. He called himself a "Palestinian refugee" and claimed he was born in jerusalem ! BUT spoke
Arabic with Egyptian dialect. He was born in 1929 Cairo, Egypt. He served in the Egyptian army, studied in the University of Cairo, and lived in Cairo until 1956 !
Arafat's full name was Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini.
"Al-Qudwa" tribe origin?


-Professor Azmi Bishara(Arabic: عزمي بشار&#1577-- a "palestinian arab"

"There is no "palestinian nation" !
when were there any Palestinians???
until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of "Greater Syria" another resent invention.
there is only an arab nation !
the word "palestine" its self is a colonial invention used by the romans in order to erase the jewish identity of judea and israel.
even the "Palestinian National Charter" recognizes all the jews living in the region prior to the 1948 war as "palestinians" !
its an intellectual fad, divorced from the concerns of uneducated people"




-Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محس&#1606- top p.l.o member responsible for Damur massacre.

"The "Palestinian people" does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a "Palestinian people".."

 

[HistoryBefore67]

You and I will totally disagree on this because I don't see it as "groups of people" - I see it as individuals who have lived there for centuries, have deep ties to the region, and a right to continue to live there. It makes no difference on what they call themselves.

So what's the logical conclusion that can be drawn from your hypothesis? That they should all live together in one country?

Well, that might work in the world of lollipops and rainbows, but on Planet Earth, that's not a viable option. I think most rational people accept the fact that the "one state" solution would ultimately be dominated by an Arab population that (according to the Palestinian Constitution) would enact a body of law based upon Shari'ah concepts. Such a country would not serve as a safe, viable homeland for the Jewish people.

So, from a practical standpoint, we have two groups of people who are distinct from one another who need to be separated into two sovereign nations. That ultimately will mean that Jews may have to give up control over areas that were once part of the Jewish kingdoms (i.e. parts of Samaria), while the Arabs will have to accept that they won't get every piece of land where there once was an Arab village.

None of this has anything to do with who "deserves" a State, by the way. I that were the measuring stick, the Jews clearly "deserve" a State more than the Arabs do.

Why? Because the Jews build their State by turning desert into farmland, developing techonologies, building schools, universities, hospitals and self-sustaining infrastructure, perserving antiquities, providing access to all people to their religious sites, and giving their citizens democratic and civil rights.

Can the Arabs make the same claim? I don't think so.

 

[Coyote]

You and I will totally disagree on this because I don't see it as "groups of people" - I see it as individuals who have lived there for centuries, have deep ties to the region, and a right to continue to live there. It makes no difference on what they call themselves.

So what's the logical conclusion that can be drawn from your hypothesis? That they should all live together in one country?

I've consistently (and repeatedly) said that a two-state solution is the best option.

Well, that might work in the world of lollipops and rainbows, but on Planet Earth, that's not a viable option.

I agree, as I've said over and over.

I think most rational people accept the fact that the "one state" solution would ultimately be dominated by an Arab population that (according to the Palestinian Constitution) would enact a body of law based upon Shari'ah concepts. Such a country would not serve as a safe, viable homeland for the Jewish people.

I've said that as well - a one state solution would be demographic suicide.

So, from a practical standpoint, we have two groups of people who are distinct from one another who need to be separated into two sovereign nations. That ultimately will mean that Jews may have to give up control over areas that were once part of the Jewish kingdoms (i.e. parts of Samaria), while the Arabs will have to accept that they won't get every piece of land where there once was an Arab village.

I agree. There will have to be compromises and landswaps from both sides. I believe I've said that before as well.

None of this has anything to do with who "deserves" a State, by the way. I that were the measuring stick, the Jews clearly "deserve" a State more than the Arabs do.

People who have lived for generations in a region "deserve" to remain there - whether it's Jews in Israel or Palestinians in West Bank. The Jews HAVE a state. Nothing will change that. At this point the Palestinians deserve a state.

Why? Because the Jews build their State by turning desert into farmland, developing, building schools, universities, hospitals and self-sustaining infrastructure, perserving antiquities, providing access to all people to their religious sites, and giving their citizens democratic and civil rights.

Can the Arabs make the same claim? I don't think so.

That requirement is a red herring - land improvement is not a requirement for rights to land or who "deserves" something. They have their state - they fought for it and they got it.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Not a red herring at all.

While development is not a prerequisite to form a state, it is essential to the maintenance of a state.That's why states like Syria and Egypt are collapsing from within.

So, if the "Palestinians" truly want a state, perhaps it would be in their best interest to show, within the West Bank and Gaza, that they have the desire to build a productive society, rather than smuggling tunnels, terrorist Summer camps for kids, and street signs that praise the names of murderers.

 

[Roudy]

Seriously, get over it. Palestinians are Arabs that are identical to their neighbors. To say that "Palestinians are the same as the Jews" is akin to saying that ALL ARABS, Jordanians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, Egyptians, and Lebanese are the same Jews. And that is one of the the most ludicrous and ignorant things I have heard.

Besides, what does this debunked study that have to do with the the topic of is this thread other than a futile attempt to derail it and start talking abut Jews? The topic is Arabs who have stood up and publicly declared the idea of a Palestinian or Palestinian identity as a fraud.

 

[Roudy]

You and I will totally disagree on this because I don't see it as "groups of people" - I see it as individuals who have lived there for centuries, have deep ties to the region, and a right to continue to live there. It makes no difference on what they call themselves.

So what's the logical conclusion that can be drawn from your hypothesis? That they should all live together in one country?

Well, that might work in the world of lollipops and rainbows, but on Planet Earth, that's not a viable option. I think most rational people accept the fact that the "one state" solution would ultimately be dominated by an Arab population that (according to the Palestinian Constitution) would enact a body of law based upon Shari'ah concepts. Such a country would not serve as a safe, viable homeland for the Jewish people.

So, from a practical standpoint, we have two groups of people who are distinct from one another who need to be separated into two sovereign nations. That ultimately will mean that Jews may have to give up control over areas that were once part of the Jewish kingdoms (i.e. parts of Samaria), while the Arabs will have to accept that they won't get every piece of land where there once was an Arab village.

None of this has anything to do with who "deserves" a State, by the way. I that were the measuring stick, the Jews clearly "deserve" a State more than the Arabs do.

Why? Because the Jews build their State by turning desert into farmland, developing techonologies, building schools, universities, hospitals and self-sustaining infrastructure, perserving antiquities, providing access to all people to their religious sites, and giving their citizens democratic and civil rights.

Can the Arabs make the same claim? I don't think so.

Anybody who thinks Muslims can coexist and peacefully respect other people and religions is smoking Saudi Arabian camel dung hashish. Islam and Shariah law just don't allow that.

 

[Coyote]

Not a red herring at all.

While development is not a prerequisite to form a state, it is essential to the maintenance of a state.That's why states like Syria and Egypt are collapsing from within.

I agree.

So, if the "Palestinians" truly want a state, perhaps it would be in their best interest to show, within the West Bank and Gaza, that they have the desire to build a productive society, rather than smuggling tunnels, terrorist Summer camps for kids, and street signs that praise the names of murderers.

Here's where I don't agree. You don't invest in development when you don't even know if you'll have a future state, what it's boundaries are. It's difficult to build a productive society when at any moment it can be torn apart. That comes after there is a state - when people have something to lose and something that they now have a vested interest in maintaining.