Palestine Today

[rylah]

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

 

[Mindful]

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

That isn't even an argument.

Maybe a logical fallacy?

 

[Coyote]

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

I think we agree that the Palestinians have lived there forever. Some of them were Jews who also had lived there forever. They are the native population.

On the other hand, few if any European Zionists have any ancestors from that area. "Return" is an unusual term to use. So it isn't just a matter of time.

And besides, the Zionists were not immigrants.

A number of Palestinians were also immigrants.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

I think we agree that the Palestinians have lived there forever. Some of them were Jews who also had lived there forever. They are the native population.

On the other hand, few if any European Zionists have any ancestors from that area. "Return" is an unusual term to use. So it isn't just a matter of time.

And besides, the Zionists were not immigrants.

A number of Palestinians were also immigrants.

We need to define what is an immigrant.

People who move to a country to join and become a part of that society are immigrants. Should they have less rights than the so called indigenous?

People who move to a country to live separate from the society with an eye to take over the place for themselves are not.

 

[Mindful]

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

I think we agree that the Palestinians have lived there forever. Some of them were Jews who also had lived there forever. They are the native population.

On the other hand, few if any European Zionists have any ancestors from that area. "Return" is an unusual term to use. So it isn't just a matter of time.

And besides, the Zionists were not immigrants.

A number of Palestinians were also immigrants.

We need to define what is an immigrant.

People who move to a country to join and become a part of that society are immigrants. Should they have less rights than the so called indigenous?

People who move to a country to live separate from the society with an eye to take over the place for themselves are not.

If you are referring to Jews, just bear in mind that they were forced to live separate from the prevailing society. For centuries. Maybe since Constantine.

And their last attempt at assimilation, look how that turned out. In Nazi Germany.

 

[rylah]

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

You just don't understand the term 'indigenous'.
And indigenous status has nothing to do with religion, which again Judaism is not.
Think more 'tribal' and 'cultural'.

For example there're many nations who adhere to Christianity, but once you take it away, and people stop believing their dogmatic tenants, there's nothing common that connects them culturally, no common language, festivals, calendar etc.

Now if you take the Native American or Canadian nations, they can believe in their numerous gods or not, but they remain connected by a common culture that is unique, evolves around and originates in a specific land, and they're still indigenous to that land.

The same with Jews, they can believe in G-d or not believe in G-d at all, but they remain connected to each other through common unique culture that wholly revolves around and originated in one specific land, to which they're indigenous.

Neither does the status of indigeneity refer to personal rights, but that of a collective aka 'tribe', there's no such thing as one Jew being indigenous and one not, they're all collectively an indigenous tribe that adheres to, each one to their extent, and identifies by culture that originated in Israel.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are world religions who's goal is to spread among different nations, while Judaism is a tribal culture that preserves a unique nation to its place of origin.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,
while Jews are collectively and culturally indigenous having originated in Israel.

 

[rylah]

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

I think we agree that the Palestinians have lived there forever. Some of them were Jews who also had lived there forever. They are the native population.

On the other hand, few if any European Zionists have any ancestors from that area. "Return" is an unusual term to use. So it isn't just a matter of time.

And besides, the Zionists were not immigrants.

A number of Palestinians were also immigrants.

We need to define what is an immigrant.

People who move to a country to join and become a part of that society are immigrants. Should they have less rights than the so called indigenous?

People who move to a country to live separate from the society with an eye to take over the place for themselves are not.

This is an argument for assimilation into an invading society aka imperialist expansion and colonization, that further backs the rights of indigenous nations to actually separate for the sake of preservation. Especially if as you put it, they immigrated to liberate their indigenous lands and connect with the remnants of their indigenous native tribe. And on the other hand obligates the dominant invading society, to assimilate into the revived indigenous culture.

Therefore Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

You just don't understand the term 'indigenous'.
And indigenous status has nothing to do with religion, which again Judaism is not.
Think more 'tribal' and 'cultural'.

For example there're many nations who adhere to Christianity, but once you take it away, and people stop believing their dogmatic tenants, there's nothing common that connects them culturally, no common language, festivals, calendar etc.

Now if you take the Native American or Canadian nations, they can believe in their numerous gods or not, but they remain connected by a common culture that is unique, evolves around and originates in a specific land, and they're still indigenous to that land.

The same with Jews, they can believe in G-d or not believe in G-d at all, but they remain connected to each other through common unique culture that wholly revolves around and originated in one specific land, to which they're indigenous.

Neither does the status of indigeneity refer to personal rights, but that of a collective aka 'tribe', there's no such thing as one Jew being indigenous and one not, they're all collectively an indigenous tribe that adheres to, each one to their extent, and identifies by culture that originated in Israel.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are world religions who's goal is to spread among different nations, while Judaism is a tribal culture that preserves a unique nation to its place of origin.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,
while Jews are collectively and culturally indigenous having originated in Israel.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,

Palestine is vastly different from Saudi Arabia.

 

[rylah]

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

You just don't understand the term 'indigenous'.
And indigenous status has nothing to do with religion, which again Judaism is not.
Think more 'tribal' and 'cultural'.

For example there're many nations who adhere to Christianity, but once you take it away, and people stop believing their dogmatic tenants, there's nothing common that connects them culturally, no common language, festivals, calendar etc.

Now if you take the Native American or Canadian nations, they can believe in their numerous gods or not, but they remain connected by a common culture that is unique, evolves around and originates in a specific land, and they're still indigenous to that land.

The same with Jews, they can believe in G-d or not believe in G-d at all, but they remain connected to each other through common unique culture that wholly revolves around and originated in one specific land, to which they're indigenous.

Neither does the status of indigeneity refer to personal rights, but that of a collective aka 'tribe', there's no such thing as one Jew being indigenous and one not, they're all collectively an indigenous tribe that adheres to, each one to their extent, and identifies by culture that originated in Israel.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are world religions who's goal is to spread among different nations, while Judaism is a tribal culture that preserves a unique nation to its place of origin.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,
while Jews are collectively and culturally indigenous having originated in Israel.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,

Palestine is vastly different from Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, they merely speak the same language, celebrate the same holidays, adhere to the same calendar, eat the same foods, listen to the same music, dance the same dances, face the same direction in prayer, and originate from the same tribes.

And that's just from the top of my head... other than that, yeah "vastly different"

 

[admonit]

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

You just don't understand the term 'indigenous'.
And indigenous status has nothing to do with religion, which again Judaism is not.
Think more 'tribal' and 'cultural'.

For example there're many nations who adhere to Christianity, but once you take it away, and people stop believing their dogmatic tenants, there's nothing common that connects them culturally, no common language, festivals, calendar etc.

Now if you take the Native American or Canadian nations, they can believe in their numerous gods or not, but they remain connected by a common culture that is unique, evolves around and originates in a specific land, and they're still indigenous to that land.

The same with Jews, they can believe in G-d or not believe in G-d at all, but they remain connected to each other through common unique culture that wholly revolves around and originated in one specific land, to which they're indigenous.

Neither does the status of indigeneity refer to personal rights, but that of a collective aka 'tribe', there's no such thing as one Jew being indigenous and one not, they're all collectively an indigenous tribe that adheres to, each one to their extent, and identifies by culture that originated in Israel.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are world religions who's goal is to spread among different nations, while Judaism is a tribal culture that preserves a unique nation to its place of origin.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,
while Jews are collectively and culturally indigenous having originated in Israel.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,

Palestine is vastly different from Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, they merely speak the same language, celebrate the same holidays, adhere to the same calendar, eat the same foods, listen to the same music, dance the same dances, face the same direction in prayer, and originate from the same tribes.

And that's just from the top of my head... other than that, yeah "vastly different"

The problem is not where Palestinian Arabs came from or what dances they dance, but their intolerance and uncivilized behavior.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

You just don't understand the term 'indigenous'.
And indigenous status has nothing to do with religion, which again Judaism is not.
Think more 'tribal' and 'cultural'.

For example there're many nations who adhere to Christianity, but once you take it away, and people stop believing their dogmatic tenants, there's nothing common that connects them culturally, no common language, festivals, calendar etc.

Now if you take the Native American or Canadian nations, they can believe in their numerous gods or not, but they remain connected by a common culture that is unique, evolves around and originates in a specific land, and they're still indigenous to that land.

The same with Jews, they can believe in G-d or not believe in G-d at all, but they remain connected to each other through common unique culture that wholly revolves around and originated in one specific land, to which they're indigenous.

Neither does the status of indigeneity refer to personal rights, but that of a collective aka 'tribe', there's no such thing as one Jew being indigenous and one not, they're all collectively an indigenous tribe that adheres to, each one to their extent, and identifies by culture that originated in Israel.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are world religions who's goal is to spread among different nations, while Judaism is a tribal culture that preserves a unique nation to its place of origin.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,
while Jews are collectively and culturally indigenous having originated in Israel.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,

Palestine is vastly different from Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, they merely speak the same language, celebrate the same holidays, adhere to the same calendar, eat the same foods, listen to the same music, dance the same dances, face the same direction in prayer, and originate from the same tribes.

And that's just from the top of my head... other than that, yeah "vastly different"

OK, but there are no beheadings, no stonings, no escorts required, no dress codes. Women and Christians can own land, homes, and businesses. They can run for and hold any elected office.

There are differences where it matters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

You just don't understand the term 'indigenous'.
And indigenous status has nothing to do with religion, which again Judaism is not.
Think more 'tribal' and 'cultural'.

For example there're many nations who adhere to Christianity, but once you take it away, and people stop believing their dogmatic tenants, there's nothing common that connects them culturally, no common language, festivals, calendar etc.

Now if you take the Native American or Canadian nations, they can believe in their numerous gods or not, but they remain connected by a common culture that is unique, evolves around and originates in a specific land, and they're still indigenous to that land.

The same with Jews, they can believe in G-d or not believe in G-d at all, but they remain connected to each other through common unique culture that wholly revolves around and originated in one specific land, to which they're indigenous.

Neither does the status of indigeneity refer to personal rights, but that of a collective aka 'tribe', there's no such thing as one Jew being indigenous and one not, they're all collectively an indigenous tribe that adheres to, each one to their extent, and identifies by culture that originated in Israel.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are world religions who's goal is to spread among different nations, while Judaism is a tribal culture that preserves a unique nation to its place of origin.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,
while Jews are collectively and culturally indigenous having originated in Israel.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,

Palestine is vastly different from Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, they merely speak the same language, celebrate the same holidays, adhere to the same calendar, eat the same foods, listen to the same music, dance the same dances, face the same direction in prayer, and originate from the same tribes.

And that's just from the top of my head... other than that, yeah "vastly different"

The problem is not where Palestinian Arabs came from or what dances they dance, but their intolerance and uncivilized behavior.

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[Coyote]

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

I think we agree that the Palestinians have lived there forever. Some of them were Jews who also had lived there forever. They are the native population.

On the other hand, few if any European Zionists have any ancestors from that area. "Return" is an unusual term to use. So it isn't just a matter of time.

And besides, the Zionists were not immigrants.

A number of Palestinians were also immigrants.

We need to define what is an immigrant.

People who move to a country to join and become a part of that society are immigrants. Should they have less rights than the so called indigenous?

People who move to a country to live separate from the society with an eye to take over the place for themselves are not.

In my view...it isnt so simple.

There are a lot of refetences to "invaders" and "colonists" and "squatters" to describe the following:

People who's ancesters have lived there for thousands of years regardless of culture.

People who have legally immigrated to the homeland of their ancesters.

People who legally immigrated for other reasons.

Those references, without question, are intended as perjoratives meant to marginalize on or the other of these groups and their rights and sadly those using those terms are increasingly strident.

So which people are moving to " to a country to live separate from the society with an eye to take over the place for themselves are not"?

If they are immigrating to become part of the already existing and long established Jewish community and culture that is hardly living seperate with an eye to taking over. That is an existing culture.

If immigrants are an issue why dont you have a problem with Arabs from other regions who immigrated in for jobs in the 20th century and now call themselves Palestinians?

 

[Coyote]

Arabs are certainly invaders, but Israel have never invaded a land that didn't belong to their ancestors in the first place. And again it has nothing to do with dates, but with the specific cultures and their birthplaces.

Dr. Nam Greer professor of the Sociology, Anthropology Department in University of Redlands, has worked in protecting the indigenous rights of peoples as disparate as the Mayangna and Miskitú peoples, Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups on Hawai'i Nei, and the Cahuilla-Serrano people of California.

You keep banging on about something that is not in dispute. Are Jews indigenous to the land? Some are and some aren't.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly. I can't just kick somebody out of their house and start carrying in furniture.

You just don't understand the term 'indigenous'.
And indigenous status has nothing to do with religion, which again Judaism is not.
Think more 'tribal' and 'cultural'.

For example there're many nations who adhere to Christianity, but once you take it away, and people stop believing their dogmatic tenants, there's nothing common that connects them culturally, no common language, festivals, calendar etc.

Now if you take the Native American or Canadian nations, they can believe in their numerous gods or not, but they remain connected by a common culture that is unique, evolves around and originates in a specific land, and they're still indigenous to that land.

The same with Jews, they can believe in G-d or not believe in G-d at all, but they remain connected to each other through common unique culture that wholly revolves around and originated in one specific land, to which they're indigenous.

Neither does the status of indigeneity refer to personal rights, but that of a collective aka 'tribe', there's no such thing as one Jew being indigenous and one not, they're all collectively an indigenous tribe that adheres to, each one to their extent, and identifies by culture that originated in Israel.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are world religions who's goal is to spread among different nations, while Judaism is a tribal culture that preserves a unique nation to its place of origin.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,
while Jews are collectively and culturally indigenous having originated in Israel.

Arabs are collectively and culturally foreigners having spread from Arabian peninsula,

Palestine is vastly different from Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, they merely speak the same language, celebrate the same holidays, adhere to the same calendar, eat the same foods, listen to the same music, dance the same dances, face the same direction in prayer, and originate from the same tribes.

And that's just from the top of my head... other than that, yeah "vastly different"

OK, but there are no beheadings, no stonings, no escorts required, no dress codes. Women and Christians can own land, homes, and businesses. They can run for and hold any elected office.

There are differences where it matters.

There is this bizarre idea that Muslim Palestinians all came out of the Arabian Peninsula. It is an idea that ignores snd conflates the spread of a culture (arabization) with the actual movements of people. It is just another tool to deny legitimacy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If immigrants are an issue why dont you have a problem with Arabs from other regions who immigrated in for jobs in the 20th century and now call themselves Palestinians?

I didn't say that immigration was an issue.

 

[Shusha]

There is this bizarre idea that Muslim Palestinians all came out of the Arabian Peninsula. It is an idea that ignores snd conflates the spread of a culture (arabization) with the actual movements of people. It is just another tool to deny legitimacy.

But its the spread of the culture which is the problem. That is the problem which indigenous rights are intended to solve and the reason for the existence of indigenous rights -- with or without the movement of people.

 

[Shusha]

If they are immigrating to become part of the already existing and long established Jewish community and culture that is hardly living seperate with an eye to taking over. That is an existing culture.

This.

The already existing and long established Jewish community has every right to "taking over", as in exerting her collective rights to self-determination in her homeland. Just as the Arab Palestinians have every right to "taking over" to exert their collective rights to self-determination.

That is what self-determination means -- taking over at least some elements of the issues and values which control your collective experience.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is this bizarre idea that Muslim Palestinians all came out of the Arabian Peninsula. It is an idea that ignores snd conflates the spread of a culture (arabization) with the actual movements of people. It is just another tool to deny legitimacy.

But its the spread of the culture which is the problem. That is the problem which indigenous rights are intended to solve and the reason for the existence of indigenous rights -- with or without the movement of people.

What is wrong with the Palestinian culture?

They seem to be normal people except when Israel is attacking them.

 

[Shusha]

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that make me indigenous? That would be silly.

It would be silly. Because you are conflating a religion with an entire culture. They are NOT the same things. Christianity is not an ethnic culture. "Jewish" is.