The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[ForeverYoung436]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

It was very foolish of Israel to have prevented the PLO from toppling King Hussein of Jordan in 1970-71.

 

[Shusha]

Secondly, your contention is so idiotic that if applied to any other people, e.g. the Hispanic people, you would deny that there is any difference culturally between a Colombian and an Argentine.

The indigenous cultures of Columbia and Argentina have both been heavily colored over by the same colonial and conquesting forces. Neither has much remaining indigenous culture. Indigenous groups comprise about 2-3% of the population.

That doesn't mean that Columbia and Argentina haven't developed unique and distinct cultural attributes on their own since their independence.

What, exactly, are you trying to argue here, Monte?

 

[montelatici]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

It was very foolish of Israel to have prevented the PLO from toppling King Hussein of Jordan in 1970-71.

Jordan is not a Palestinian state, it is a Hashemite Kingdom where the indigenous Bedouin have most of the power, are the military officers and have most government jobs.


"The differentiation between Jordanians, Bedouins, and Palestinians is clear in this society. Jordanians are defined as residents who have lived east of the Jordan River since before 1948. Palestinians are defined as residents whose birthright extends back to areas west of the Jordan River. People of Bedouin descent are considered to be of the purest Arab stock."

Read more: http://www.everyculture.com/Ja-Ma/Jordan.html#ixzz3ywoBHYpw

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Secondly, your contention is so idiotic that if applied to any other people, e.g. the Hispanic people, you would deny that there is any difference culturally between a Colombian and an Argentine.

The indigenous cultures of Columbia and Argentina have both been heavily colored over by the same colonial and conquesting forces. Neither has much remaining indigenous culture. Indigenous groups comprise about 2-3% of the population.

That doesn't mean that Columbia and Argentina haven't developed unique and distinct cultural attributes on their own since their independence.

What, exactly, are you trying to argue here, Monte?

If I can speak for monte, I think he's trying to say that a Palestinian is very different from a Jordanian. After all, there is that star that differentiates the Jordanian and Palestinian flags.

 

[Coyote]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

 

[Coyote]

This isn't hard work, Coyote, its actually already done, basic history is about all it is. There simply is no distinct palestinian culture, its virtually indistinguishable from Arab Muslim culture as a whole.

Even if someone wants to concede the issue its irrelevant as the Arab Muslims have more than fair representation in multiple states of the region. No reason at all the Judaic people shouldn't also be represented.

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

They are now, and they should be, its the ONLY Jewish state. The Arabs on the other hand have something like 49 states, I'd have to go count them up but if anything the Arab Muslims are over represented, and the Judaic people, under.

States aren't allocated on the basis of religion or ethnicity on a tit for tat basis. How many states do Europeans have? They have 51. Don't you think we should give some of them to the Jews since they have double the number of states the Arabs do?

Arabs have 22 states: List of Arab countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Indeependent]

Ever since WWI, most countries are whatever Europe wants them to be.
They have, for the most part, been divided up by Religion.

 

[Coyote]

Ever since WWI, most countries are whatever Europe wants them to be.
They have, for the most part, been divided up by Religion.

I know they tried that with India, but African countries? Middle East? It seems it's more based on a division of spoils (or spheres of influence) with little regard to the populations - such as Iraq.

 

[Indeependent]

Ever since WWI, most countries are whatever Europe wants them to be.
They have, for the most part, been divided up by Religion.

I know they tried that with India, but African countries? Middle East? It seems it's more based on a division of spoils (or spheres of influence) with little regard to the populations - such as Iraq.

Very few people in the Middle East were unaffected by religious power shifts post WWI.

 

[Shusha]

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

But both Boston and I have said more than once that being indigenous is not a requirement for self-determination and self-rule. So while we argue that Palestinians are not indigenous -- we are not arguing that Palestinians don't have the right to self-determination and self-rule. While the other side is arguing vehemently that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination and self-rule. Its a HUGE distinction.

And Boston's main point is that Palestinians ALREADY have self-determination and self-rule in the majority of the Mandate for Palestine. He's not arguing that Palestinians have no culture. He's arguing that their culture is already represented in a sovereign nation. And that giving them land that was assigned to Israel is part of the larger goal of dismantling Israel.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

But again, the Mandate for Palestine was ALREADY divided between the Jewish National Homeland (west side of the river) and the Arab Muslim homeland (east side of the river). We agree that people live there and they may not have ended up on the "right" side of the border of homelands. But residency and sovereignty are two different concepts.

The Arab "solution" to that problem was to get rid of all the Jewish people who ended up on the "wrong" side. And it worked. There is no discussion today of creating Jewish nations in Jordan, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, etc. -- EVEN THOUGH those nations had large long-standing Jewish communities in those places and why shouldn't they have self-determination and self-rule in the places they have lived for thousands of years as the Jewish people -- a separate and distinct culture? Israel, frankly, made a tactical mistake in NOT ethnically cleansing herself (for which she should be commended rather than criticized -- she had a dream that was way ahead of the capabilities of those she was in conflict with. Still is.)

Why was it a tactical mistake? Because 100 years ago that was an ACCEPTED way of dealing with a bunch of people living together who had different cultures and wanted a different, and self-determative way of life. Now, largely due to the narrative developed and used by the Palestinians for the purpose of destroying the Jewish National Homeland, moving people from where they live to where they will join their cultural brethren is seen as heinous.

 

[Boston1]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

I think the confusion is that you assume the palestinians as Arafat named them in 67 are a distinct people that can be disenfranchised. I don't think they are. I see Arab Muslims trying yet again to take more Israeli land by pretending there is a disenfranchised people, selling the PR to the world. Really it doesn't take much of a background in history to realize its all just hype.

Even if the Arab Muslims of Jordan are a distinct people they already have a state in Jordan, I think I've managed to make that clear. And its all of about 100' from Israel. In which case a strong argument cam be made that IF and thats a huge IF these people are in any way indigenous ( and we know they're not because Arab Muslims expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in about the 7th to 9th century CE ) they already have at least one state.

They also already have another state or soon to be state in Gaza. Anytime they take the time from bombing and building tunnels to kidnap Israeli's and actually declare statehood. And there is absolutely no reason they can't as of this very instant.

The fundamental problem is racism and bigotry, and the hatred fomented by the Arab leagues greed. The Arab Muslims simply want it all and if they can't take it militarily they are going to try and take at least as much as they can through the PR war.

To which I say NOT ANOTHER INCH

The Arab Muslims can satisfy themselves with the 99% of the middle east they did get and quit whining about that last 1%.

 

[montelatici]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

I think the confusion is that you assume the palestinians as Arafat named them in 67 are a distinct people that can be disenfranchised. I don't think they are. I see Arab Muslims trying yet again to take more Israeli land by pretending there is a disenfranchised people, selling the PR to the world. Really it doesn't take much of a background in history to realize its all just hype.

Even if the Arab Muslims of Jordan are a distinct people they already have a state in Jordan, I think I've managed to make that clear. And its all of about 100' from Israel. In which case a strong argument cam be made that IF and thats a huge IF these people are in any way indigenous ( and we know they're not because Arab Muslims expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in about the 7th to 9th century CE ) they already have at least one state.

They also already have another state or soon to be state in Gaza. Anytime they take the time from bombing and building tunnels to kidnap Israeli's and actually declare statehood. And there is absolutely no reason they can't as of this very instant.

The fundamental problem is racism and bigotry, and the hatred fomented by the Arab leagues greed. The Arab Muslims simply want it all and if they can't take it militarily they are going to try and take at least as much as they can through the PR war.

To which I say NOT ANOTHER INCH

The Arab Muslims can satisfy themselves with the 99% of the middle east they did get and quit whining about that last 1%.

The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims want their ancestral homeland back. The land the Palestinian people Christian and Muslim had lived on for several millennia was colonized by European Zionists. The fact that some of the Christian Palestinians converted to Islam does not change anything. By the way, the Palestinian people declared themselves as such long before 1967. Stop your usual Zionist propagandizing. All your propaganda and revisionism was debunked long ago by source documents.

PALESTINE.
​

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​

​

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

• 
  "............We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

 

[Boston1]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

I think the confusion is that you assume the palestinians as Arafat named them in 67 are a distinct people that can be disenfranchised. I don't think they are. I see Arab Muslims trying yet again to take more Israeli land by pretending there is a disenfranchised people, selling the PR to the world. Really it doesn't take much of a background in history to realize its all just hype.

Even if the Arab Muslims of Jordan are a distinct people they already have a state in Jordan, I think I've managed to make that clear. And its all of about 100' from Israel. In which case a strong argument cam be made that IF and thats a huge IF these people are in any way indigenous ( and we know they're not because Arab Muslims expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in about the 7th to 9th century CE ) they already have at least one state.

They also already have another state or soon to be state in Gaza. Anytime they take the time from bombing and building tunnels to kidnap Israeli's and actually declare statehood. And there is absolutely no reason they can't as of this very instant.

The fundamental problem is racism and bigotry, and the hatred fomented by the Arab leagues greed. The Arab Muslims simply want it all and if they can't take it militarily they are going to try and take at least as much as they can through the PR war.

To which I say NOT ANOTHER INCH

The Arab Muslims can satisfy themselves with the 99% of the middle east they did get and quit whining about that last 1%.

The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims want their ancestral homeland back. The land the Palestinian people Christian and Muslim had lived on for several millennia was colonized by European Zionists. The fact that some of the Christian Palestinians converted to Islam does not change anything. By the way, the Palestinian people declared themselves as such long before 1967. Stop your usual Zionist propagandizing. All your propaganda and revisionism was debunked long ago by source documents.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

• 
  "............We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Pure nonsense. Nothing but empty rhetoric. Even if the palestinians can be shown to be a distinct people somehow unique from the other Arab Muslims not more than 100' away in Jordan then they still already have a homeland and a state set up Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

If they really want a separate state, why didn't they complain about being Jordanian citizens ? Why not set up Gaza as a state ? Why not recognize Jordan as a palestinian state at the UN ;--) ?

LOL comunists and Jooooos you are too funny

 

[Indeependent]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

I think the confusion is that you assume the palestinians as Arafat named them in 67 are a distinct people that can be disenfranchised. I don't think they are. I see Arab Muslims trying yet again to take more Israeli land by pretending there is a disenfranchised people, selling the PR to the world. Really it doesn't take much of a background in history to realize its all just hype.

Even if the Arab Muslims of Jordan are a distinct people they already have a state in Jordan, I think I've managed to make that clear. And its all of about 100' from Israel. In which case a strong argument cam be made that IF and thats a huge IF these people are in any way indigenous ( and we know they're not because Arab Muslims expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in about the 7th to 9th century CE ) they already have at least one state.

They also already have another state or soon to be state in Gaza. Anytime they take the time from bombing and building tunnels to kidnap Israeli's and actually declare statehood. And there is absolutely no reason they can't as of this very instant.

The fundamental problem is racism and bigotry, and the hatred fomented by the Arab leagues greed. The Arab Muslims simply want it all and if they can't take it militarily they are going to try and take at least as much as they can through the PR war.

To which I say NOT ANOTHER INCH

The Arab Muslims can satisfy themselves with the 99% of the middle east they did get and quit whining about that last 1%.

The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims want their ancestral homeland back. The land the Palestinian people Christian and Muslim had lived on for several millennia was colonized by European Zionists. The fact that some of the Christian Palestinians converted to Islam does not change anything. By the way, the Palestinian people declared themselves as such long before 1967. Stop your usual Zionist propagandizing. All your propaganda and revisionism was debunked long ago by source documents.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

• 
  "............We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Pure horse dung, Rabbinical writings from The Mishnah, The Talmud, The Gaonim, The Rishonim, The Acahronim until today leave a clear trail of Jews being expelled from Judea to Europe and returning to Israel after the Holocaust.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims want their ancestral homeland back.

The Jewish 'Palestinians' want their ancestral homeland back. How about if the Arab Muslims get 78% of it and the Jewish people get the remaining 22%? That seems exceedingly reasonable. Oh wait, that's what happened and the Arabs want the rest of it and for the Jewish people to have nothing.

 

[Boston1]

Sorry Coyote, while I do appreciate the input, particularly in that its civil input, I just don't see any factual basis for your insistence that the Arab Muslims of Judea are deserving of indigenous status. I can see an emotional investment but not a factual one.

On that note I think we agree that there is a certain number of people who just assume shake hands and move forward. Unfortunately there's also a large number who'd rather strap a bomb vest on a 14 year old and see what happens.

The innocents in this are the real losers, perfectly decent people on either side who are stuck with all the radicals. Unfortunately my solution might be seen as being radical itself but baring any decisive action militarily I can't see any end; or a return to peaceful coexistence. If a negotiated peace cannot be achieved, then unconditional surrender is the next option, and its been a long long time coming. The palestinians are playing with fire, and will inevitably get burned.

In any case I'm not trying to disenfranchise anyone, but instead I'm just not accepting any revisionist views and insisting that if we are to find an equitable solution we're going to all have to be dealing from a place of historical reality in order to do so.

peace

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

I think the confusion is that you assume the palestinians as Arafat named them in 67 are a distinct people that can be disenfranchised. I don't think they are. I see Arab Muslims trying yet again to take more Israeli land by pretending there is a disenfranchised people, selling the PR to the world. Really it doesn't take much of a background in history to realize its all just hype.

Even if the Arab Muslims of Jordan are a distinct people they already have a state in Jordan, I think I've managed to make that clear. And its all of about 100' from Israel. In which case a strong argument cam be made that IF and thats a huge IF these people are in any way indigenous ( and we know they're not because Arab Muslims expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in about the 7th to 9th century CE ) they already have at least one state.

They also already have another state or soon to be state in Gaza. Anytime they take the time from bombing and building tunnels to kidnap Israeli's and actually declare statehood. And there is absolutely no reason they can't as of this very instant.

The fundamental problem is racism and bigotry, and the hatred fomented by the Arab leagues greed. The Arab Muslims simply want it all and if they can't take it militarily they are going to try and take at least as much as they can through the PR war.

To which I say NOT ANOTHER INCH

The Arab Muslims can satisfy themselves with the 99% of the middle east they did get and quit whining about that last 1%.

The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims want their ancestral homeland back. The land the Palestinian people Christian and Muslim had lived on for several millennia was colonized by European Zionists. The fact that some of the Christian Palestinians converted to Islam does not change anything. By the way, the Palestinian people declared themselves as such long before 1967. Stop your usual Zionist propagandizing. All your propaganda and revisionism was debunked long ago by source documents.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

• 
  "............We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

The Palestinians are Palestinians by treaty, by international law, and domestic law.

This whole thread is for Zionists to blow smoke on the issue.

 

[Billo_Really]

I use the system as it was intended to be used, rather than as a soap box for some personal grudge and although a healthy discussion is the essence of our time here I don't believe this area of the site was intended for over emotional profane laced outbursts directed against other members.

Basically the children have their space, separated from the adults, and you keep jumping the fence and throwing a tantrum.

You advocate destroying the lives of over a million and a half people; that's far more profane than the f-word.

And no, you do not use the system as it was intended; you use the "report button" as a weapon to get even with people that disagree with you and to silence their voice.

I've been blogging for 10 years over a dozen message boards with about 50,000 posts and I've never reported anyone, or put anyone on "Ignore". People are free to say whatever they want to say to me. I don't put up filters or try to control conversations to make them more palatable.

As for DNA I didn't say "there was more than DNA" what I said was that its very easy for a bias researcher to show all kinds of things with DNA including that our genome also has 99% in common with a chimp but I wouldn't drop a nation of chimps in the middle of Mecca simply because some fool insists their indigenous. Might want to brush up on your own debating skills there Koko.

Oh and that amateur historian, if I can be so cavalier with the term historian, you referenced. Really ? Is that the best you can do is now add "amateur" historians to your list of racists and wiki quotes. Again, its not I, that needs to brush up on debating skills.

Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.

People who try to discredit the source, do so because they have no valid argument with which to rebut.

If you insist on discussing DNA evidence...

Since my last 2 posts focused on cultural similarities, I find your statement a little odd.

I'd suggest you first go check out "The Genetic Literacy Project" And then begin actually reading some studies, like

Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal

or

The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses

You might ( and thats a huge maybe ) then have the background to comprehend this one which I'm sure you'd ( instead of actually understanding it ) jump up and down and cry I win along with some litany of profane invectives.

You remember where I told you to stick that condescending arrogance?

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes

However the essence of the argument about DNA isn't that there no similarities within a geological location, its that genetic similarities are somewhat irrelevant when it comes to tribal and cultural identities. No matter how you slice it, we know the Judaic culture developed in Judea and we know the Arabic culture developed on the Arabian Peninsula. So when it comes time to design a system of states that most fairly represents the native peoples of the area then it only stands to reason that we allow for a Judaic state within its ancestral boundaries. Just like we've allowed for Arabic states within their ancestral boundaries.

The Arabs have Syria and Jordan, Egypt as well as a host of others from the colonial period, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, the list is endless. So why not the Judaic people ?

You just like hearing yourself talk.

From there, the only argument you present is one of bigotry and racism.

Pointing out how similar the two groups are, is bigotry and racism?

Do you have dyslexia?

In which case you foam and spit and cry foul that the Judaic people exist at all.

And where did I say that?

If you really want to continue to insist that the pali's are so similar to the Israeli's according to the DNA then we must also agree that they are quite nearly identical to chimpanzees and we should be throwing Muslims out of Mecca to make way for a Chimpanzee state.

You must have ADD as well. Because my last 2 posts, did not include DNA evidence.

Best of luck with that ;--)

Cheers

I don't need luck.

 

[Boston1]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

I think the confusion is that you assume the palestinians as Arafat named them in 67 are a distinct people that can be disenfranchised. I don't think they are. I see Arab Muslims trying yet again to take more Israeli land by pretending there is a disenfranchised people, selling the PR to the world. Really it doesn't take much of a background in history to realize its all just hype.

Even if the Arab Muslims of Jordan are a distinct people they already have a state in Jordan, I think I've managed to make that clear. And its all of about 100' from Israel. In which case a strong argument cam be made that IF and thats a huge IF these people are in any way indigenous ( and we know they're not because Arab Muslims expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in about the 7th to 9th century CE ) they already have at least one state.

They also already have another state or soon to be state in Gaza. Anytime they take the time from bombing and building tunnels to kidnap Israeli's and actually declare statehood. And there is absolutely no reason they can't as of this very instant.

The fundamental problem is racism and bigotry, and the hatred fomented by the Arab leagues greed. The Arab Muslims simply want it all and if they can't take it militarily they are going to try and take at least as much as they can through the PR war.

To which I say NOT ANOTHER INCH

The Arab Muslims can satisfy themselves with the 99% of the middle east they did get and quit whining about that last 1%.

The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims want their ancestral homeland back. The land the Palestinian people Christian and Muslim had lived on for several millennia was colonized by European Zionists. The fact that some of the Christian Palestinians converted to Islam does not change anything. By the way, the Palestinian people declared themselves as such long before 1967. Stop your usual Zionist propagandizing. All your propaganda and revisionism was debunked long ago by source documents.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

• 
  "............We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

The Palestinians are Palestinians by treaty, by international law, and domestic law.

This whole thread is for Zionists to blow smoke on the issue.

And of course you have a treaty that actually says that ?

Something like "we the Israeli's recognize the palestinians as an indigenous people of Judea" ?

I think we can all see who's blowing smoke and from where ;--)

The simple reality is this is just another baseless claim.

 

[Boston1]

I use the system as it was intended to be used, rather than as a soap box for some personal grudge and although a healthy discussion is the essence of our time here I don't believe this area of the site was intended for over emotional profane laced outbursts directed against other members.

Basically the children have their space, separated from the adults, and you keep jumping the fence and throwing a tantrum.

You advocate destroying the lives of over a million and a half people; that's far more profane than the f-word.

And no, you do not use the system as it was intended; you use the "report button" as a weapon to get even with people that disagree with you and to silence their voice.

I've been blogging for 10 years over a dozen message boards with about 50,000 posts and I've never reported anyone, or put anyone on "Ignore". People are free to say whatever they want to say to me. I don't put up filters or try to control conversations to make them more palatable.

As for DNA I didn't say "there was more than DNA" what I said was that its very easy for a bias researcher to show all kinds of things with DNA including that our genome also has 99% in common with a chimp but I wouldn't drop a nation of chimps in the middle of Mecca simply because some fool insists their indigenous. Might want to brush up on your own debating skills there Koko.

Oh and that amateur historian, if I can be so cavalier with the term historian, you referenced. Really ? Is that the best you can do is now add "amateur" historians to your list of racists and wiki quotes. Again, its not I, that needs to brush up on debating skills.

Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.

People who try to discredit the source, do so because they have no valid argument with which to rebut.

If you insist on discussing DNA evidence...

Since my last 2 posts focused on cultural similarities, I find your statement a little odd.

I'd suggest you first go check out "The Genetic Literacy Project" And then begin actually reading some studies, like

Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal

or

The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses

You might ( and thats a huge maybe ) then have the background to comprehend this one which I'm sure you'd ( instead of actually understanding it ) jump up and down and cry I win along with some litany of profane invectives.

You remember where I told you to stick that condescending arrogance?

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes

However the essence of the argument about DNA isn't that there no similarities within a geological location, its that genetic similarities are somewhat irrelevant when it comes to tribal and cultural identities. No matter how you slice it, we know the Judaic culture developed in Judea and we know the Arabic culture developed on the Arabian Peninsula. So when it comes time to design a system of states that most fairly represents the native peoples of the area then it only stands to reason that we allow for a Judaic state within its ancestral boundaries. Just like we've allowed for Arabic states within their ancestral boundaries.

The Arabs have Syria and Jordan, Egypt as well as a host of others from the colonial period, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, the list is endless. So why not the Judaic people ?

You just like hearing yourself talk.

From there, the only argument you present is one of bigotry and racism.

Pointing out how similar the two groups are, is bigotry and racism?

Do you have dyslexia?

In which case you foam and spit and cry foul that the Judaic people exist at all.

And where did I say that?

If you really want to continue to insist that the pali's are so similar to the Israeli's according to the DNA then we must also agree that they are quite nearly identical to chimpanzees and we should be throwing Muslims out of Mecca to make way for a Chimpanzee state.

You must have ADD as well. Because my last 2 posts, did not include DNA evidence.

Best of luck with that ;--)

Cheers

I don't need luck.

Sorry Billy but there was really noting of substance to respond to, although I did find it entertaining.

If you need a reminder

The subject is indigenous people and what qualifications are required to be considered one.

Nothing you've said so far in any way supports the idea that there is either a distinct cultural group of Arab Muslims in Judea, or that even if there is one, they somehow didn't already get a few states to call their own in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. All of which encompass the exact same area that is the most likely source of immigration of Arabs into Judea in the second Arab colonial wave which seems to have begun sometime after 1850 and contunued into the late Zionist period. See DNA evidence provided ;--)

If you recall we already went over why the UN had to redefine what a refugee was in order to assist these nationals as refugees even thought Jordan had at this time given them Jordanian citizenship.