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

[Shusha]

You really haven't figured out that public land was not Jewish land, have you.

But public land is Arab land?

Public land is collectively owned by the citizens.

But not the Jewish citizens?

 

[Shusha]

Everyone is making the error that land ownership has something to do with sovereignty. It doesn't.

 

[Shusha]

But Coyote has the most important point in all this. The entire "indigenous" argument is intended to delegitimize and the solution to the conflict will never lay in delegitimizing a people.

 

[montelatici]

Everyone is making the error that land ownership has something to do with sovereignty. It doesn't.

Well, that was not the point, was it. The point was that the Zionist myth that claims that the land colonized by the European Zionists was purchased, is a myth. The land was overwhelmingly owned by the Christians and Muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You really haven't figured out that public land was not Jewish land, have you.

But public land is Arab land?

Public land is collectively owned by the citizens.

But not the Jewish citizens?

The native Jews were not excluded from anything.

 

[Shusha]

You really haven't figured out that public land was not Jewish land, have you.

But public land is Arab land?

Public land is collectively owned by the citizens.

But not the Jewish citizens?

The native Jews were not excluded from anything.

It seems me to me that I have asked you very specifically about who should have had sovereignty in the territory in question. And I remember you answering that should have been the Arabs. So, for clarity, do you or do you not believe that there should be Jewish sovereignty in the territory in question?

 

[montelatici]

In a perfect world, the people that inhabited Palestine (about 90% Christians and Muslims) would have been guided by the Mandatory to full independence and sovereignty as stipulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the country would not have been opened up to European colonization. The Muslims and Christians got screwed, now what do we do?

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

 

[P F Tinmore]

You really haven't figured out that public land was not Jewish land, have you.

But public land is Arab land?

Public land is collectively owned by the citizens.

But not the Jewish citizens?

The native Jews were not excluded from anything.

It seems me to me that I have asked you very specifically about who should have had sovereignty in the territory in question. And I remember you answering that should have been the Arabs. So, for clarity, do you or do you not believe that there should be Jewish sovereignty in the territory in question?

Good question, thanks. I have never said that the "Arabs" should have sovereignty in Palestine. The citizens of Palestine are the sovereigns. Palestinian citizenship was laid down in international and domestic law. Those citizens included Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Race, religion, etc. are irrelevant.

 

[Shusha]

In a perfect world, the people that inhabited Palestine (about 90% Christians and Muslims) would have been guided by the Mandatory to full independence and sovereignty as stipulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations

And that happened in mostly -- with the birth of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. Millions of people achieved independence and sovereignty.

The Muslims and Christians got screwed, now what do we do?

Not exactly.

Arab Muslims (and Christians who associate with being "Palestinian") got less land than they think they deserved (which was all of it).

Tell me, do you believe that there should be some opportunity for Jewish sovereignty and self-determination in the territories in question? I just want to get a handle on whether you are arguing against any sort of Jewish sovereignty or if you are arguing that the Jewish people should just have less land.

 

[montelatici]

In a perfect world, the people that inhabited Palestine (about 90% Christians and Muslims) would have been guided by the Mandatory to full independence and sovereignty as stipulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations

And that happened in mostly -- with the birth of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. Millions of people achieved independence and sovereignty.

The Muslims and Christians got screwed, now what do we do?

Not exactly.

Arab Muslims (and Christians who associate with being "Palestinian") got less land than they think they deserved (which was all of it).

Tell me, do you believe that there should be some opportunity for Jewish sovereignty and self-determination in the territories in question? I just want to get a handle on whether you are arguing against any sort of Jewish sovereignty or if you are arguing that the Jewish people should just have less land.

The Christians and Muslims got nothing. Most were evicted from the Jewish part of the partition before the Arab armies arrived to try to stop the ethnic cleansing. If the Arab armies had not arrived the Jews would have expelled all the non-Jews.

Under the terms of the Covenant, only the inhabitants were to have sovereignty, not an imported foreign population from Europe. The inhabitants did not want to be colonized again.

Unless the Christians and Muslims agreed to it, no, the Europeans should not have had exclusive sovereignty for their own kind. The Christians were prepared to live in a secular state with a Muslim majority. Why not the few Jews that were there?

 

[Shusha]

Good question, thanks. I have never said that the "Arabs" should have sovereignty in Palestine. The citizens of Palestine are the sovereigns. Palestinian citizenship was laid down in international and domestic law. Those citizens included Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Race, religion, etc. are irrelevant.

I think what I asked you was, "Should the sovereignty of Palestine be turned over to the Arab Muslim Palestinians". And you answered in the affirmative. But I think I understand the gist of your belief system now that I've been here a while.

Here's my thinking -- ethnicity and culture are NOT irrelevant. They are key to solving the conflict -- either through acceptance or through rejection. So, regardless of what happened or what either of us think should have happened in the past, are you willing or unwilling to accept some sort of Jewish sovereignty in at least some of the land in question?

 

[Shusha]

... no, the Europeans should not have had exclusive sovereignty for their own kind..

Please be very clear here. Are you saying that the Jewish people should not have sovereignty over the Jewish people?

Is your argument that Jews should have NO land, or LESS land. It makes a very great difference.

 

[montelatici]

If it were still possible, and it is not. A viable Palestinian state (not riddled with fortified Jewish settlements and IDF troop presence) might have allowed the Palestinian leadership to agree to a settlement of some sort. (without being lynched)

Sovereignty was not to be turned over to Muslim Palestinians, as you keep on saying, sovereignty was to be turned over to the inhabitants of Palestine, which included native and a much less destabilizing number of European Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good question, thanks. I have never said that the "Arabs" should have sovereignty in Palestine. The citizens of Palestine are the sovereigns. Palestinian citizenship was laid down in international and domestic law. Those citizens included Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Race, religion, etc. are irrelevant.

I think what I asked you was, "Should the sovereignty of Palestine be turned over to the Arab Muslim Palestinians". And you answered in the affirmative. But I think I understand the gist of your belief system now that I've been here a while.

Here's my thinking -- ethnicity and culture are NOT irrelevant. They are key to solving the conflict -- either through acceptance or through rejection. So, regardless of what happened or what either of us think should have happened in the past, are you willing or unwilling to accept some sort of Jewish sovereignty in at least some of the land in question?

The Jews already had equal sovereignty in Palestine.

What are you trying to say?

 

[Shusha]

The Christians and Muslims got nothing.

That is blatantly false. At the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the Arabs (Muslim and Christian) got Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. They also have Gaza and Areas A and B and potentially large portions of Area C or land swaps to make up (should they make use of it).

 

[Shusha]

What are you trying to say?

I am not trying to "say" anything. I am asking if you can support any kind of Jewish sovereignty in the territories in question. Sovereignty meaning self-determination of the Jewish people, by the Jewish people, in a Nation built around those things.

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinians got nothing and have nothing. There was no one to give it to them. My question is, why should Europeans, who were not the inhabitants of Palestine, have gotten anything? Can't you get it though your head that the Christians and Muslims inhabited Palestine along with a small number of Arab Jews and some European immigrants when the Covenant was signed. They were the ones that should have been guided to become citizens of an independent Palestinian state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians got nothing and have nothing. There was no one to give it to them. My question is, why should Europeans, who were not the inhabitants of Palestine, have gotten anything? Can't you get it though your head that the Christians and Muslims inhabited Palestine along with a small number of Arab Jews and some European immigrants when the Covenant was signed. They were the ones that should have been guided to become citizens of an independent Palestinian state.

They were the ones that should have been guided to become citizens of an independent Palestinian state.​

Indeed, and that is what the Mandate was supposed to do. Nobody was denied sovereignty.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​

 

[abu afak]

...
And how many pro-Israeli's here are willing to ever criticize Israel?

ME!
I have often criticized Israel, mostly on other forums, but also this one.
The current Netanyahu Govt is obviously 'closing out' the Palestinians. Perhaps leaving them with only Gaza and a small pond somewhere in the West Bank.
I have always argued Israel was entitled to a Small strategic buffer as a result of the 1967 Pre-emptive if defensive war and Res 242.
Perhaps as far as the Green line/app 3%.
Resolution 242: It does NOT mean withdrawal to 1967 lines
Enjoy. I understood this conflict a long time ago.
Making that post many times over a dozen years. I stick with it even now that the pendulum has moved to the other side.

Because it's clear to me for the last 5 years or so that Netanyahu et al, Unlike previous Israeli govt's/Offers, are Intent on taking over the Lion's share of the WB and squeezing out the 'Palestinians' (whatever that is/and however late in history that group of Arabs took the name)
abu afak/mbig
+

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?

Where have I attacked Israel's legitimacy? I've always stated I support it's right to exist as a state. What I don't support is it's "right" to claim the entire Palestine as it's own. My "championing" of the rights of the Palestinians is limited to their right to a state so I'm not clear on what you mean by "championing the agenda of the Arabs"? I'm firm supporter of a two state solution (maybe three, if Gaza can't be connected).

This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

I couldn't agree more. The indiginous argument is serves only one purpose and that is for one side or the other to disenfranchise the rights of the other or to derail threads (the main reason for the creation of this thread). That also I have said multiple times. I've also said, multiple times, that the indiginous people's consist of a variety of religious and ethnic groups who have roots there for centuries if not millenia.

One person's propaganda can be another person's realpolitic - it's in the eye of the beholder.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

And how many pro-Israeli's here are willing to ever criticize Israel?

You have indulged in at least three fallacies right here.

First of all, the "they do it too" argument is no excuse for your own. I have no problem criticizing the attitudes of the minority of the Jewish population as represented by the militant Settlers. I have yet to see you criticize the great majority of this new people called Palestinian for their incredible degree of ethnic hatred. Even when they vote into power those committed to genocide, you find ways to make excuses or else side-step the issue. At no point have I seen you criticize anything about the truly awful belief systems the large majority of Palestinians hold.

The second fallacy lies in your "eye of the beholder" comment, which represents such an extreme moral relativism as to be nihilistic. You might as well offer that putrid "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" nonsense so common to those who promote the same agenda as you.

The third error lies in your statement about Israel wanting it all. As you can see so clearly from the map I provided and which Abu Afak keeps mentioning is that they DON'T have it all. They have just a tiny piece. Perhaps this is more a matter of dishonesty on your part than fallacious reasoning, but keeping it real would go a long way towards making your positions more credible.

In any case, should you desire to raise the level of your discourse, here is a little run down on some logical fallacies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learning some of these might help you avoid the "well, they do it too" sorts of excuses as well as various others.