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

[Boston1]

Pathetic, so now your going to argue that you never said the pali's were indigenous to Israel.

Why should I? the Palestinians are indigenous to the territory that includes, for the moment, the Zionist paradise, which was created by European colonists in 1948; the so called "state of Israel". Now you are just making things up.

I thought you said you were a master-debater ( oops autocorrect is at it again ) Cause flip flopping isn't exactly a well founded technique among the more rational among us.

No. something else you are making up. Anyway the title of master-debater surely falls to you, you are so very good at it (I see what you mean about autocorrect...)

So first you say palestinian was never more than a designation of location and that only within a two year period within the mandate years. Then you claim in this latest that they are indigenous.

Too funny

Brilliant argument ;--) just brilliant

 

[Challenger]

Pathetic, so now your going to argue that you never said the pali's were indigenous to Israel.

Why should I? the Palestinians are indigenous to the territory that includes, for the moment, the Zionist paradise, which was created by European colonists in 1948; the so called "state of Israel". Now you are just making things up.

I thought you said you were a master-debater ( oops autocorrect is at it again ) Cause flip flopping isn't exactly a well founded technique among the more rational among us.

No. something else you are making up. Anyway the title of master-debater surely falls to you, you are so very good at it (I see what you mean about autocorrect...)

So first you say palestinian was never more than a designation of location and that only within a two year period within the mandate years. Then you claim in this latest that they are indigenous.

Too funny

Brilliant argument ;--) just brilliant

I think you are confusing me with someone else. Care to show me the post(s) where I'm supposed to have said this or are you just going to carry on constructing straw men and knocking them down?

You are correct, you are too funny to take seriously.

 

[Shusha]

Interesting assertion, here's an interesting article about that from the "My Jewish Learning" website on this topic, I read the whole article butthis bit encapsulates Jewish thought throughout for most of history; spiritual redemption...

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere. You are just plain wrong.

(Wow. What is in the water this week? Genocides where no one is dying and no one is killing, people who are both obese and starving to death; magical tunnels thru which people are killed and kidnapped but don't exist, and now this where it never occurred to any of the Jewish people to want to actually return to Eretz Israel until 1912. The world has gone mad.)

Now you are arguing against yourself; in one post you list all the "cultural qualities" that make Jewish people "unique", now you say these "qualities" are irrelevant.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying those qualities are irrelevant. I am claiming their relevancy. What I'm trying to get you to do is to come up with your own set of criteria or standard for deciding whether or not a people are a people and therefore have rights to a national self-determination. But you are entirely incapable of doing so. Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people.

If the Jewish people were in fact an ethnic group, you might conceivably have a point.

I do have a point. What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination" and then working backwards from there to try to justify your blatant bias. Its like saying "black people have no rights" and then justifying that claim. What you should be doing is working from the beginning: Do all peoples have rights to national self-determination? Or only some? If only some, which criteria forms the standard?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

"Those tunnels that Hamas are building don't lead into Israel." That statement is so ridiculous that it's laughable.

 

[Challenger]

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere.

That's the Zionist "interpretation" co-opting Judaism to support it's irridentist colonial aspirations.

Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people

I've no bias against any religion or religious group; Zionism is neither.

What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination"

...because there's no such ethnic group, just a religious cult.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting assertion, here's an interesting article about that from the "My Jewish Learning" website on this topic, I read the whole article butthis bit encapsulates Jewish thought throughout for most of history; spiritual redemption...

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere. You are just plain wrong.

(Wow. What is in the water this week? Genocides where no one is dying and no one is killing, people who are both obese and starving to death; magical tunnels thru which people are killed and kidnapped but don't exist, and now this where it never occurred to any of the Jewish people to want to actually return to Eretz Israel until 1912. The world has gone mad.)

Now you are arguing against yourself; in one post you list all the "cultural qualities" that make Jewish people "unique", now you say these "qualities" are irrelevant.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying those qualities are irrelevant. I am claiming their relevancy. What I'm trying to get you to do is to come up with your own set of criteria or standard for deciding whether or not a people are a people and therefore have rights to a national self-determination. But you are entirely incapable of doing so. Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people.

If the Jewish people were in fact an ethnic group, you might conceivably have a point.

I do have a point. What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination" and then working backwards from there to try to justify your blatant bias. Its like saying "black people have no rights" and then justifying that claim. What you should be doing is working from the beginning: Do all peoples have rights to national self-determination? Or only some? If only some, which criteria forms the standard?

The standard for self determination is the people of the place. It is the inhabitants of a territory who have that right.

The UN Charter also implicitly refers to the principle of self-determination in the part concerning colonies and other dependent territories. Art. 73 UN Charter affirms that

[m]embers of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

7 Furthermore, Art. 76 (b) UN Charter provides that one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system is to promote the ‘progressive development’ of the inhabitants of the trust territories towards ‘self-government or independence’, taking into account, inter alia, ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (see also United Nations Trusteeship System).

Oxford Public International Law: Self​

The Palestinians were the legal inhabitants of Palestine and were Palestinian citizens.

 

[Boston1]

You are confused.

The term palestinian was historically used in reference to Judaic people still living in Judea.

you are twisting its meaning and applying it to the Arab Muslims who colonized the area in several waves. The smaller wave coming in about 900 CE and the larger in the early to mid 20th century when the majority of Arabs presently called by some, and incorrectly palestinians, arrived.

And most of those were illegal immigrants arriving in the mandated period.

As we can all see that illegal immigration was intended to maintain the status quo of population however it backfired when the Mandate administrators invented Jordan and all Arabs within the Mandate area became Jordanians from 1928 on.

You also forgot that little part about the war. Legal citizens give up their protected persons status once they engage in, assist those engaged in or are suspected of assisting or being engaged in war.

In which case as POWs they MUST be repatriated to their countries of origin. In this case JORDAN

In the end there are no such people as palestinians anymore, they changed their name to Israeli's or Jordanians

 

[Shusha]

The standard for self determination is the people of the place. It is the inhabitants of a territory who have that right.

Cool. The Jewish people are now the people of the place and inhabit that territory. Done.

 

[Phoenall]

1 The lands legal sovereign owners gave the Jews the land under International law

2 The Catholic encyclopedia shows that the Ottomans counted more Jews than muslims in Palestine ( sanjak of Jerusalem)

3 Define Palestinians as the evidence shows that most arrived in the invasion forces from the arab league

4 So the evidence shows that they did arrive during the invasion, care to show they didn't.



Yes your lies do go on and on and on

You keep going back to the Catholic encyclopedia. Nothing else supports your claim.

Apart from the Ottoman census records and the LoN records that are where the data comes from.

Yes, and they did not support your claim - we went over that in another thread and you kept bringing up the Catholic Encyclopedia as if it were the Bible.

All team Palestine has is a novel written by a committee and that contains errors all the way through.

One of which is that the Jews own the most land on one page, and then on the next the whole of the muslim peoples are lumped together to show they inhabit more land.
Now as any intelligent person will tell you I can own land and you can inhabit it.

I have no idea what "novel" you are talking about. I used Ottoman census records for my claims.

Then how about the UN setting up the Palestinians own refugee agency because the "Palestinians" did not meet the two year residency criteria to be classed as refugees otherwise.

What about it? Are you now claiming that the Palestinians had only been their < 2 yrs?

Now prove that I have lied or I will be putting in a formal complaint about your behaviour and be asking that you be removed from this board.

Please do.

No you claimed that was the case without showing any evidence other than Because I say so. The census records speak for themselves.

I claimed what was the case? I answered one of your posts by providing links to the thread where we had discussed population demographics in detail - and yes, the census records do speak for themselves, it's just not what you claimed and now you are claiming the Palestinians had been there less than two years.

The one used by monte that has been proven fake

No idea what it is as I haven't used it.

If you use Ottoman records then they will say the same as my posts, that the Jews were the majority in Palestine ( sanjak of Jerusalem ) with the muslims being a minority.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library doesn't agree with you unless you are talking about the city of Jeruselum: Population of Israel/Palestine (1553-Present) | Jewish Virtual Library

I am saying nothing, I am letting the UN show the facts by its actions. And one of those is being unable to apply refugee status to the arab muslims because they did not hit the criteria for gaining citizenship of Palestine. The Jews and Christians did not have a special agency invented for there displaced persons because they hit the criteria and had already been absorbed into other nations.



OK will do.

What special agency was "invented" and what makes you think it was because it was due to not meeting criteria? You're going to have to do a lot of convincing before I'll believe they had only been there under two years as there is no data to show that.

You really need to learn to read, and not see what you want to see.

I said that in 1949 the UN had to create a new agency to deal with arab muslims who migrated to Palestine from 1947 to fight against the Jews. This meant they did not meet the criteria for citizenship, and they faced possible execution if they tried to return to their homes.

The UNRWA has no mandate or remit to eliminate the refugee status of palestinian refugees, so it is in their interests to see the numbers rise year on year. It allows refugee status to be inherited making the Palestinians the only group with this as a right. The agency had to invent its own definition of refugee that does not cover final status. So if I declared myself Palestinian and a refugee the UNRWA would support me if I was a muslim, any other group and they would send me to the UNHCR.

Over 99% of the UNRWA employees are local Palestinians and not multi-nationals who would be fairer in how they allocated recources.


In effect the UN is funding Palestinian terrorism, violence and war. Imagine what damage Mexico could do to California if the UN gave them $1.1 billion

 

[Phoenall]

I'm not arguing that ANYONE has less rights - you're the one doing that. I'm just pointing out that regardless of what the mandate says, it was an agreement between powers and did not include either representatives of or promises to Jewish or Arab people nor did it have any force of law.

So you're arguing Israel is not legitimate/legal.. while unwittingly saying the entire Ottoman break up was.
The British weighed the interests of the parties in their decisions, and indeed the Mandate, due to ARAB interest, was altered to split Palestine into two pieces, instead of One Jewish state as envisioned by that Mandate.
Even after The Sole Representative of the Arabs had agreed to the creation of Palestine as a Jewish state.
The Weizmann-Faisal Agreement
That's right, The 1919 agreement BETWEEN the Arab state and Palestine/The JEWISH one.
(Never carried out but posted for intent/state of mind at the time)
Faisal did spectacularly well for the Arabs in those years, getting them 99% of the Ottoman lands and reigning over Other groups such as the Kurds. He also got 'Jordan', 77% of the Mandate before lesser Palestine was even considered.
There were no Votes/Plebiscites at that time, and even the concept would have been foreign to Arabs, and arbitrary in geography/citizenship.

The Mandate specifically did not envision a Jewish State. In fact, the French and Italians refused to agree to the text unless it was clear that a Jewish state was not contemplated.

Churchill made this clear in the British Mandate policy statement of 1922:

"Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English. His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine...."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

Which is why we ended up with Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine, with the arabs getting 78%of Palestine. Here we have another islamonazi propaganda apologist that cant read read English, so puts down what they think should have been written. And again he uses a consultation document as if it was a legal document setting out statutes in stone. I have just had to read another one and give my expert opinion to a government agency because they don't have the intelligence to do what is best for the people




The term white paper originated with the British government, and many point to the Churchill White Paper of 1922 as the earliest well-known example under this name.[citation needed] In British government it is usually the less extensive version of the so-called blue book, both terms being derived from the colour of the document's cover.[2]

White papers are a "... tool of participatory democracy ... not [an] unalterable policy commitment."[4] "White papers have tried to perform the dual role of presenting firm government policies while at the same time inviting opinions upon them."[5]

 

[Phoenall]

I am quoting text within an official document within an academic archive, not made-up Zionist propaganda quotes strewn all over the internet. LOL

Nope you are mangling a policy document until it arrives at the same POV as you hold, hoping that no one will notice your islamonazi propaganda tendencies.

 

[Phoenall]

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere.

That's the Zionist "interpretation" co-opting Judaism to support it's irridentist colonial aspirations.

Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people

I've no bias against any religion or religious group; Zionism is neither.

What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination"

...because there's no such ethnic group, just a religious cult.

So who was it when the same things where being said prior to 1875, when Zionism had not been invented. The same words at the same holiday period

The same said by every Jew hater when they are pulled for showing an unfair amount of interest in Israel


And by what authority do you make that claim, other than you are a Jew hater ? The legal proffesion in most civilised nations see the Jews as a race, they see atheists and humanists as a cult

 

[Phoenall]

Interesting assertion, here's an interesting article about that from the "My Jewish Learning" website on this topic, I read the whole article butthis bit encapsulates Jewish thought throughout for most of history; spiritual redemption...

Not ONLY spiritual redemption -- but a physical return, an ingathering of the exiles, a rebuilt Temple. The yearning to return to Zion is a theme running through daily prayers and texts and commentaries, through the holiday celebrations, its everywhere. You are just plain wrong.

(Wow. What is in the water this week? Genocides where no one is dying and no one is killing, people who are both obese and starving to death; magical tunnels thru which people are killed and kidnapped but don't exist, and now this where it never occurred to any of the Jewish people to want to actually return to Eretz Israel until 1912. The world has gone mad.)

Now you are arguing against yourself; in one post you list all the "cultural qualities" that make Jewish people "unique", now you say these "qualities" are irrelevant.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying those qualities are irrelevant. I am claiming their relevancy. What I'm trying to get you to do is to come up with your own set of criteria or standard for deciding whether or not a people are a people and therefore have rights to a national self-determination. But you are entirely incapable of doing so. Or unwilling since it will expose your bias against the Jewish people.

If the Jewish people were in fact an ethnic group, you might conceivably have a point.

I do have a point. What you are doing is making a claim "the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination" and then working backwards from there to try to justify your blatant bias. Its like saying "black people have no rights" and then justifying that claim. What you should be doing is working from the beginning: Do all peoples have rights to national self-determination? Or only some? If only some, which criteria forms the standard?

The standard for self determination is the people of the place. It is the inhabitants of a territory who have that right.

The UN Charter also implicitly refers to the principle of self-determination in the part concerning colonies and other dependent territories. Art. 73 UN Charter affirms that

[m]embers of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

7 Furthermore, Art. 76 (b) UN Charter provides that one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system is to promote the ‘progressive development’ of the inhabitants of the trust territories towards ‘self-government or independence’, taking into account, inter alia, ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (see also United Nations Trusteeship System).

Oxford Public International Law: Self​

The Palestinians were the legal inhabitants of Palestine and were Palestinian citizens.

And again the underlying statement n your post is that the Jews are not to be included in this and should be denied all access to international laws. The Jews being 23% of the population of Palestine where granted 23 % of the land, the muslims being 77% of the population where granted 73% of the land. But you only see the Jewish part of Palestine as being Palestine don't you, when in reality it also included what is now Jordan and parts of Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians were the legal inhabitants of Palestine and were Palestinian citizens.

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims -- each of whom is now seeking their own self-determination -- as in from each other. Why would you deny it to the one group?

 

[Challenger]

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims --

Wrong. The Palestinians included at the time, two groups; (1) the indigenous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, most of whom had adopted and adapted to Arabic culture and (2) Jewish European Zionist colonisers who came to disposess the first group.

 

[Shusha]

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims --

Wrong. The Palestinians included at the time, two groups; (1) the indigenous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, most of whom had adopted and adapted to Arabic culture and (2) Jewish European Zionist colonisers who came to disposess the first group.

I find it absolutely astonishing that you can create and walk through the intellectually twisted hoop which says that Roman Christian and Arab Muslim invaders and colonizers gained rightful possession of the territory while the original inhabitants, returning to their homeland, even if you count them also as invaders and colonizers just exactly like the Roman Christians and the Arab Muslims, have no rights.

It is intellectually dishonest. Or incredibly stupid.

 

[Phoenall]

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims --

Wrong. The Palestinians included at the time, two groups; (1) the indigenous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, most of whom had adopted and adapted to Arabic culture and (2) Jewish European Zionist colonisers who came to disposess the first group.

So you are saying that there were 4 groups and that only one should have the right to self determination. The Jews were all one group and you will be pushed to find any that now don't want the right to Israel and self determination. Even thinking of saying that there should have been only 1 nation shows that you have no idea of the outcome and don't care if the Jews were wiped out, as the arab muslims have constantly stated since 1920 when they found they would be left with a tiny part of the M.E. not muslim

 

[Boston1]

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims --

Wrong. The Palestinians included at the time, two groups; (1) the indigenous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, most of whom had adopted and adapted to Arabic culture and (2) Jewish European Zionist colonisers who came to disposess the first group.

You are daft. Arab Muslims didn't exist when the name of Judea was changed by Hadrian to Palaestina.

Even in the time of Hadrian, the Judaic people had been there for at least 3000 years previous

 

[Phoenall]

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims --

Wrong. The Palestinians included at the time, two groups; (1) the indigenous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, most of whom had adopted and adapted to Arabic culture and (2) Jewish European Zionist colonisers who came to disposess the first group.

You are daft. Arab Muslims didn't exist when the name of Judea was changed by Hadrian to Palaestina.

Even in the time of Hadrian, the Judaic people had been there for at least 3000 years previous

You will find rat boy gets all confused about history and often claims that the Jewish prophets where actually Islamic prophets and followed allah. Then he will say that he is not of any religion after extolling the virtues of islam.

A paid sock puppet for pallywood industries

 

[Challenger]

And the Palestinians included, at the time, TWO groups -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslims --

Wrong. The Palestinians included at the time, two groups; (1) the indigenous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, most of whom had adopted and adapted to Arabic culture and (2) Jewish European Zionist colonisers who came to disposess the first group.

I find it absolutely astonishing that you can create and walk through the intellectually twisted hoop which says that Roman Christian and Arab Muslim invaders and colonizers gained rightful possession of the territory while the original inhabitants, returning to their homeland, even if you count them also as invaders and colonizers just exactly like the Roman Christians and the Arab Muslims, have no rights.

It is intellectually dishonest. Or incredibly stupid.

The only one walking through intellectually twisted hoops is you. Where have I said anything of the sort? Palestine has known the tread of many different "conquerors" in it's long history. Such conquerors form a "social veneer", a ruling elite. The lower orders are always there, to be ruled/exploited. These are the original inhabitants and over time they adapt and adopt, to a greater or lesser extent, the language, religion and customs of their rulers. There is no evidence in the historical record of any conqueror displacing or exterminating the whole population of this area. There was no "diaspora" forced on the whole population. Judaism and Christianity were both proselytising monotheistic religions keenly competing with each other for followers; missionaries from both religions abounded throughout the Roman Empire until the 4th-5th centuries when Christianity won out and set about systematically persecuting all other competing religions.

The indigenous inhabitants have more rights to their ancestral homeland than any converts or descendents of converts.

I have said before and I'll say it again, I have no objection to any Jewish person from anywhwere in the world living in Palestine, period. I do, however, strongly object to a cynical politico-religious group of European colonisers; Zionists, co-opting the religion of Judaism in order to conquer, colonise and disposess the indigenous people of the place.