The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Phoenall]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.

The Syrians are a "real" people. The Iraqis are a "real" people. The Jordanians are a "real" people. The Lebanese are a "real" people. The Palestinians are a "real" people.

The Jews aren't.

Finally, the penny drops.

Yet it hasnt dropped for you as the post was meant to show that the Jews are an older people than any of the arab muslims are

 

[Shusha]

The post was intended to show the antisemitism which underlies the political ideology of many of our posters and much of the Arab and Muslim worlds -- the fundamental antisemitism which calls for the Jewish people to be treated differently than other peoples or groups.

The fact that Jews are not a "real" people is not a criticism of Israel's policies and governance. It is a belief that the rules which apply to all others peoples do not apply to Jews.

 

[Coyote]

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures. There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it. It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about. It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other. It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights to the place, and certainly FEWER rights then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

 

[Coyote]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

I disagree. Historically, Israel reinvented itself. It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture, and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted. It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region. Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.

 

[Coyote]

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures. There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.

Exactly where does the authority start and end for declaring this group are first nations while this group aren't. Who issues the authority to the decision makers if not themselves ?

Presumably, anyone can claim anything.

 

[Mindful]

Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.

 

[Phoenall]

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures. There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it. It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about. It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other. It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights to the place, and certainly FEWER rights then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

Is that the same as you wanting to use it for a nation that has never existed, and is made up of people from many nations that have no claim to the land at all. What rights do you give your "first nations " people then,other than allowing them to live in deserts and not allowing them their own laws and police force. In the case of the Jews they have lived there for 4.500 years or so according to scientific evidence, while those you push as having first nation status have less than 100 years for the majority and at most 900 years for a handful. Under international laws of the time the legal sovereign landowners granted the arab muslims 78% of palestine under the understanding that the arab muslims in the other 22% who did not want to live under Jewish rule would migrate and set up home there. They have even less rights as they migrated there after 1850 when the Ottomans invited the Jews to settle and farm the land. Using your argument what rights do you have to live where you do, and keep pushing for retrospective enforcement of laws and you could lose everything

 

[Phoenall]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

I disagree. Historically, Israel reinvented itself. It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture, and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted. It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region. Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.

And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well. What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.

 

[Phoenall]

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures. There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.

Exactly where does the authority start and end for declaring this group are first nations while this group aren't. Who issues the authority to the decision makers if not themselves ?

Presumably, anyone can claim anything.

Claiming and putting into action are two different things. As the arab muslims are finding out when international law is enforced and they find themselves being killed in response to their violence.

 

[Phoenall]

Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.

Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.

 

[Mindful]

Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.

Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.

Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.

Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.

Is it? I wonder what the Byzantine church is doing there.

 

[Coyote]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

I disagree. Historically, Israel reinvented itself. It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture, and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted. It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region. Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.

And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well. What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.

My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations. Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything. What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?

 

[Divine Wind]

It doesn't seem to have worked for you as recent polls show the MAJORITY of islamonazi's in palestine are EXTREMISTS. As in more than half of the population of gaza and the west bank follow a form of islam that sees the genocide of the Jews as being the right thing to do.

1) There's no such place as "Palestine". Only fools and extremists claim there is such a place.

2) Scroll up, I did say all the asshole/antisemites are in Gaza and, to a lesser extent, the West Bank. The Arabs inside Israel are peaceful.

 

[Shusha]

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago

I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.

and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.

Excuse me? No one is sure of the history of that era? Or that of the Jewish people? Compared to which other peoples in the world? And starting from how long ago? There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people). There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look). There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites. There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders. There is a written history, as well as an oral one. One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.

Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people. Or the Korean people. Or the Egyptian people. What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it? Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are. In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.

It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about.

Of course that is what this is about! What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples? I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.

It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.

As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way. Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game. One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people. People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped. People just have those rights.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.

It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...

Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.

I did remove the phrase in that place from your quote. I did to highlight an extremely relevant point. No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people". (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).

I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders. I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan). I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures. I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation. But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights. Prove me wrong.

Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the Jewish people have no inherent rights. Not in Israel. Not anywhere. They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are not.

then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return. That's fine. I have no beef with that. I disagree, of course. But its a valid, consistent argument. Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians. If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago

I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.

and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.

Excuse me? No one is sure of the history of that era? Or that of the Jewish people? Compared to which other peoples in the world? And starting from how long ago? There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people). There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look). There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites. There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders. There is a written history, as well as an oral one. One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.

Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people. Or the Korean people. Or the Egyptian people. What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it? Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are. In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.

It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about.

Of course that is what this is about! What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples? I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.

It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.

As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way. Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game. One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people. People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped. People just have those rights.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.

It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...

Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.

I did remove the phrase in that place from your quote. I did to highlight an extremely relevant point. No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people". (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).

I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders. I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan). I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures. I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation. But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights. Prove me wrong.

Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the Jewish people have no inherent rights. Not in Israel. Not anywhere. They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are not.

then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return. That's fine. I have no beef with that. I disagree, of course. But its a valid, consistent argument. Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians. If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.

One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​

That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.

 

[Hossfly]

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago

I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.

and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.

Excuse me? No one is sure of the history of that era? Or that of the Jewish people? Compared to which other peoples in the world? And starting from how long ago? There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people). There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look). There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites. There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders. There is a written history, as well as an oral one. One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.

Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people. Or the Korean people. Or the Egyptian people. What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it? Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are. In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.

It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about.

Of course that is what this is about! What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples? I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.

It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.

As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way. Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game. One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people. People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped. People just have those rights.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.

It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...

Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.

I did remove the phrase in that place from your quote. I did to highlight an extremely relevant point. No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people". (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).

I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders. I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan). I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures. I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation. But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights. Prove me wrong.

Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the Jewish people have no inherent rights. Not in Israel. Not anywhere. They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are not.

then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return. That's fine. I have no beef with that. I disagree, of course. But its a valid, consistent argument. Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians. If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.

One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​

That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.

Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel. Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany. It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.

The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?

 

[Coyote]

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago

I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.

And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.

Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.

Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture.

and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.

Excuse me? No one is sure of the history of that era? Or that of the Jewish people? Compared to which other peoples in the world? And starting from how long ago? There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people). There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look). There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites. There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders. There is a written history, as well as an oral one. One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.

The history of the Jewish people, like many ancient histories is a mixed bag of unsupported myth and history supported by archeological evidence. Did Moses exist for example? I would be saying the exact same thing about biblical Christian history and of Islamic history.

Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people. Or the Korean people. Or the Egyptian people.

When you are talking about history several thousand years ago, then yes, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and checked against archaeological evidence.

What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights?

That's the problem right there, and why I hate even bothering to discuss stuff in IP any more. You are immediately jumping to the assumption that this has something to do with whether a people is a people and whether they are deserving of rights. It has absolutely no bearing on that (from my point of view) but it has the effect of creating a minefield of topics that can't now be discussed. Jews don't need any special status or terminology to be considered a people or to have the same basic rights as any people.

Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?

Because I've never argued that ANY nation can't be a nation for those reasons so why would I start now?

Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.

It doesn't? OK, specifically HOW am I applying any different criteria to Israel's right to exist than any other country, or the rights of the Jewish people to self determination than any other people?

In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.

Bullshit. What rights am I denying them that I don't deny others? What special rights do I grant others that I deny the Jewish people?

It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about.

Of course that is what this is about! What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples? I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.

Those rights belong to everyone.

It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.

As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way. Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game. One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people. People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped. People just have those rights.

Then tell that to Team Israel.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.

It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...

Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.

I did remove the phrase in that place from your quote. I did to highlight an extremely relevant point. No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people". (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).

I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders. I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan). I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures. I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation. But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights. Prove me wrong.

Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the Jewish people have no inherent rights. Not in Israel. Not anywhere. They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are not.

then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return. That's fine. I have no beef with that. I disagree, of course. But its a valid, consistent argument. Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians. If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.

[/quote]

I'm not going to go in to depth, but I think you are rather selectively blind to Team Israel's statements in regards to the rights and legitimacy as people of the Palestinians. I think you and a few others represent a rational minority in this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago

I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.

and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.

Excuse me? No one is sure of the history of that era? Or that of the Jewish people? Compared to which other peoples in the world? And starting from how long ago? There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people). There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look). There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites. There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders. There is a written history, as well as an oral one. One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.

Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people. Or the Korean people. Or the Egyptian people. What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it? Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are. In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.

It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about.

Of course that is what this is about! What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples? I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.

It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.

As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way. Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game. One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people. People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped. People just have those rights.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.

It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...

Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.

I did remove the phrase in that place from your quote. I did to highlight an extremely relevant point. No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people". (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).

I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders. I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan). I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures. I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation. But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights. Prove me wrong.

Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the Jewish people have no inherent rights. Not in Israel. Not anywhere. They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are not.

then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return. That's fine. I have no beef with that. I disagree, of course. But its a valid, consistent argument. Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians. If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.

One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​

That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.

Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel. Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany. It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.

The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?

The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.

 

[Phoenall]

Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.

Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.

Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.

Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.

Is it? I wonder what the Byzantine church is doing there.

Came after the Romans killed the inhabitants as it was the last stronghold of the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

The meat of the argument is this: you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago

I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.

and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.

Excuse me? No one is sure of the history of that era? Or that of the Jewish people? Compared to which other peoples in the world? And starting from how long ago? There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people). There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look). There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites. There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders. There is a written history, as well as an oral one. One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.

Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people. Or the Korean people. Or the Egyptian people. What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it? Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are. In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.

It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it. And that is what this is about.

Of course that is what this is about! What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples? I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.

It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.

As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way. Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game. One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people. People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped. People just have those rights.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.

It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...

Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.

I did remove the phrase in that place from your quote. I did to highlight an extremely relevant point. No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people". (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).

I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders. I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan). I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures. I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation. But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights. Prove me wrong.

Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the Jewish people have no inherent rights. Not in Israel. Not anywhere. They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are not.

then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.

You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return. That's fine. I have no beef with that. I disagree, of course. But its a valid, consistent argument. Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians. If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.

One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​

That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.

Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel. Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany. It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.

The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?

The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.

Then produce these facts so we can see for ourselves, and none of your usual islaminazi crap