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.

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?

And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed

 

[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.

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

The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

 

[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.

What rights did they deny them then when they kicked them out of their homes. Dont forget you cant use rights granted in 2000 for actions in 1948. How have they denied them their right to free determination as an example.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

And once again you resort to an islamonazi source for your evidence that is highly biased against the Jews. Now find another source that is biased against the arab muslims

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

And once again you resort to an islamonazi source for your evidence that is highly biased against the Jews. Now find another source that is biased against the arab muslims

Those are British Mandate numbers.

 

[Challenger]

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.

Ah, whenever facts clash with Zionist mythology, the inevitable canard comes out, "anti-Semite!" Doesn't work any more Shusha. As more and more people discover the "history" Zionists have created in order to further their pseudo-nationalism, is in fact made up, the whole zionist project comes under more intense scrutiny and so more and more lies are discovered. That's why the Zionist regime won't release documents from the 1960's that should be freely available under Israeli law; because of "security concerns". Right. The fear of the world discovering the truth is definitely a "security concern" for the future of the Zionist paradise.

 

[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 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.

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.[/QUOTE]







Not me saying this but historical; evidence and arab muslim leaders who coined the name filastinian for the arab muslim invaders on the command of the Soviets. The records show that Winston Churchill stood up in the house of Commons and told the world that arab muslims were illegally entering the mandate of palestine in their thousands unhindered and uncounted. They are a people just not of the land granted to the Jews for their national home.

In the past you denied Israel the right of international law when it granted them 22% of palestine as their national home. In fact you denied the existence of this international law even when bombarded with the evidence. Strangely you accepted it when it worked for the arab muslims and granted them their lands ?

And you cant use rights granted in 2000 for actions in 1948 can you, which is what you try to do. Just as you try to use UN resolutions as if they were international laws retrospectively, as in the right of return or the acquisition of land through force.

If the arab muslims are proven illegal immigrants post 1923 then they should be evicted from the land, as that is the law. There is no statute of limitations on the expulsion of illegal immigrants and once unearthed they will be deported. Same with terrorists and their supporters, once unearthed out they go. For me anyone that has Israeli citizenship that claims they are palestinian should also be deported as an enemy of the state

 

[Phoenall]

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

The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

And once again you resort to an islamonazi source for your evidence that is highly biased against the Jews. Now find another source that is biased against the arab muslims

Those are British Mandate numbers.

Compiled for the British by the arab muslims, why dont you use the actual Ottoman census returns that show the Jews outnumbered the arab muslims ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Ah, whenever facts clash with Zionist mythology, the inevitable canard comes out, "anti-Semite!" Doesn't work any more Shusha. As more and more people discover the "history" Zionists have created in order to further their pseudo-nationalism, is in fact made up, the whole zionist project comes under more intense scrutiny and so more and more lies are discovered. That's why the Zionist regime won't release documents from the 1960's that should be freely available under Israeli law; because of "security concerns". Right. The fear of the world discovering the truth is definitely a "security concern" for the future of the Zionist paradise.

And this alleged history can only be found on the hate sites that you frequent, and never on any unbiased or Jewish sutes.

Once again you resort to the haters out of context use of the term zionist, making it a racially charged insult.

Strange I dont see you campaigning for the British government to release documents that should be freely available because it would destroy the Palace of Westminster and cause civil war

 

[Challenger]

Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.

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.

I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do. British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.

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.

I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do. British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.

COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars. Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.

No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group

 

[Coyote]

Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.

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.

I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do. British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.

COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars. Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.

No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group

Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs. That data does not come from a hate site.

 

[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?

And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed

Where have I ever supported that? Got a link? (Course not)

 

[Coyote]

Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.

Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.

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.

I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do. British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.

 

[Divine Wind]

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......

Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century. Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves. Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews? That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate? That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?

There is no such "race" as Palestinian. They're a culture. For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.

There was never any nation called Palestine. Ever. So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?

 

[Challenger]

Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.

Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.

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.

I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do. British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.

Judaism is a religion and of course there were adherants and practicioners of the religion before Zionism emerged, that has never been in doubt, but that's a religious group, not an ethenic one. Judea/Palestine in antiquity was a cosmopolitan area containing several ethicities speaking different languages and having their own customs and religions. Also Judaism was a proselytising religion for centuries until supplanted by Christianity and was not above carrying out forced conversions, especially during the Hashmonean period. As for "genetic evidence", the jury is still out on that one, so I'll forego comment.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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......

Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century. Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves. Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews? That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate? That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?

There is no such "race" as Palestinian. They're a culture. For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.

There was never any nation called Palestine. Ever. So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?

Good question. What were Native Americans called before it was America?

Did they just not exist?

 

[Challenger]

....Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century. Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves. Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews? That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate? That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?

There is no such "race" as Palestinian. They're a culture. For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.

There was never any nation called Palestine. Ever. So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?

Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be.

At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".

 

[Challenger]

Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.

Historical narratives, not necessarily Biblical narratives, and when you say archaeology, do you mean Archaology proper or Biblical Archaeology? The latter has a reputation of sticking an arrow in the ground then painting the target around it before crying "bullseye!" The word "Kingdom" also covers a lot of sins. In ancient Britain, for example, if you owned a couple of farms and could afford a bunch of thugs to fight for you, you were a "king".

 

[Divine Wind]

Good question. What were Native Americans called before it was America?

Did they just not exist?

Various names of tribes just like the twelve tribes of Israel.