Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews. It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews. It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

1) Show us those records of citizenship.

2) Judea is the birthplace of Christianity.

At the time Jesus was born, and even when he died, the area was known as Judea. That is where he and all Jews around Jerusalem, Galilllee, etc were born.
That is the area the Romans changed the name.
From Judea to :

Judea (Roman province) - Wikipedia

The Roman province of Judea (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yehuda TiberianYehûḏāh; Arabic: يهودا‎‎; Greek: Ἰουδαία Ioudaia; Latin: Iūdaea), sometimes spelled in its original Latin forms of Iudæa or Iudaea to distinguish it from the geographical region of Judea, incorporated the regions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, and extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, but the Roman province encompassed a much larger territory. The name "Judea" was derived from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century BCE.

The province of Judea was the scene of unrest at its founding in 6 CE during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish–Roman Wars. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE as part of the Great Jewish Revolt, resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus, and after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, which certain scholars conclude was an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region.



---------------
You are a Christian. You should respect the place where Jesus was born and not keep changing its name because you were taught to hate Jews.

There was no Syria Palaestina or Aelia Capitolina, at the time Jesus was born and Christianity came to be.

Use the terms which existed then. Judea, Samaria, Galilee.

There was no Palestine, and there were no Palestinians.

There were Jews, like Jesus, living in a place known as the Roman Province of Judea until 135 CE when the Romans changed the names of Judea and Jerusalem to attempt to make the Jews forget about their ancient homeland.

The End.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews. It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

1) Show us those records of citizenship.

2) Judea is the birthplace of Christianity.

At the time Jesus was born, and even when he died, the area was known as Judea. That is where he and all Jews around Jerusalem, Galilllee, etc were born.
That is the area the Romans changed the name.
From Judea to :

Judea (Roman province) - Wikipedia

The Roman province of Judea (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yehuda TiberianYehûḏāh; Arabic: يهودا‎‎; Greek: Ἰουδαία Ioudaia; Latin: Iūdaea), sometimes spelled in its original Latin forms of Iudæa or Iudaea to distinguish it from the geographical region of Judea, incorporated the regions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, and extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, but the Roman province encompassed a much larger territory. The name "Judea" was derived from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century BCE.

The province of Judea was the scene of unrest at its founding in 6 CE during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish–Roman Wars. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE as part of the Great Jewish Revolt, resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus, and after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, which certain scholars conclude was an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region.



---------------
You are a Christian. You should respect the place where Jesus was born and not keep changing its name because you were taught to hate Jews.

There was no Syria Palaestina or Aelia Capitolina, at the time Jesus was born and Christianity came to be.

Use the terms which existed then. Judea, Samaria, Galilee.

There was no Palestine, and there were no Palestinians.

There were Jews, like Jesus, living in a place known as the Roman Province of Judea until 135 CE when the Romans changed the names of Judea and Jerusalem to attempt to make the Jews forget about their ancient homeland.

The End.

That's funny. The maps in my Bible call the place Palestine Pastors I have heard call the Place Palestine.

Just sayin'.

 

[rylah]

Before anything...have You been reading here recently, or do You only read Your own stuff?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews.

Don't be ridiculous,
Yes You can, in every demographic record of the land there're Jews. The people of the land.

It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Deek tactic. You dodge what You just said and twist it to the opposite.
It's a tiny ethno-religious group, that is a tribe with a land a and a culture centered around the land that bears its' name.
Or do You need Ottoman records of ALL the Jews and Israelis that have been buried there through the 3500 yrs?

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

יהודה וגליל are the birth places of that Jewish sect. Or يهودا and الجليل الغربي

I am a Christian.
Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

You have tried. Romans then the Crusades did that. Jews remained a minority in their ancestral lands.
Even the infamous al-Quds Mufti recognized that his furniture stands upon the ruins, and BECAUSE of the ruins of the Jewish people.

However You have about 13 officially recognized Christian nations. Not including Russian church and all their related national churches.
Christian state - Wikipedia

Only one Jewish Hebrew nation.

 

[rylah]

Trying to claim the European invasion and colonization of Palestine is different from any other European colonial project is bullshit.

Actually, the opposite is true. Trying to pretend that the Jewish return to their ancestral homeland is in any way equivalent to invasion and colonization by exploitative, dominant cultures is bullshit.

Just because the invading settler colonists practiced Judaism, doesn't change the facts. The European Jews stated formally they planned to colonize Palestine with British help, subjugating the native people was a side issue.

There is a fundamental difference between returning to one's ancestral homeland and Imperialist invasion and colonization. Trying to make those things equivalent because they are Jooooos rings hollow, at best, and venomously antisemitic at worse.

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

You never deal with that, always dodge that point.
And there's of course the appropriate thread that claims to make it "less difficult" for You to understand, and why You should stop being pretentious. The conversation about furniture, too is appropriate there.

 

[rylah]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews. It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

1) Show us those records of citizenship.

2) Judea is the birthplace of Christianity.

At the time Jesus was born, and even when he died, the area was known as Judea. That is where he and all Jews around Jerusalem, Galilllee, etc were born.
That is the area the Romans changed the name.
From Judea to :

Judea (Roman province) - Wikipedia

The Roman province of Judea (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yehuda TiberianYehûḏāh; Arabic: يهودا‎‎; Greek: Ἰουδαία Ioudaia; Latin: Iūdaea), sometimes spelled in its original Latin forms of Iudæa or Iudaea to distinguish it from the geographical region of Judea, incorporated the regions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, and extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, but the Roman province encompassed a much larger territory. The name "Judea" was derived from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century BCE.

The province of Judea was the scene of unrest at its founding in 6 CE during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish–Roman Wars. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE as part of the Great Jewish Revolt, resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus, and after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, which certain scholars conclude was an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region.



---------------
You are a Christian. You should respect the place where Jesus was born and not keep changing its name because you were taught to hate Jews.

There was no Syria Palaestina or Aelia Capitolina, at the time Jesus was born and Christianity came to be.

Use the terms which existed then. Judea, Samaria, Galilee.

There was no Palestine, and there were no Palestinians.

There were Jews, like Jesus, living in a place known as the Roman Province of Judea until 135 CE when the Romans changed the names of Judea and Jerusalem to attempt to make the Jews forget about their ancient homeland.

The End.

That's funny. The maps in my Bible call the place Palestine Pastors I have heard call the Place Palestine.

Just sayin'.

Can Your pastor spell 'Palestine' in its' original language, and explain to You what the word actually means in the local language?
The best thing You can do is claim ownership of Arabian tribes through the legendary "sea people'

 

[P F Tinmore]

Finally, there is the matter of a separate Palestinian ethno-national consciousness and its relationship to settler-colonialism. Claims to find a separate Palestinian ethnic identity as far back as the 17th century are unpersuasive. Instead, the idea developed as an elite concept in the years immediately before and especially after World War I, vying with far deeper and more resilient tribal and religious identities. The nationalization of the masses occurred gradually over the next few decades, propelled in part by tragedies largely foisted on them by their leaders, notably the “Arab Revolt” of 1936-39, the rejection of partition in 1947, the Israeli War of Independence of 1948-49, and the subsequent, rather local, dispersal of refugees into the 1950s. Palestinian nationalism and identity are largely reactive and secondary, pointing to the fact that settler-colonial identity was primarily tribal and religious, the latter imperial by definition.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, a mythology of the “timeless” Palestinians took root. During the earlier period, this was a European Orientalist trope: the Palestinians as living “fossils” who reflected the lifeways of the Bible. It was later adopted for strategic reasons by the Palestinians themselves as a political and cultural retort to the Zionist return to the land. That usage was perhaps understandable, if ironic; but it reaches a reductio ad absurdum in Erekat’s claim to have had Upper Paleolithic ancestors.

It is, then, the Palestinians who are the settler-colonialists, not the Jews or even the Zionists. Does this realization change anything? Does removing a term from the rejectionist toolbox bring the cause of negotiation and peace any closer? This seems unlikely. But in the longer term, facing certain truths will be necessary for Palestinians and Israelis alike. One is that rejection of Israel, at its core, is not a function of Palestinian nationalism and local identity but Islamic religious opposition to Jewish autonomy and sovereignty. Another is that tendentious categories like “settler-colonialism,” which ironically undermine Palestinian claims to indigenous status, should be dispensed with in favor of honest appraisals of history.

(full article online)

Palestinian Settler-Colonialism

Alex Joffe is an archaeologist and historian. He is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

No bias here.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Finally, there is the matter of a separate Palestinian ethno-national consciousness and its relationship to settler-colonialism. Claims to find a separate Palestinian ethnic identity as far back as the 17th century are unpersuasive. Instead, the idea developed as an elite concept in the years immediately before and especially after World War I, vying with far deeper and more resilient tribal and religious identities. The nationalization of the masses occurred gradually over the next few decades, propelled in part by tragedies largely foisted on them by their leaders, notably the “Arab Revolt” of 1936-39, the rejection of partition in 1947, the Israeli War of Independence of 1948-49, and the subsequent, rather local, dispersal of refugees into the 1950s. Palestinian nationalism and identity are largely reactive and secondary, pointing to the fact that settler-colonial identity was primarily tribal and religious, the latter imperial by definition.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, a mythology of the “timeless” Palestinians took root. During the earlier period, this was a European Orientalist trope: the Palestinians as living “fossils” who reflected the lifeways of the Bible. It was later adopted for strategic reasons by the Palestinians themselves as a political and cultural retort to the Zionist return to the land. That usage was perhaps understandable, if ironic; but it reaches a reductio ad absurdum in Erekat’s claim to have had Upper Paleolithic ancestors.

It is, then, the Palestinians who are the settler-colonialists, not the Jews or even the Zionists. Does this realization change anything? Does removing a term from the rejectionist toolbox bring the cause of negotiation and peace any closer? This seems unlikely. But in the longer term, facing certain truths will be necessary for Palestinians and Israelis alike. One is that rejection of Israel, at its core, is not a function of Palestinian nationalism and local identity but Islamic religious opposition to Jewish autonomy and sovereignty. Another is that tendentious categories like “settler-colonialism,” which ironically undermine Palestinian claims to indigenous status, should be dispensed with in favor of honest appraisals of history.

(full article online)

Palestinian Settler-Colonialism

Alex Joffe is an archaeologist and historian. He is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

No bias here.

You are an expert in what ?
You teach History and Archeology, where?
Your pastor is an expert in what?
He teaches History and Archeology, where?

Either one of you know the History of Judaism or Islam?

Either one of you actually know how the Roman Province of Judea ended up being called Syria Palestinia in 135 CE?

Either one of you actually know who the Romans fought against to keep the Province in their hands from the time they took over the area to the time the Roman Empire ceased to exist?

Do not shrink from any of these questions.

You and your pastor either know what you are talking about, or neither one of you does.

As the thread asks, Who Are the Palestinians?
Where do they come from?
What connection do they have to the land?
Was there ever a "Historical Palestine" as the Arabs continue to say?
Was there ever an "Ancient Palestine" with a Palestinian People and a history?
Where is the documented proof of it?
Where are the Archeological remains of these people, of their ruins, or their cities, of their lives on that land?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

 

[Sixties Fan]

I ask you for archeological and historical proof that those who call themselves Palestinians, and are Arabs, and all you continue to post are Arabs who since 1964 have come to call themselves "Palestinians', with their very recent "Palestinian" history - all thanks to the Ottomans losing WWI and all the land they held on to, and a Mandate named Palestine.

As the Arabs have said it themselves, they considered themselves to be Syrians, and wanted to belong to Greater Syria after WWI.
NOT Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews. It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

1) Show us those records of citizenship.

2) Judea is the birthplace of Christianity.

At the time Jesus was born, and even when he died, the area was known as Judea. That is where he and all Jews around Jerusalem, Galilllee, etc were born.
That is the area the Romans changed the name.
From Judea to :

Judea (Roman province) - Wikipedia

The Roman province of Judea (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yehuda TiberianYehûḏāh; Arabic: يهودا‎‎; Greek: Ἰουδαία Ioudaia; Latin: Iūdaea), sometimes spelled in its original Latin forms of Iudæa or Iudaea to distinguish it from the geographical region of Judea, incorporated the regions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, and extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, but the Roman province encompassed a much larger territory. The name "Judea" was derived from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century BCE.

The province of Judea was the scene of unrest at its founding in 6 CE during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish–Roman Wars. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE as part of the Great Jewish Revolt, resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus, and after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, which certain scholars conclude was an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region.



---------------
You are a Christian. You should respect the place where Jesus was born and not keep changing its name because you were taught to hate Jews.

There was no Syria Palaestina or Aelia Capitolina, at the time Jesus was born and Christianity came to be.

Use the terms which existed then. Judea, Samaria, Galilee.

There was no Palestine, and there were no Palestinians.

There were Jews, like Jesus, living in a place known as the Roman Province of Judea until 135 CE when the Romans changed the names of Judea and Jerusalem to attempt to make the Jews forget about their ancient homeland.

The End.

That's funny. The maps in my Bible call the place Palestine Pastors I have heard call the Place Palestine.

Just sayin'.

Palestine was the name for a loosely defined geographic area.

Indeed.

I've heard the geographic area of the mid-south of The Great Satan™ called The Bible Belt, also a loosely defined geographic area.

Just sayin'.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews. It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

1) Show us those records of citizenship.

2) Judea is the birthplace of Christianity.

At the time Jesus was born, and even when he died, the area was known as Judea. That is where he and all Jews around Jerusalem, Galilllee, etc were born.
That is the area the Romans changed the name.
From Judea to :

Judea (Roman province) - Wikipedia

The Roman province of Judea (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yehuda TiberianYehûḏāh; Arabic: يهودا‎‎; Greek: Ἰουδαία Ioudaia; Latin: Iūdaea), sometimes spelled in its original Latin forms of Iudæa or Iudaea to distinguish it from the geographical region of Judea, incorporated the regions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, and extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, but the Roman province encompassed a much larger territory. The name "Judea" was derived from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century BCE.

The province of Judea was the scene of unrest at its founding in 6 CE during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish–Roman Wars. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE as part of the Great Jewish Revolt, resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus, and after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, which certain scholars conclude was an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region.



---------------
You are a Christian. You should respect the place where Jesus was born and not keep changing its name because you were taught to hate Jews.

There was no Syria Palaestina or Aelia Capitolina, at the time Jesus was born and Christianity came to be.

Use the terms which existed then. Judea, Samaria, Galilee.

There was no Palestine, and there were no Palestinians.

There were Jews, like Jesus, living in a place known as the Roman Province of Judea until 135 CE when the Romans changed the names of Judea and Jerusalem to attempt to make the Jews forget about their ancient homeland.

The End.

That's funny. The maps in my Bible call the place Palestine Pastors I have heard call the Place Palestine.

Just sayin'.

Palestine was the name for a loosely defined geographic area.

Indeed.

I've heard the geographic area of the mid-south of The Great Satan™ called The Bible Belt, also a loosely defined geographic area.

Just sayin'.

Palestine was the name for a loosely defined geographic area.

With international borders and citizens.

Who are you trying to fool?

 

[Hollie]

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship. I don't see similar records for the Jews. It is possible that some do, but you can't broad brush an entire religion.

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. I am a Christian. Does that mean I can go there, kick somebody out of his house, and start carrying in furniture?

1) Show us those records of citizenship.

2) Judea is the birthplace of Christianity.

At the time Jesus was born, and even when he died, the area was known as Judea. That is where he and all Jews around Jerusalem, Galilllee, etc were born.
That is the area the Romans changed the name.
From Judea to :

Judea (Roman province) - Wikipedia

The Roman province of Judea (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yehuda TiberianYehûḏāh; Arabic: يهودا‎‎; Greek: Ἰουδαία Ioudaia; Latin: Iūdaea), sometimes spelled in its original Latin forms of Iudæa or Iudaea to distinguish it from the geographical region of Judea, incorporated the regions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, and extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, but the Roman province encompassed a much larger territory. The name "Judea" was derived from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century BCE.

The province of Judea was the scene of unrest at its founding in 6 CE during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish–Roman Wars. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE as part of the Great Jewish Revolt, resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus, and after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, which certain scholars conclude was an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region.



---------------
You are a Christian. You should respect the place where Jesus was born and not keep changing its name because you were taught to hate Jews.

There was no Syria Palaestina or Aelia Capitolina, at the time Jesus was born and Christianity came to be.

Use the terms which existed then. Judea, Samaria, Galilee.

There was no Palestine, and there were no Palestinians.

There were Jews, like Jesus, living in a place known as the Roman Province of Judea until 135 CE when the Romans changed the names of Judea and Jerusalem to attempt to make the Jews forget about their ancient homeland.

The End.

That's funny. The maps in my Bible call the place Palestine Pastors I have heard call the Place Palestine.

Just sayin'.

Palestine was the name for a loosely defined geographic area.

Indeed.

I've heard the geographic area of the mid-south of The Great Satan™ called The Bible Belt, also a loosely defined geographic area.

Just sayin'.

Palestine was the name for a loosely defined geographic area.

With international borders and citizens.

Who are you trying to fool?

You should learn to define your terms. The geographic area called The Bible Belt has a population of people living within its loosely defined geographic area. They are citizens of a country you might call The Great Satan™. Despite your insistence, ranting and false premises, the geographic area called Palestine was never a "country". The area was controlled by the Turks.

I would never try to fool a fool. They're better at foolishness than I am.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israel plants trees
Arabs destroy them, again and again

Arson intifada in Israel's north

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

That's too bad. The Islamic holy month of violence and killing is over.

Well good. Now time for gluttony and more violence and killing.

 

[Shusha]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship.

But citizenship is not ancestry. You imply that ancestry gives some sort of legitimacy but then refuse to apply that definition to all peoples. You demand proof of ancestry for one group, while only proof of citizenship for the other. Thus an Arab family from elsewhere who buys a farm in "Palestine" in the 1930s is, according to you, a legitimate Palestinian while a Jewish family from elsewhere who buys a farm in "Palestine" in the 1930s is, according to you, a foreign invader.

You can't have it both ways. Either citizenship is the criteria we are using -- in which case both families listed above are legitimate. OR foreign familial birth is the criteria -- in which case neither of the families listed above are legitimate. Or ancestry is the criteria, which you have been unable to provide a definition for.

What criteria are you using to determine, in practice, who are "settler colonists" and "foreign invaders"? YOU are actually defining people as "foreign invaders" using their cultural and religious background as the criteria for that definition. You never use the terms "foreign invaders" or "settler colonists" when referring to people of Arabic cultural and religious background -- you use that exclusively for Jewish people.

So how about if I use the same criteria that you use -- their cultural and religious background? How to prove ancestry? Easy. Does their cultural and religious background match with the indigenous, pre-invasion culture? Well, let's check. Same language. Same religion. Same system of laws. Same holidays. Same life celebrations. Same traditional foods. Same traditional names. Same clothing. (etc, etc, etc). Well, well. It appears that it DOES, indeed, match. Ancestry proven. Using, actually, the same criteria that you use.

Now, let's check to see if I can apply that universally and objectively. I'm of Scots ancestry. I actually know that for certain because we have physical documentation of my family moving to Canada from Scotland. But let's say I didn't have that documentation. But I spoke Gaelic. And I celebrated uniquely Scottish holidays. And I wore a plaid which was passed down from generation to generation. And I named my children traditional Gaelic names. And we had parritch for breakfast most mornings. Would you be reasonably convinced that I had Scots ancestry? Of course you would.

See how that works? Works pretty well, I think. And we can apply it anywhere. To all cultures. To all peoples. And it turns out that its pretty easy to recognize a Jew. Jewish culture is pretty darn definitive. Much easier than recognizing a Scot. Or a Dane. Or a Swede.

Now, you can accept that criteria and keep using it to define your "foreign invaders", but you are a hypocrite if you do not ALSO use that same criteria for proof of ancestry.

Or you can reject that criteria and reject the premise of ancestry all together and stick to using only non-cultural definitions of "foreign invaders", but you will be a hypocrite if you do not ALSO do that when describing the Jewish people.

My, my. Quite a corner you have painted yourself into, isn't it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

That's too bad. The Islamic holy month of violence and killing is over.

Well good. Now time for gluttony and more violence and killing.

I didn't see any violence until Israel sent in its goons.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?

What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?

For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?

Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship.

But citizenship is not ancestry. You imply that ancestry gives some sort of legitimacy but then refuse to apply that definition to all peoples. You demand proof of ancestry for one group, while only proof of citizenship for the other. Thus an Arab family from elsewhere who buys a farm in "Palestine" in the 1930s is, according to you, a legitimate Palestinian while a Jewish family from elsewhere who buys a farm in "Palestine" in the 1930s is, according to you, a foreign invader.

You can't have it both ways. Either citizenship is the criteria we are using -- in which case both families listed above are legitimate. OR foreign familial birth is the criteria -- in which case neither of the families listed above are legitimate. Or ancestry is the criteria, which you have been unable to provide a definition for.

What criteria are you using to determine, in practice, who are "settler colonists" and "foreign invaders"? YOU are actually defining people as "foreign invaders" using their cultural and religious background as the criteria for that definition. You never use the terms "foreign invaders" or "settler colonists" when referring to people of Arabic cultural and religious background -- you use that exclusively for Jewish people.

So how about if I use the same criteria that you use -- their cultural and religious background? How to prove ancestry? Easy. Does their cultural and religious background match with the indigenous, pre-invasion culture? Well, let's check. Same language. Same religion. Same system of laws. Same holidays. Same life celebrations. Same traditional foods. Same traditional names. Same clothing. (etc, etc, etc). Well, well. It appears that it DOES, indeed, match. Ancestry proven. Using, actually, the same criteria that you use.

Now, let's check to see if I can apply that universally and objectively. I'm of Scots ancestry. I actually know that for certain because we have physical documentation of my family moving to Canada from Scotland. But let's say I didn't have that documentation. But I spoke Gaelic. And I celebrated uniquely Scottish holidays. And I wore a plaid which was passed down from generation to generation. And I named my children traditional Gaelic names. And we had parritch for breakfast most mornings. Would you be reasonably convinced that I had Scots ancestry? Of course you would.

See how that works? Works pretty well, I think. And we can apply it anywhere. To all cultures. To all peoples. And it turns out that its pretty easy to recognize a Jew. Jewish culture is pretty darn definitive. Much easier than recognizing a Scot. Or a Dane. Or a Swede.

Now, you can accept that criteria and keep using it to define your "foreign invaders", but you are a hypocrite if you do not ALSO use that same criteria for proof of ancestry.

Or you can reject that criteria and reject the premise of ancestry all together and stick to using only non-cultural definitions of "foreign invaders", but you will be a hypocrite if you do not ALSO do that when describing the Jewish people.

My, my. Quite a corner you have painted yourself into, isn't it?

YOU are actually defining people as "foreign invaders" using their cultural and religious background as the criteria for that definition.

No I don't. I go by the reason they are there.