Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Sixties Fan]

Enough already, I never said Jews had no connection, those are your words. Here is what I said that triggered you which was an answer to your point about "the entire source of the conflict."

C'mon, how much more disingenuous can one be?

The behavior and actions taken by every Israeli regime since her inception has absolutely nothing to do with it? The fact that more than half of Israeli Jews want the Christians and Muslims ethnically cleansed has nothing to with it? The massive immigration of Europeans has nothing to do with it, nor the hundreds of thousands of the indigenous people who were ethnically cleansed when the Europeans arrived has nothing to do with it?!?

You may repeat your nonsense all you like.

The indigenous people are the JEWS. Arabs being born in the land of Israel for the past 1400 years, does not make them the indigenous people of the land, anymore than the Portuguese born in Brazil for the past 500 years, makes them indigenous of
Brazil.

The "massive" immigration of Muslims from Bosnia, Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, etc into the land of Israel since 1892 has nothing to do with the Muslims wanting to ethnically cleanse the Jews , and succeeded in doing so, since 1920 out
Gaza, TranJordan, Hebron, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.
No, that ethnic cleansing is not important and has nothing to do with it.

Keep repeating your mantra. Memorex is always useful.

There actually wasnt a "massive" immigration of Arabs during that time...some of that is propoganda designed to delegitimize Palestinian rogjts. There is no way ti know exact numbers other than there was some.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Can we understand this information compared to the number of Jews who were at first immigrating to the land, and later severely cut down by the White Paper?
---------------------
(from your link)
It is not possible to estimate illegal Arab immigration directly, but apparently there was some immigration.
The total Arab immigration to Palestine recorded or estimated by the Mandate government was in the neighborhood of 45,000. Illegal immigration that was not recorded would not register in the final population figures for 1945, because those figures were estimates.

--------------
The number of Muslim immigrants until 1945, legal or illegal, is not by any means a small one. 45,000 plus how many more came in illegally, would still be a higher number of Muslim Arabs who immigrated to the area than the Jews who were allowed to now legally immigrate, or ended up immigrating illegally to save themselves from what was going on in Europe.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Define immigration.

Define settler colonialism.

Right. This is where I thought you were heading with this.

The difference is self-determination and sovereignty. So, let's go back to what I said:

Restart the entire conflict with this thought in mind: The Jewish people have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to be here as the Arab people do, if not more. The Jewish people are the indigenous people whose land has been stolen from them. It is their ancestral and historical home. Their sovereignty over their ancestral lands must be reconstituted and their Nation restored.

Its not enough for the Jewish people to be 'permitted' to live in the territory. The requirement is for sovereignty.

Nice duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Enough already, I never said Jews had no connection, those are your words. Here is what I said that triggered you which was an answer to your point about "the entire source of the conflict."

C'mon, how much more disingenuous can one be?

The behavior and actions taken by every Israeli regime since her inception has absolutely nothing to do with it? The fact that more than half of Israeli Jews want the Christians and Muslims ethnically cleansed has nothing to with it? The massive immigration of Europeans has nothing to do with it, nor the hundreds of thousands of the indigenous people who were ethnically cleansed when the Europeans arrived has nothing to do with it?!?

You may repeat your nonsense all you like.

The indigenous people are the JEWS. Arabs being born in the land of Israel for the past 1400 years, does not make them the indigenous people of the land, anymore than the Portuguese born in Brazil for the past 500 years, makes them indigenous of
Brazil.

The "massive" immigration of Muslims from Bosnia, Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, etc into the land of Israel since 1892 has nothing to do with the Muslims wanting to ethnically cleanse the Jews , and succeeded in doing so, since 1920 out
Gaza, TranJordan, Hebron, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.
No, that ethnic cleansing is not important and has nothing to do with it.

Keep repeating your mantra. Memorex is always useful.

There actually wasnt a "massive" immigration of Arabs during that time...some of that is propoganda designed to delegitimize Palestinian rogjts. There is no way ti know exact numbers other than there was some.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

One thing to mention is that the citizenship order of 1925 gave Palestinians who were out of the country for any reason something like 3 years to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship or lose it. This may have contributed to a bump in the "Arab" population for that time.

 

[Shusha]

Define immigration.

Define settler colonialism.

Right. This is where I thought you were heading with this.

The difference is self-determination and sovereignty. So, let's go back to what I said:

Restart the entire conflict with this thought in mind: The Jewish people have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to be here as the Arab people do, if not more. The Jewish people are the indigenous people whose land has been stolen from them. It is their ancestral and historical home. Their sovereignty over their ancestral lands must be reconstituted and their Nation restored.

Its not enough for the Jewish people to be 'permitted' to live in the territory. The requirement is for sovereignty.

Nice duck.

Come on. How is that a duck? You would phrase it as:

Immigration is moving with the intention of assimilating into a place. Settler colonialism is taking over the place.

But, at its essence, the difference is self-determination and sovereignty.

You are saying that Jews should be permitted to be present but must not have self-determination or sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Define immigration.

Define settler colonialism.

Right. This is where I thought you were heading with this.

The difference is self-determination and sovereignty. So, let's go back to what I said:

Restart the entire conflict with this thought in mind: The Jewish people have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to be here as the Arab people do, if not more. The Jewish people are the indigenous people whose land has been stolen from them. It is their ancestral and historical home. Their sovereignty over their ancestral lands must be reconstituted and their Nation restored.

Its not enough for the Jewish people to be 'permitted' to live in the territory. The requirement is for sovereignty.

Nice duck.

Come on. How is that a duck? You would phrase it as:

Immigration is moving with the intention of assimilating into a place. Settler colonialism is taking over the place.

But, at its essence, the difference is self-determination and sovereignty.

You are saying that Jews should be permitted to be present but must not have self-determination or sovereignty.

Not so. Immigration means that you would share sovereignty with the existing population.

Nobody has the right to exclusive sovereignty.

Settler colonialism is claiming exclusive sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

Nobody has the right to exclusive sovereignty.

Really? So Serbia has no right to exist? Croatia? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Macedonia and Montenegro and Slovenia and Kosovo?

Catalans have no right to sovereignty? Nor Kurds? Nor First Nations peoples? Nor Tibetans? Scots? Irish? Quebecois?

Or Jordan? Or Palestine?

Or India and Pakistan and Bangladesh?

 

[rylah]

British military, Zionist gangs, IDF attacking Palestinian civilians. Starting around1917 and continuing today.

After about a 100 years of Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine (and paying protection) Jews eventually organized armed militias to respond.
How shocking!!!

Q. So what was the excuse for Arab aggression against Jews in Syria-Palestine, before any Zionist shot a bullet?

 

[rylah]

Settler colonialism is claiming exclusive sovereignty.

No it's not.
The establishment of Israel did not expand the territory of any already existing state, imperial power. Which country did Israel expand, Britain, Russia, Morroco?

But If we go with Your criteria universally - then Palestinian Arabs with their support for King Faisal from Mecca, claimed an exclusive Arab right to sovereignty.
Therefore I can easily claim, that Arabs that joined Faisal, including in Palestine, attempted to expand the rule of a Hashemite King from Mecca into the territory of Palestine.

 

[JoelT1]

Mod Edit: the repetitive posting of the same material constitutes spam. Please find some new material to contribute.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Visual:
A photoshopped picture shows Zionist leader Theodor Herzl wearing a keffiyeh (Arab headdress).

(full article online)

PA TV: Israel is “Judaizing” Palestine, committing acts of “forgery and robbery” against holy sites, and “steals our Canaanite heritage” - All media

 

[JoelT1]

Visual:
A photoshopped picture shows Zionist leader Theodor Herzl wearing a keffiyeh (Arab headdress).

(full article online)

PA TV: Israel is “Judaizing” Palestine, committing acts of “forgery and robbery” against holy sites, and “steals our Canaanite heritage” - All media

Funny: Arabs descend from Canaanites? Just 1 problem: Canaanites were not Arabs! Arabs didn’t populate that land until the Middle Ages, thousands of years later

Jews are related to Canaanites, El in Israel was a Canaanite god

 

[JoelT1]

Visual:
A photoshopped picture shows Zionist leader Theodor Herzl wearing a keffiyeh (Arab headdress).

(full article online)

PA TV: Israel is “Judaizing” Palestine, committing acts of “forgery and robbery” against holy sites, and “steals our Canaanite heritage” - All media

Get this: Palestine doesn’t appear in Arabs’ Koran But, in it, Allah decrees the land to Children of Israel (17:104)

Unfortunately, many Arabs, Muslims are pathological liars

 

[rylah]

Visual:
A photoshopped picture shows Zionist leader Theodor Herzl wearing a keffiyeh (Arab headdress).

(full article online)

PA TV: Israel is “Judaizing” Palestine, committing acts of “forgery and robbery” against holy sites, and “steals our Canaanite heritage” - All media

Kafiyeh Hertzel.....Hipster ben-Gurion:

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nobody has the right to exclusive sovereignty.

Really? So Serbia has no right to exist? Croatia? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Macedonia and Montenegro and Slovenia and Kosovo?

Catalans have no right to sovereignty? Nor Kurds? Nor First Nations peoples? Nor Tibetans? Scots? Irish? Quebecois?

Or Jordan? Or Palestine?

Or India and Pakistan and Bangladesh?

You are trying to confuse the issue.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you MISREAD the comment.

This was actually a One-State Solution, with the Arab Majority in power.

This proposal was rejected by Israel, as it would have amounted to the disbanding of the state of Israel.

(COMMENT)

This was an ffer to dismantle the Jewish State. It was not a Peace Settlement.

Most Respectfully,
R

So any offer to dismantle Palestine is not a peace Settlement?

(COMMENT)

Any offer that requires the dismantlement of the Jewish State is effectively a requirement for the Israeli people to forfeit their right to independence, territorial integrity, and self-determination.

That it is essentially demanding of the Israelis (with a Jewish Minority) to submit to domination of a failed state, totally inferior people on the Human Development Index (with an Arab Palestinian Majority).

That becomes a One-State solution.

This is not a Peace Agreement but an unconditional surrender. It is totally unacceptable. No state, able to defend itself as often as it has, against the Arab League, would agree to become submissive to any Arab State with Islamist or Jihadist tendencies. And no member of the Arab League would want the Israelis to surrender its domestic holding (including military firepower) to an Arab Palestinian community that has had close and continuous ties with the Iranians, of any of the Regional Jihadist, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters that might become a threat to their respective nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Nobody has the right to exclusive sovereignty.

Really? So Serbia has no right to exist? Croatia? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Macedonia and Montenegro and Slovenia and Kosovo?

Catalans have no right to sovereignty? Nor Kurds? Nor First Nations peoples? Nor Tibetans? Scots? Irish? Quebecois?

Or Jordan? Or Palestine?

Or India and Pakistan and Bangladesh?

You are trying to confuse the issue.

No, I'm not confusing the issue. This IS the issue.

Do people have the rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory or do they not?

Do the Serbs have this right or not?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
No, I'm not confusing the issue. This IS the issue.

Do people have the rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory or do they not?

Do the Serbs have this right or not?

For the most part you're a good, serious debater....

But you also like to play dumb and confuse the issues.

Right now, you're trying to create a false, pathetic equivalence between a genuine independence movement of the native peoples of Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan and a colonialist, ethnocratic movement where:

1 An european power occupied militarily a region in the Middle East, taking away by the force of arms the right of the native inhabitants to maintain their society and ethnic composition.

2 A colonialist movement created by europeans of jewish faith that, between 1880 and well into the 20th century, was supported by a TINY minority of the people/religious group they claimed to represent, was allowed by the invading european power to create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society from the existing native society (one of the defining traits of a colony).

3 After the war against the European Power that acted as a typical "metropolis" of the classic cases of colonialism in the Americas, protecting the colonization of the region for 30 years, the colonists drove the native inhabitants into ethnic enclaves where they are kept to this day under the threat of death.

 

[José]

What the hell a legitimate, nativist independence movement like the one in Catalonia has to do with a colonialist movement that ended up as a racial dictatorship like the one described above?

Some members of the Board have the mistaken belief that just because they are debating through the Internet instead of face to face their fellow debaters can't distinguish the occasions when they try to create confusion, when they try to play dumb.

I have bad news for them....

Just like it is perfectly possible to separate the serious debaters like Rocco, Challenger, etc, etc... from trolls who say things they don't actually believe just to irritate others it's also perfectly possible to perceive when a SERIOUS, GOOD debater is just playing dumb in an attempt to create confusion.

 

[JoelT1]

Define immigration.

Define settler colonialism.

Right. This is where I thought you were heading with this.

The difference is self-determination and sovereignty. So, let's go back to what I said:

Restart the entire conflict with this thought in mind: The Jewish people have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to be here as the Arab people do, if not more. The Jewish people are the indigenous people whose land has been stolen from them. It is their ancestral and historical home. Their sovereignty over their ancestral lands must be reconstituted and their Nation restored.

Its not enough for the Jewish people to be 'permitted' to live in the territory. The requirement is for sovereignty.

Nice duck.

Come on. How is that a duck? You would phrase it as:

Immigration is moving with the intention of assimilating into a place. Settler colonialism is taking over the place.

But, at its essence, the difference is self-determination and sovereignty.

You are saying that Jews should be permitted to be present but must not have self-determination or sovereignty.

Not so. Immigration means that you would share sovereignty with the existing population.

Nobody has the right to exclusive sovereignty.

Settler colonialism is claiming exclusive sovereignty.

History Lesson: Jews, the indigenous People, established sovereignty over Israel 3000+ years ago. Israel has been the only historically legitimate name of the land since that time to today. Palestine was an illegitimate Roman name imposed on ancient Israel

Ancient synagogue in Israel Surprising Mosaics Revealed in Ancient Synagogue in Israel