Consider The Facts

[turzovka]

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.

Again - what differentiates the examples I gave from each other? Yet they are regarded as separate people.

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.

I seem to recall that agreement also included a requirement that the regions Arab character and population were to be preserved.

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue

I disagree - first, and foremost, that that area referred to as "Occupied Territories" (even the Israeli High Court agrees) belongs to Israel. Show me where their High Court has acknowledged it belongs to Israel?

I can't help but wonder - if you expel civilians...where the hell do you expel them to?

Someone earlier remarked (cannot recall who or when) they were pleased there were new calm voices of some reason in these discussions. Well, I have to count myself out. I am not very calm about this at all. I am both flabbergasted and incensed how utterly blind or unfair the West is to Israel.

Just your questions firmly place you in that group. You have the gall to accuse Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians. In light of all history, I cannot think of anyone more fair and willing than Israel towards the Palestinians and also holding back due anger and restitution towards their many dishonest and malevolent and murderous Arab neighbors.

The very Arab “brothers” who would not think of allowing their Palestinian brothers to emigrate to their lands and be taken care of. These very RICH Arab neighbors who would rather watch their brother exist in squalor for decade after decade why? So they can use them as pawns towards the Jews and try to get despicable sympathy from the greater world. A total sham. They do not care what happens to the palestiniands because their hatred for the Jews is far greater. Like Golda Meir said --- there will only be peace when the Arab mothers and fathers love their children more than they hate us Jews. (Incidentally -- the west never seems to care or notice that tiny Israel in 1948 had to absorb 600,000 Jews kicked out of Arab nations the very same time about 600,000 palestinians by and large left on their own accord Israel. Why is that? Are arabs impervious to doing anything wrong?)

Do you really think we are all so clueless as the way the odious western media reports all this? Do you really think the Jews have not been willing to settle for peace in every way possible since the 1920s and the Arabs have NEVER been willing to settle for any kind of peace or agreement? Why? Because they do not want peace, they want to destroy or eradicate the Jews from the land! But they have no legitimate case whatsoever to support their position. So they lie. And they lie to their children. And the cowardly U.N. and western nations buy into it. Because they either want their oil or they do not want to be their next victims.

How many more decades must we pretend? As far as I am concerned this is all a spiritual battle and always has been. These spiritual forces and elements overtake the Arab mindset and, yes, protect the Jewish one. But since so many of you think that is all laughable now is a good time to stop trying to explain anything.

 

[Coyote]

A)
Your examples are irrelevant. The fact remains that the Arab Muslims of the mandate area are not a distinct people

B)
The agreement does not apply to the condition of war in which case martial law is enacted. Under martial law combatants, legal or not. or people who assist combatants, or people suspected of assisting combatants GIVE UP their protected person status as non combatant civilians and may be expelled to a neutral third country or from a host nation.

C)
The term occupation does not carry the connotations you think it does in this instance.

D)
Protected persons or civilians give up their protections under the geneva conventions when they engage in hostilities against the host nation. Assist those engaged in hostilities against the host nation or are even suspected of assisting in hostilities against the host nation.

In the end Israel has every right to begin immediate and mass exportations of any hostiles within its area of influence.

If I wasn't watching this football game I'd go dig up the exact articles that specify these legalities. But after the game I have a Bowie party to go to. So its going to have to be tomorrow. Although I've specified the exact areas of both the Geneva conventions and the UNs own regulations numerous times already

A) I don't agree

B) I don't agree

C) I don't agree

D) I don't agree

 

[Coyote]

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.

Again - what differentiates the examples I gave from each other? Yet they are regarded as separate people.

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.

I seem to recall that agreement also included a requirement that the regions Arab character and population were to be preserved.

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue

I disagree - first, and foremost, that that area referred to as "Occupied Territories" (even the Israeli High Court agrees) belongs to Israel. Show me where their High Court has acknowledged it belongs to Israel?

I can't help but wonder - if you expel civilians...where the hell do you expel them to?

Someone earlier remarked (cannot recall who or when) they were pleased there were new calm voices of some reason in these discussions. Well, I have to count myself out. I am not very calm about this at all. I am both flabbergasted and incensed how utterly blind or unfair the West is to Israel.

Just your questions firmly place you in that group. You have the gall to accuse Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians. In light of all history, I cannot think of anyone more fair and willing than Israel towards the Palestinians and also holding back due anger and restitution towards their many dishonest and malevolent and murderous Arab neighbors.

Where am I accusing Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians?

The very Arab “brothers” who would not think of allowing their Palestinian brothers to emigrate to their lands and be taken care of. These very RICH Arab neighbors who would rather watch their brother exist in squalor for decade after decade why? So they can use them as pawns towards the Jews and try to get despicable sympathy from the greater world. A total sham. They do not care what happens to the palestiniands because their hatred for the Jews is far greater. Like Golda Meir said --- there will only be peace when the Arab mothers and fathers love their children more than they hate us Jews.

I'm not defending the Arab nation's treatment of the Palestinians.

Do you really think we are all so clueless as the way the odious western media reports all this?

I really don't care.

Do you really think the Jews have not been willing to settle for peace in every way possible since the 1920s and the Arabs have NEVER been willing to settle for any kind of peace or agreement? Why? Because they do not want peace, they want to destroy or eradicate the Jews from the land! But they have no legitimate case whatsoever to support their position. So they lie. And they lie to their children. And the cowardly U.N. and western nations buy into it. Because they either want their oil or they do not want to be their next victims.

Israel is not exactly an innocent bystander here either.

How many more decades must we pretend? As far as I am concerned this is all a spiritual battle and always has been. These spiritual forces and elements overtake the Arab mindset and, yes, protect the Jewish one. But since so many of you think that is all laughable now is a good time to stop trying to explain anything.

I'm really not sure what you are on about or how it relates to this conversation.

 

[turzovka]

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.

Again - what differentiates the examples I gave from each other? Yet they are regarded as separate people.

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.

I seem to recall that agreement also included a requirement that the regions Arab character and population were to be preserved.

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue

I disagree - first, and foremost, that that area referred to as "Occupied Territories" (even the Israeli High Court agrees) belongs to Israel. Show me where their High Court has acknowledged it belongs to Israel?

I can't help but wonder - if you expel civilians...where the hell do you expel them to?

Someone earlier remarked (cannot recall who or when) they were pleased there were new calm voices of some reason in these discussions. Well, I have to count myself out. I am not very calm about this at all. I am both flabbergasted and incensed how utterly blind or unfair the West is to Israel.

Just your questions firmly place you in that group. You have the gall to accuse Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians. In light of all history, I cannot think of anyone more fair and willing than Israel towards the Palestinians and also holding back due anger and restitution towards their many dishonest and malevolent and murderous Arab neighbors.

Where am I accusing Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians?

The very Arab “brothers” who would not think of allowing their Palestinian brothers to emigrate to their lands and be taken care of. These very RICH Arab neighbors who would rather watch their brother exist in squalor for decade after decade why? So they can use them as pawns towards the Jews and try to get despicable sympathy from the greater world. A total sham. They do not care what happens to the palestiniands because their hatred for the Jews is far greater. Like Golda Meir said --- there will only be peace when the Arab mothers and fathers love their children more than they hate us Jews.

I'm not defending the Arab nation's treatment of the Palestinians.

Do you really think we are all so clueless as the way the odious western media reports all this?

I really don't care.

Do you really think the Jews have not been willing to settle for peace in every way possible since the 1920s and the Arabs have NEVER been willing to settle for any kind of peace or agreement? Why? Because they do not want peace, they want to destroy or eradicate the Jews from the land! But they have no legitimate case whatsoever to support their position. So they lie. And they lie to their children. And the cowardly U.N. and western nations buy into it. Because they either want their oil or they do not want to be their next victims.

Israel is not exactly an innocent bystander here either.

How many more decades must we pretend? As far as I am concerned this is all a spiritual battle and always has been. These spiritual forces and elements overtake the Arab mindset and, yes, protect the Jewish one. But since so many of you think that is all laughable now is a good time to stop trying to explain anything.

I'm really not sure what you are on about or how it relates to this conversation.

I gathered as much from a sampling of a number of your posts to this thread. Was I wrong, I am sorry. So then you agree Israel is far more in the right than any Arab position?

Acutally, my comment was for all those who love to argue what a bully or "occupier" Israel has been. So if it does not apply to you, again, my apologies.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.

Again - what differentiates the examples I gave from each other? Yet they are regarded as separate people.

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.

I seem to recall that agreement also included a requirement that the regions Arab character and population were to be preserved.

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue

I disagree - first, and foremost, that that area referred to as "Occupied Territories" (even the Israeli High Court agrees) belongs to Israel. Show me where their High Court has acknowledged it belongs to Israel?

I can't help but wonder - if you expel civilians...where the hell do you expel them to?

Someone earlier remarked (cannot recall who or when) they were pleased there were new calm voices of some reason in these discussions. Well, I have to count myself out. I am not very calm about this at all. I am both flabbergasted and incensed how utterly blind or unfair the West is to Israel.

Just your questions firmly place you in that group. You have the gall to accuse Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians. In light of all history, I cannot think of anyone more fair and willing than Israel towards the Palestinians and also holding back due anger and restitution towards their many dishonest and malevolent and murderous Arab neighbors.

Where am I accusing Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians?

The very Arab “brothers” who would not think of allowing their Palestinian brothers to emigrate to their lands and be taken care of. These very RICH Arab neighbors who would rather watch their brother exist in squalor for decade after decade why? So they can use them as pawns towards the Jews and try to get despicable sympathy from the greater world. A total sham. They do not care what happens to the palestiniands because their hatred for the Jews is far greater. Like Golda Meir said --- there will only be peace when the Arab mothers and fathers love their children more than they hate us Jews.

I'm not defending the Arab nation's treatment of the Palestinians.

Do you really think we are all so clueless as the way the odious western media reports all this?

I really don't care.

Do you really think the Jews have not been willing to settle for peace in every way possible since the 1920s and the Arabs have NEVER been willing to settle for any kind of peace or agreement? Why? Because they do not want peace, they want to destroy or eradicate the Jews from the land! But they have no legitimate case whatsoever to support their position. So they lie. And they lie to their children. And the cowardly U.N. and western nations buy into it. Because they either want their oil or they do not want to be their next victims.

Israel is not exactly an innocent bystander here either.

How many more decades must we pretend? As far as I am concerned this is all a spiritual battle and always has been. These spiritual forces and elements overtake the Arab mindset and, yes, protect the Jewish one. But since so many of you think that is all laughable now is a good time to stop trying to explain anything.

I'm really not sure what you are on about or how it relates to this conversation.

I gathered as much from a sampling of a number of your posts to this thread. Was I wrong, I am sorry. So then you agree Israel is far more in the right than any Arab position?

No. I don't agree Israel is "far more in the right" - it depends on the situation.

Acutally, my comment was for all those who love to argue what a bully or "occupier" Israel has been. So if it does not apply to you, again, my apologies.

I think Israel is wrong in some things and I think the Palestinians are wrong in some things. Neither are angels.

 

[Boston1]

We can hit it tomorrow, but for now I'm kinda distracted. Just made a dinner date with a blue haired beauty and of course there's this game on and then the party later tonight.

I understand your position but I believe mine is well founded within the elements described. I'd suggest finding support for your position within the literature available and presenting it to the group.

My basic contentions are that

1) Palestinians are not a distinct people
2) There is already a state within the mandated area specifically for Arab Muslims
3) Israel is under no obligation to house, lend aid to or provide for in any way, hostile forces against the state of Israel
4) Combatants are not protected persons under the Geneva conventions
5) Israel isn't breaking international law if it seeks to expel combatants
6) The UN has failed to segregate combatants from refugees or their descendants

The list goes on but in the end I think Israel is fast approaching the point where mass expulsions are the appropriate solution

 

[turzovka]

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.

Again - what differentiates the examples I gave from each other? Yet they are regarded as separate people.

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.

I seem to recall that agreement also included a requirement that the regions Arab character and population were to be preserved.

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue

I disagree - first, and foremost, that that area referred to as "Occupied Territories" (even the Israeli High Court agrees) belongs to Israel. Show me where their High Court has acknowledged it belongs to Israel?

I can't help but wonder - if you expel civilians...where the hell do you expel them to?

Someone earlier remarked (cannot recall who or when) they were pleased there were new calm voices of some reason in these discussions. Well, I have to count myself out. I am not very calm about this at all. I am both flabbergasted and incensed how utterly blind or unfair the West is to Israel.

Just your questions firmly place you in that group. You have the gall to accuse Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians. In light of all history, I cannot think of anyone more fair and willing than Israel towards the Palestinians and also holding back due anger and restitution towards their many dishonest and malevolent and murderous Arab neighbors.

Where am I accusing Israel of being unfair to the Palestinians?

The very Arab “brothers” who would not think of allowing their Palestinian brothers to emigrate to their lands and be taken care of. These very RICH Arab neighbors who would rather watch their brother exist in squalor for decade after decade why? So they can use them as pawns towards the Jews and try to get despicable sympathy from the greater world. A total sham. They do not care what happens to the palestiniands because their hatred for the Jews is far greater. Like Golda Meir said --- there will only be peace when the Arab mothers and fathers love their children more than they hate us Jews.

I'm not defending the Arab nation's treatment of the Palestinians.

Do you really think we are all so clueless as the way the odious western media reports all this?

I really don't care.

Do you really think the Jews have not been willing to settle for peace in every way possible since the 1920s and the Arabs have NEVER been willing to settle for any kind of peace or agreement? Why? Because they do not want peace, they want to destroy or eradicate the Jews from the land! But they have no legitimate case whatsoever to support their position. So they lie. And they lie to their children. And the cowardly U.N. and western nations buy into it. Because they either want their oil or they do not want to be their next victims.

Israel is not exactly an innocent bystander here either.

How many more decades must we pretend? As far as I am concerned this is all a spiritual battle and always has been. These spiritual forces and elements overtake the Arab mindset and, yes, protect the Jewish one. But since so many of you think that is all laughable now is a good time to stop trying to explain anything.

I'm really not sure what you are on about or how it relates to this conversation.

I gathered as much from a sampling of a number of your posts to this thread. Was I wrong, I am sorry. So then you agree Israel is far more in the right than any Arab position?

No. I don't agree Israel is "far more in the right" - it depends on the situation.

Acutally, my comment was for all those who love to argue what a bully or "occupier" Israel has been. So if it does not apply to you, again, my apologies.

I think Israel is wrong in some things and I think the Palestinians are wrong in some things. Neither are angels.

Ok, fine, that is your opinion.

And then I stand by my earlier comments. The West is in error.

 

[MJB12741]

No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.

But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states or at least one soon to be state.

Now they are using the excuse of a manufactured peoples to further destabilize Israel.

I say not another inch.

They already have 75% of the mandated area

It's not beside the point. As long as you insist the Palestinians are not "a people" - you disenfranchise them. Every "people" starts somewhere.

Outstsading point. So true "every people starts somewhere." And the Palestinian people started as Jews. Not a single land thieving Muslim Palestinian among them.

 

[Challenger]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

Hmm, well when I actually see a fact, I'll consider it. Any site with the word "Truth" in the title, has to be treated with healthy skepticism. Reading through the site, it's mainly unsubstantiated bovine excrement.

 

[Coyote]

No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.

But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states or at least one soon to be state.

Now they are using the excuse of a manufactured peoples to further destabilize Israel.

I say not another inch.

They already have 75% of the mandated area

It's not beside the point. As long as you insist the Palestinians are not "a people" - you disenfranchise them. Every "people" starts somewhere.

Outstsading point. So true "every people starts somewhere." And the Palestinian people started as Jews. Not a single land thieving Muslim Palestinian among them.

And Jews started off as someone else.

What's your point?

 

[Boston1]

The issue isn't if the Judaic people started off as someone else. And actually best science says they developed right where they are now.

The issue is where did the Arab Muslim culture and people develop who are now trying to squeeze another homeland out of the native Judaic people.

I'd suggest they came from the Arabian peninsula area some time between the 7th and 9th century

As colonists they are not a native people or a first nations tribe and should not be allowed to colonize or displace a first nations people when 75% of the land area designated for the native people has already be awarded to them.

 

[Coyote]

The issue isn't if the Judaic people started off as someone else. And actually best science says they developed right where they are now.

The issue is where did the Arab Muslim culture and people develop who are now trying to squeeze another homeland out of the native Judaic people.

I'd suggest they came from the Arabian peninsula area some time between the 7th and 9th century

As colonists they are not a native people or a first nations tribe and should not be allowed to colonize or displace a first nations people when 75% of the land area designated for the native people has already be awarded to them.

I disagree and agree.

The issue isn't who started off as whom period. Judaic people (Israelites) conquered the existing peoples of the area and then mixed with them. In that sense - they are no different than the later Muslim conquests.

Israelites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several theories exist proposing the origins of the Israelites in raiding groups, infiltrating nomads or emerging from indigenous Canaanites driven from the wealthier urban areas by poverty to seek their fortunes in the highland.[21] Various, ethnically distinct groups of itinerant nomads such as the Habiru and Shasu recorded in Egyptian texts as active in Edom and Canaan could have been related to the later Israelites, which does not exclude the possibility that the majority may have had their origins in Canaan proper. The name Yahweh, the god of the later Israelites, may indicate connections with the region of Mount Seir in Edom.[22]

The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan, though an Egyptian matrix of peoples may also played a role in their ethnogenesis.[23][24][25] with an ethnic composition similar to that in Ammon, Edom and Moab,[24] and including Hapiru and Šośu.[10] The defining feature which marked them off from the surrounding societies was a staunch egalitarian organization focused on Yahweh worship, rather than mere kingship.[24]​

Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like the Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Maghrebis, and most other people today commonly called Arabs, the Palestinians are an Arab people in linguistic and cultural affiliation. Since the Islamic conquest in the 7th century, Palestine, a then Hellenized location, came under the influence of Arabic-speaking Muslim dynasties, including the Kurdish-descent Ayyubids, whose culture and language through the process of Arabization was adopted by the people of Palestine.[19] According to historical records an undetermined part of the present-day Palestinians have roots that go back to before the 7th century, maybe even ancient inhabitants of the area.[104]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#cite_note-Gottwald-24
American historian Bernard Lewis writes:

"Clearly, in Palestine as elsewhere in the Middle East, the modern inhabitants include among their ancestors those who lived in the country in antiquity. Equally obviously, the demographic mix was greatly modified over the centuries by migration, deportation, immigration, and settlement. This was particularly true in Palestine..."[108]
​

They quite clearly are not colonists and both, are quite clearly a mix of indiginous and non-indiginous peoples over their thousands years of history. Perhaps we can put an end to this sillyness.

 

[Boston1]

There is no physical evidence to support the idea of the biblical canaan conquest. Which pretty much negates the assertion, the Judaic people didn't develop within the area of mandate. Best science says they are the first nations people, native people.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjR5piznbTKAhUY4WMKHehyCBgQFgg7MAA&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Ancient/dp/0684869136&usg=AFQjCNHEw_GWs-9GUfSzSw5YLB10NTZEnQ&sig2=sIVAvDiecQ8w5HsFxv6PTw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Once again I'd urge the readers to take anything from WIKI with a big grain of salt given that none of the work their is subject to peer review. Even when it clearly supports my particular view.

 

[Coyote]

There is no physical evidence to support the idea of the biblical canaan conquest. Which pretty much negates the assertion of the Judaic people didn't develop within the area of mandate.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjR5piznbTKAhUY4WMKHehyCBgQFgg7MAA&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Ancient/dp/0684869136&usg=AFQjCNHEw_GWs-9GUfSzSw5YLB10NTZEnQ&sig2=sIVAvDiecQ8w5HsFxv6PTw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Once again I'd urge the readers to take anything from WIKI with a big grain of salt given that none of the work their is subject to peer review. Even when it clearly supports my particular view.

I'm going by what historians said (as I quoted)- they are a mixture of indiginous and invading peoples.

 

[Boston1]

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan,
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area.

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining

 

[Coyote]

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan,
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area.

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining

"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years. Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion. To insist they are colonists is false. They aren't. To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

 

[aris2chat]

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan,
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area.

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining

"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years. Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion. To insist they are colonists is false. They aren't. To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Since Jerusalem is the historic and spiritual center of the jewish faith for over 3000 years, do jewish have a right to live in the land and pray at the mount?

Do muslims have a right to refuse, massacre and erase the history of the jewish people?

Do jews who have been persecuted throughout history and identify as a people and a faith, have a right to a safe homeland?

Did the UN, UK Mandate and LoN have the right to decide the make up and division of the failed Ottoman empire?

Did jewish have a right to buy land in and around Jerusalem since the 1800's and not have the land stolen from them or to be massacred because they bought or developed the land?

When offered the chance by the UN, did the Jews not have the right to create Israel and live in peace there? Did they have the right to defend themselves when attacked?

Jews have always identified as jews, both faith and as a people. Even in countries where they settled they were treated as separated often forced to live apart from the rest of the community and limited to certain jobs and crafts.

 

[Shusha]

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Its neither magic nor arbitrary. With respect to being indigenous -- the test is a recognizable unique culture developed in place. It is not a culture imported from elsewhere. And its not based on genetics (as I've said before, racism assisted by technology).

That said, though the Palestinians are demonstrably NOT indigenous, they still have developed, over time, the right to self-determination and even sovereignty (if they can get their sh*t together in time to take it). Rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory do not arise solely from being indigenous.

That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"? Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable? Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation? Where does it end?

And THAT said, the reason why it is important for First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture. Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples. This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews". As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount". As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it". As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."

 

[MJB12741]

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Its neither magic nor arbitrary. With respect to being indigenous -- the test is a recognizable unique culture developed in place. It is not a culture imported from elsewhere. And its not based on genetics (as I've said before, racism assisted by technology).

That said, though the Palestinians are demonstrably NOT indigenous, they still have developed, over time, the right to self-determination and even sovereignty (if they can get their sh*t together in time to take it). Rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory do not arise solely from being indigenous.

That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"? Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable? Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation? Where does it end?

And THAT said, the reason why it is important for First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture. Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples. This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews". As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount". As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it". As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."

If Israel ever granted the Palestinians their own Palestinian State with self determination without Israel to provide for them any longer, the Palestinians would kill each other over who will rule them & starve to death.

 

[Boston1]

Coyote wants to forgo history and just say we are all mutts. But the facts are somewhat different. Culture, what defines a people is a primary consideration when defining first nations people.

The native american tribes for instance which were highly nomadic each however had unique customs, beliefs, ritchuals, and cerimonies, languages and origins. ( ps english isn't my first language and I'm sick of looking shit up today, so oops on the spelling ) yet each had a traditional homeland they felt responsible for, custodians is about the best term for the connection. Yet they took prisoners and had a lot of genetic exchange. Yet we have remaining of the initial 500 nations about 200 still considered unique cultures associated with thier own individual native homelands.

The middle east isn't entirely unlike NA when it comes to the development of its native tribes. but the Arab Muslim tribe is well described and we know it came from the Arab peninsula. NOT the Canaan valley area. The first identified group in the area is the late stone age Hyksos who have no known culture or language. As soon as culture art, language, written or otherwise, pottery, type of homes constructed come into play the early Hyksos were divided into the various proto cultures.

The native tribes of the Canaan valley developed into the Judaic people from as far back as a culture can be identified in the area.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Judaic people developed in Judea as a native people from the late stone age on.

There is equally no doubt that the Arab Muslims developed from the Arabian peninsula from the remnants of multiple waring peoples who fled there over the centuries since the development of ancient civilizations in about the 7th century and into the the century. With additional expansions as far as Europe up to about the 12th century.

This is all just basic history.

The Judaic culture is unique in its language, customs, dress and religious practices to name just a few.

There is no distinct palestinian culture

But lets tackle this from another angle.

The Arab Muslim colonists already have 75% of the mandate area

The Judaic first nations people won 25% in a bitter war of extermination waged against them by the Muslim colonists.

Whats the problem ?

75% isn't enough