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

[Sixties Fan]

You are not playing word games. You are really ignorant.

You play the game of numbers.

Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.

Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.

Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.

Palestinian-Arabs are the direct descedents of the Israelites. The Diaspora never happened. It's an urban myth.

See ?
You really are off your rocker.

No lie is big enough for Jew haters to tell.

Old wive's tale, started only after 1948.

 

[rylah]

You're PROUDLY ignorant.

Learn:

I didn't say Jews weren't indigenous. Zionists are not.

So native Jews who supported Zionism all of a sudden become non-indigenous?
What about those Jews who cried for help during the Arab Pogroms that initiated Zionism?

Walk me through that new level of CRAZY

 

[Shusha]

Um. Could it be because you also include the words: asshole, narcissistic, racist, apartheid, hostile and violent when describing Jews? Tough one. But I think that could be it.

Those words are for Zionists, not indigenous Jews.

Um. Yeah. There are "good" Jews (who don't want Jewish self-determination and sovereignty on their own ancestral and historical lands and are happy to be dhimmis) and "bad" Jews who want (the HORROR!) the same rights as other human beings. When I call you out on your flagrant disregard of Jewish history and Jewish rights, you dig in to your nasty little hole. The whole "1967" lines is a farce with you. A sugar coating on your ugly rejection of Jews as a people.

 

[Shusha]

Zionism uses Judaism much the same way a cheap whore uses a tampon. To be used when needed, then discarded in the trash when it is no longer useful.

Dude, you really need to pick up your game. Are you claiming that "real" Jews somehow use tampons differently than "fake" Jews? What? Do they keep them in? Store them in a box in the cupboard? Pass them down to their grandkids?

Now, if you wanted to make a better analogy, you would pick something less, you know, universally useful. A lipstick might work better. "...the same way a cheap whore takes off her lipstick when her husband comes home."

Just helping you out...

 

[Shusha]

The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights. You have no right, to strip them of their rights.

No one is stripping the Arab Palestinians of their rights. (Except their own violence).

What are their rights? List them. Your call.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.

It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.

You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.

Ever.

You're playing word games. The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights. You have no right, to strip them of their rights.

You are not playing word games. You are really ignorant.

You play the game of numbers.

Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.

Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.

Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

 

[Hollie]

It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.

It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.

You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.

Ever.

You're playing word games. The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights. You have no right, to strip them of their rights.

You are not playing word games. You are really ignorant.

You play the game of numbers.

Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.

Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.

Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

So, you’re suggesting that Arab-Moslem is now a nationality?

 

[P F Tinmore]

It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.

It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.

You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.

Ever.

You're playing word games. The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights. You have no right, to strip them of their rights.

You are not playing word games. You are really ignorant.

You play the game of numbers.

Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.

Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.

Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

So, you’re suggesting that Arab-Moslem is now a nationality?

Which Arab Muslims?

 

[Hollie]

It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.

It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.

You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.

Ever.

You're playing word games. The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights. You have no right, to strip them of their rights.

You are not playing word games. You are really ignorant.

You play the game of numbers.

Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.

Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.

Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

So, you’re suggesting that Arab-Moslem is now a nationality?

Which Arab Muslims?

Arabs-Moslems.

 

[rylah]

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.

Who said?
It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.

You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.

For You 400 years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.

Thus the land flourished when her true children returned.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.

Who said?
It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.

You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.

For You 400 years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.

What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?

 

[rylah]

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.

Who said?
It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.

You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.

For You 400 years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.

What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?

This is by definition a self contradicting question.

As in any ethno-religious group, existence of a Jewish community is a function of heritage and ancestry. No one can stay a Jew for more than 3-4 generations if they don't merry and live withing the community. Being a small persecuted tribe, stying tight together was a question of survival.
But anyway this is for the indigenous tribe to decide who belongs and who doesn't.

P F Tinmore
All I'm saying is look at what the land itself shows You,
for whom did it keep her best gifts? Those are her true children.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.

Who said?
It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.

You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.

It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.

For You 400 years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.

What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?

What about the Cave of Machpelah/ Tomb of the Patriarchs? That belongs to all Jews.

 

[Shusha]

What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?

All Jews have ancestors from there. Or else they wouldn't be Jews. They wouldn't be able to carry the traditions from generation to generation to generation. You wouldn't be able to sit at a table for Shabbat in nearly any country in the world and understand it. It is the holding of the traditions and the language and the rituals and the clothing and the legal system and the culture that tells you whether or not a person is Jewish.

The idea that some mass conversion somewhere at some time is "proof" that most Jews aren't really Jews is an invention of those trying to deny Jewish people rights. Its trying to cut people off from their ancestors, using some toxic form of "blood purity".

But if you really want to play that game, you have to play it with everyone. Why don't we test everyone's "blood purity" and see if they really do have ancestors from that place? Your Lebanese Christian farmers which you are so fond of bringing up, for example.

 

[montelatici]

What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?

All Jews have ancestors from there. Or else they wouldn't be Jews. They wouldn't be able to carry the traditions from generation to generation to generation. You wouldn't be able to sit at a table for Shabbat in nearly any country in the world and understand it. It is the holding of the traditions and the language and the rituals and the clothing and the legal system and the culture that tells you whether or not a person is Jewish.

The idea that some mass conversion somewhere at some time is "proof" that most Jews aren't really Jews is an invention of those trying to deny Jewish people rights. Its trying to cut people off from their ancestors, using some toxic form of "blood purity".

But if you really want to play that game, you have to play it with everyone. Why don't we test everyone's "blood purity" and see if they really do have ancestors from that place? Your Lebanese Christian farmers which you are so fond of bringing up, for example.

"All Jews have ancestors from there. Or else they wouldn't be Jews."

That's crazy. That's like saying all Christians have ancestors in Palestine. Neither an Inuit Jew or an Inuit Christian has ancestors from the Middle East.

 

[Billo_Really]

You dream, again.

It's not dreams, its genetics. Just ask Shlomo Sand.

 

[Billo_Really]

Here you are again.
Playing your worthless games.

yawnnnnn

Just answer the question.

 

[Billo_Really]

See ?
You really are off your rocker.

No lie is big enough for Jew haters to tell.

Old wive's tale, started only after 1948.

Why would I hate Jews?

As for the Diaspora, how come there is no physical evidence to be found?

 

[Billo_Really]

So native Jews who supported Zionism all of a sudden become non-indigenous?
What about those Jews who cried for help during the Arab Pogroms that initiated Zionism?

Walk me through that new level of CRAZY

You got a problem with comprehension.

 

[Billo_Really]

Um. Yeah. There are "good" Jews (who don't want Jewish self-determination and sovereignty on their own ancestral and historical lands and are happy to be dhimmis) and "bad" Jews who want (the HORROR!) the same rights as other human beings. When I call you out on your flagrant disregard of Jewish history and Jewish rights, you dig in to your nasty little hole. The whole "1967" lines is a farce with you. A sugar coating on your ugly rejection of Jews as a people.

The Jewish left are good; the Jewish right can go to hell!