The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Shusha]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

 

[Challenger]

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity.

But you have no reasonable definition of any of the terms which includes most groups while excluding the Jewish people.

Its like saying blue is not a color; Rottweilers are not dogs; pizza is not a food; Star Wars is not a movie.

No it isn't. Would you consider Mormons an ethnic group, or Quakers for that matter?

Use your noodle Spiffy. If Mormons had been in Utah for the last 10,000 years, just like the Judaic people have been in the Canaan area, then yes, they likely would be considered an ethnic group. ;--)

you really might want to think things through before you make more wild claims ;--)

You mean wild claims like "the (made up by BoSton1)Judaic people have been in the Canaan area (looks like he finally dropped his assertion about his made up "Canaan valley" at last) for 10,000 years" posted without a shred of corroboration? Yes, you really ought to read a few good books on archaeology anthropology and history, before creating your BS but hey, don't let mundane facts interfere with your little fantasy world.

 

[Challenger]

Correct. A Jewish Frenchman can convert to Catholicism and he remains a Frenchman.

And he remains Jewish.

Just because a rabbi says so? He may still be considered "Jewish" because of some religous dogma, but if his ancestors were ethnically French, he remains French.

 

[Challenger]

No it isn't. Would you consider Mormons an ethnic group, or Quakers for that matter?

That would depend on what qualities they had which might make them an ethnic group, a distinct culture or a "people". Certainly, as Boston already said, an association with a specific territory for a long period of time is one of the best markers of a people. Its one of the strongest arguments made by those who see the Palestinians as a people.

Having a religion does not include or exclude people from being a people, its one of the factors, but not the only one.

Mormons, Quakers, etc. are considered and consider themselves religious groups, just like Jewish people did throughout their history until the advent of Zionism, which as a nationalist irridentist ideology created the dogma that "Jewish People" were an ancient ethnicity exiled from their "homeland" and destined to return there; a perversion of Jewish religious belief. Turanism is another such pseudo-scientific ideology. Turanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Challenger]

But you are doing the same thing -- assuming that only ONE group of the two has a right to self-determination.

Religious cults have a "right to self-determination"? So you'll be happy to move aside when the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster declares Israel is the birthright of all Pastafarians and their self determination as a people? How to Become a Pastafarian

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

After World War 1, when the Arab people were given huge tracts of land on the globe, which just happened to have oil and other natural resources as well, it was decided that less than 1% of that land-mass would be given to the Jews, both because of their historical and ancestral connection to that particular piece of land, and because they needed a refuge from persecution after 2000 years. The Arab people have begrudged this concession.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

After World War 1, when the Arab people were given huge tracts of land on the globe, which just happened to have oil and other natural resources as well, it was decided that less than 1% of that land-mass would be given to the Jews, both because of their historical and ancestral connection to that particular piece of land, and because they needed a refuge from persecution after 2000 years. The Arab people have begrudged this concession.

 

[montelatici]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

After World War 1, when the Arab people were given huge tracts of land on the globe, which just happened to have oil and other natural resources as well, it was decided that less than 1% of that land-mass would be given to the Jews, both because of their historical and ancestral connection to that particular piece of land, and because they needed a refuge from persecution after 2000 years. The Arab people have begrudged this concession.

The inhabitants of the former colonial territories of Turkey were not given anything. They were the inhabitants of the area, it was their land. Europeans of whatever religion had no right to re-colonize the territories.

 

[Phoenall]

The big deal is that the British conspired with the Zionists to colonize Palestine at the expense of the native inhabitants. There was no way to transfer tens of thousands Europeans with the intent of establishing a state for said Europeans without harming the native inhabitants and impeding their right to self-determination. As the current situation demonstrates.

Say this all you want but without ant evidence you are just spreading islamomazi propaganda and Lies

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, only one group had the right to self-determination. The inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant of the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22. Not people living in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

That did not include those that had taken part in the war on the side of the Ottomans, as they lost any rights they had to any lands they had

 

[Phoenall]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

To develop their own governments and nations free from outside influence. You always bang on about the arab muslims rights yet ignore the rights of the Jews to their free determination and a nation of their own.

The big deal is the arab muslims can not be trusted to act fairly in such matters and would have wiped out the Jewish portion of Palestine by now.

 

[Phoenall]

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

After World War 1, when the Arab people were given huge tracts of land on the globe, which just happened to have oil and other natural resources as well, it was decided that less than 1% of that land-mass would be given to the Jews, both because of their historical and ancestral connection to that particular piece of land, and because they needed a refuge from persecution after 2000 years. The Arab people have begrudged this concession.

The minutes of the LoN meetings that show the arab muslims wanted to rule it all

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, only one group had the right to self-determination. The inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant of the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22. Not people living in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

That did not include those that had taken part in the war on the side of the Ottomans, as they lost any rights they had to any lands they had

 

[Phoenall]

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

After World War 1, when the Arab people were given huge tracts of land on the globe, which just happened to have oil and other natural resources as well, it was decided that less than 1% of that land-mass would be given to the Jews, both because of their historical and ancestral connection to that particular piece of land, and because they needed a refuge from persecution after 2000 years. The Arab people have begrudged this concession.

The inhabitants of the former colonial territories of Turkey were not given anything. They were the inhabitants of the area, it was their land. Europeans of whatever religion had no right to re-colonize the territories.

International laws of 1917 say you are wrong and that you don't have a clue what you are talking about

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, only one group had the right to self-determination. The inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant of the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22. Not people living in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

That did not include those that had taken part in the war on the side of the Ottomans, as they lost any rights they had to any lands they had

The treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne that you have been given thousands of times in the past. Don't you bother to read them, is that why you stupidly ask for them all the time

 

[Phoenall]

Correct. A Jewish Frenchman can convert to Catholicism and he remains a Frenchman.

And he remains Jewish.

Just because a rabbi says so? He may still be considered "Jewish" because of some religous dogma, but if his ancestors were ethnically French, he remains French.

Not according to the other members of team Palestine that claim Stalin was a Jew, even though he gave up his religion

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

To develop their own governments and nations free from outside influence. You always bang on about the arab muslims rights yet ignore the rights of the Jews to their free determination and a nation of their own.

The big deal is the arab muslims can not be trusted to act fairly in such matters and would have wiped out the Jewish portion of Palestine by now.

A very small number of Jews lived there with their Muslim and Christian neighbors for hundreds of years. If they wanted to wipe out the Jews it would have been cake.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, only one group had the right to self-determination. The inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant of the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22. Not people living in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

That did not include those that had taken part in the war on the side of the Ottomans, as they lost any rights they had to any lands they had

The treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne that you have been given thousands of times in the past. Don't you bother to read them, is that why you stupidly ask for them all the time

I have. they just don't say what you think.

 

[Phoenall]

No it isn't. Would you consider Mormons an ethnic group, or Quakers for that matter?

That would depend on what qualities they had which might make them an ethnic group, a distinct culture or a "people". Certainly, as Boston already said, an association with a specific territory for a long period of time is one of the best markers of a people. Its one of the strongest arguments made by those who see the Palestinians as a people.

Having a religion does not include or exclude people from being a people, its one of the factors, but not the only one.

Mormons, Quakers, etc. are considered and consider themselves religious groups, just like Jewish people did throughout their history until the advent of Zionism, which as a nationalist irridentist ideology created the dogma that "Jewish People" were an ancient ethnicity exiled from their "homeland" and destined to return there; a perversion of Jewish religious belief. Turanism is another such pseudo-scientific ideology. Turanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you forget that the world full of Jew haters saw them as a race as far back as the time of the Roman conquest. It is only now that the neo Marxists are trying to take this away from the Jews because it is the last border to be brought down.