What about the precedent that the zionist ideology in Palestine sets for the rest of the world?

[Correll]

I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously now. If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.
...r.

Could you support your premise that that is the basis for national policy in Israel today?

 

[MJB12741]

If you claim this right on another's land, it sets a dangerous precedent, at least it would seem. When you come from another continent, it gets real dicey. When you demolish homes and villages, murder large numbers of the inhabitants, build towns where theirs just stood and only allow a small percentage of people who you havn't terrorized into leaving to live as a second class on their land, then you might be overstepping a tad, no?

You're not getting the LEGAL picture here. The parcel come up for "sale" thru a long chain of OWNERS ending in the Ottoman Empire and then the British Empire. It was AVAILABLE.. At just the right time that the Jewish nation had taken enough abuse to consolidate BACK as a nation.. The OTTOMANS and the BRITS came from other continents as well. And THEY held the land title. NOT the Palestinians or the Jews..

Well, you are suggesting that a group of men from one continent can give another group of men from their continent, the land where others have lived for centuries on another continent.

That in itself seems like a dangerous precedent indeed.

That's the history of the world dude. Where ya been? Not so much since the "game" has wound down into more stability. But that's the way, it "developed". It's now a MATURE neighborhood. With less and less "homeland" fixer upper opportunities. Times' a'wasting for the Pali cause. They don't SEEM to be in any kind of rush. But they better realize this can't go another generation without THEM buying into statehood and stability..

I find it disgusting how zionists blame the victim and all that changed, 'dude,' after Nuremberg. At least the international community believed that it had. Continuing to promote this dangerous ideology is what must stop.

Not following that. Zionists blaming what victim? The British established 2 homelands in THEIR territory. There were no real victims. IN FACT -- prior to the 67 war, the Palis had the ENTIRE WEST BANK, financing from Jordan and representation in the Jordanian govt. You aware of how all that "bliss" ended up -- right????

Like I have always said, Zionists are to blame for this endless conflict with their damn Zionist agenda of peace offerings to Palestinians, security fence & land concessions instead of just treating them with the Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians were so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.

 

[Coyote]

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

No way, I have been clear that we are talking about zionism and people that came from a completely different continent. Read writings from before the zionists came, from Muslims, Christians and Jews who all lived in peace for the most part for centuries. They tell stories of dinners at each others homes and praise the others for their kindness and generosity. Their children played together.

I don't think you can cleanly excise Zionism from the mix and label it as the ideology that destroyed Eden. You had competing forces at work, and the European immigration did not substantially impact those who already lived there. You also had immigration of Arabs from surrounding countries who came for the jobs. Why is one bad and the other not? It also ignores the larger picture of what was happening in the region and around the world with the collapse of empires, the ending of foreign control, and the subsequent rise of nationist movements all over. The Pan Arab Nationism vs the Jewish Nationalism. I'm curious why no one has a problem with Arab nationalism resulting in states while the same goal for Jewish Nationalists is condemned. I think we need to move past this narrative.

 

[Coyote]

I think Abi's "right of self determination" is very arbritrary.

That's interesting as I thought I used it as the zionists do.

That right should be defined simply as this: if you are a defined group, you have that right. It doesn't mean others will recognize it, but they can't take that right away.

Interesting as well. Are you saying whether or not you are recognized as a defined group by others, you still have rights to your ancient homeland? An American group could bring their military to China, steal land and murder everyone not willing to leave or live with new rulers?

Self determination and rights to a homeland are two different things.

In the case of Palestine, you have the difficult situation of multiple groups with rights to the area that need to be worked out.

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

Correct.

Jews were already there. Had been for a long time. That keeps getting left out.

 

[abi]

Jews were already there. Had been for a long time. That keeps getting left out.

I have not left that out if you have been reading my posts, but that changes nothing as far as men coming from another continent behind an army. While the first wave was accepted, in a short time, the Jews, Christians and Muslims all realized that these were not the same people as the Jews of the middle east. And by the second wave, their worst suspicions became reality.

 

[Coyote]

You're not getting the LEGAL picture here. The parcel come up for "sale" thru a long chain of OWNERS ending in the Ottoman Empire and then the British Empire. It was AVAILABLE.. At just the right time that the Jewish nation had taken enough abuse to consolidate BACK as a nation.. The OTTOMANS and the BRITS came from other continents as well. And THEY held the land title. NOT the Palestinians or the Jews..

Well, you are suggesting that a group of men from one continent can give another group of men from their continent, the land where others have lived for centuries on another continent.

That in itself seems like a dangerous precedent indeed.

That's the history of the world dude. Where ya been? Not so much since the "game" has wound down into more stability. But that's the way, it "developed". It's now a MATURE neighborhood. With less and less "homeland" fixer upper opportunities. Times' a'wasting for the Pali cause. They don't SEEM to be in any kind of rush. But they better realize this can't go another generation without THEM buying into statehood and stability..

I find it disgusting how zionists blame the victim and all that changed, 'dude,' after Nuremberg. At least the international community believed that it had. Continuing to promote this dangerous ideology is what must stop.

Not following that. Zionists blaming what victim? The British established 2 homelands in THEIR territory. There were no real victims. IN FACT -- prior to the 67 war, the Palis had the ENTIRE WEST BANK, financing from Jordan and representation in the Jordanian govt. You aware of how all that "bliss" ended up -- right????

Like I have always said, Zionists are to blame for this endless conflict with their damn Zionist agenda of peace offerings to Palestinians, security fence & land concessions instead of just treating them with the Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians were so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.

It takes two to perpetrate a conflict. I also don't think you fully understand the Arab culture. When the empires fell everyone scrambled to carve out their states and blood was shed. What you are doing is absolving one side of all responsibility and that isn't historically accurate.

 

[Coyote]

Jews were already there. Had been for a long time. That keeps getting left out.

I have not left that out if you have been reading my posts, but that changes nothing as far as men coming from another continent behind an army. While the first wave was accepted, in a short time, the Jews, Christians and Muslims all realized that these were not the same people as the Jews of the middle east. And by the second wave, their worst suspicions became reality.

What army?

 

[abi]

and the European immigration did not substantially impact those who already lived there

Really, the indigenous people disagree as explained above,

You also had immigration of Arabs from surrounding countries who came for the jobs. Why is one bad and the other not?

Look at the numbers and you tell me.

The Pan Arab Nationism vs the Jewish Nationalism. I'm curious why no one has a problem with Arab nationalism resulting in states while the same goal for Jewish Nationalists is condemned.

Because the zionists came from another continent behind an army. They were not wanted after the first wave.

I think we need to move past this narrative.

Please do.

 

[abi]

What army?

British and French, please search this yourself.

 

[Coyote]

What army?

British and French, please search this yourself.

The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?

 

[abi]

It takes two to perpetrate a conflict.

Yada yada zionist talking point. After the Europeans were no longer welcome which was made known by the inhabitants of all the religions in the region, they forced themselves on these people. Had that not happened, we would not have this forum.

I also don't think you fully understand the Arab culture.

You clearly do not understand the zionist culture.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think Abi's "right of self determination" is very arbritrary.

That's interesting as I thought I used it as the zionists do.

That right should be defined simply as this: if you are a defined group, you have that right. It doesn't mean others will recognize it, but they can't take that right away.

Interesting as well. Are you saying whether or not you are recognized as a defined group by others, you still have rights to your ancient homeland? An American group could bring their military to China, steal land and murder everyone not willing to leave or live with new rulers?

Self determination and rights to a homeland are two different things.

In the case of Palestine, you have the difficult situation of multiple groups with rights to the area that need to be worked out.

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

Correct.

Jews were already there. Had been for a long time. That keeps getting left out.

OK, but there were two different sets of Jews.

One set were the Jews who lived there forever or moved there for religious reasons to live in the holy land. These Jews became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the Palestinians after WWI. Typically, these Jews were opposed to the Zionist project.

The other set were imported by the Zionists to take over the country for themselves.

To say "the Jews" does not match the reality.

 

[abi]

The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?

In 1948, regardless of what you believe, Ben-Gurion walked into Palestine with the support of the British military, the French too, declared a homeland for his zionist regime in Palestine. The zionist regime was from another continent. And this began the Nakba. The Arab world then, left with no choice responded. They stood no chance and it has been on ongoing war crime ever since. The human rights abuses are unimaginable.

This thread is not about the rehashing of history that happens on every thread. This is clearly about an ideology that underlines this madness and the precedent it sets for humanity going forward.

 

[abi]

These Jews became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the Palestinians after WWI. Typically, these Jews were opposed to the Zionist project.

And to be clear, residing in Israel is far different than going there as an army, using force, establishing a government behind this military, let alone murdering and expelling the native people. This is exactly why the zionists will never speak for the Jewish people.

 

[Coyote]

and the European immigration did not substantially impact those who already lived there

Really, the indigenous people disagree as explained above,

This is where it gets really muddy. The people in that area that are indigenous include the Jews, and as a culture they are probably the oldest continuous culture in that regin with clear ties to the ancient history of the place. So you can't exclude them any more then you can exclude the other native Palestinian groups - Muslims, Druze, Christians who have roots going back centuries. They all have rights of place. Why are Jews excluded from this right?

You also had immigration of Arabs from surrounding countries who came for the jobs. Why is one bad and the other not?

Look at the numbers and you tell me.

This is the best source I've found for this - it pretty debunks the idea that Jews displaced Palestinians and it also debunks the competing claim that the Arab Muslims were all foreign invaders: MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The Pan Arab Nationism vs the Jewish Nationalism. I'm curious why no one has a problem with Arab nationalism resulting in states while the same goal for Jewish Nationalists is condemned.

Because the zionists came from another continent behind an army. They were not wanted after the first wave.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Hollie]

I think Abi's "right of self determination" is very arbritrary.

That's interesting as I thought I used it as the zionists do.

That right should be defined simply as this: if you are a defined group, you have that right. It doesn't mean others will recognize it, but they can't take that right away.

Interesting as well. Are you saying whether or not you are recognized as a defined group by others, you still have rights to your ancient homeland? An American group could bring their military to China, steal land and murder everyone not willing to leave or live with new rulers?

Self determination and rights to a homeland are two different things.

In the case of Palestine, you have the difficult situation of multiple groups with rights to the area that need to be worked out.

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

Correct.

Jews were already there. Had been for a long time. That keeps getting left out.

OK, but there were two different sets of Jews.

One set were the Jews who lived there forever or moved there for religious reasons to live in the holy land. These Jews became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the Palestinians after WWI. Typically, these Jews were opposed to the Zionist project.

The other set were imported by the Zionists to take over the country for themselves.

To say "the Jews" does not match the reality.

What country did The Zionists take over?

 

[Shusha]

Hey Coyote, good to see you here!

 

[Shusha]

[The Arab world then, left with no choice responded.

Of course they had a choice:

"We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home... I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world."

 

[Coyote]

Hey Coyote, good to see you here!

I dropped out for a while - it seemed like the same old arguments over and over....

 

[P F Tinmore]

What army?

British and French, please search this yourself.

The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?

The British occupied Palestine in 1917. They had their army there and the Balfour declaration in their pocket. That was the beginning of the hundred year assault on the Palestinians.

The British were to facilitate Jewish immigration but limit it to the absorption capacity of the economy. The Zionists had a big disagreement with those numbers.