Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
Did you know that until 1948 and the existence of the State of Israel the entire world lived in peace?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?If you were run out an ancestral homeland and abused worldwide you MIGHT have a claim to a Homeland SOMEWHERE.. However -- as it is with ANY real estate market -- you don't get to pick the exact one you came from --- UNLESS -- it happens to "come on the market' at the right time. And this was a case of BEING PREPARED for statehood and having just the perfect AVAILABLE property show up on the listings.
Nothing mysterious. Palestinians ought to do the same. PREPARE for statehood, by getting organized and all Stately with actual LEADERS and appointed diplomats and such... And watching the market for what's "available". Seems like deals could be made in the NEIGHBORHOOD of their homeland between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon to put together a nice "fixer upper" just like Israel started out with...Gotz less to do the Bible actually, then Britain liquidating some wartime assets at the right time. With a little ingenuity and diplo-creativity we could see peace in our time..
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.British and French, please search this yourself.What army?
The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?
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.
Hey Coyote, good to see you here!
I dropped out for a while - it seemed like the same old arguments over and over....
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?
I don't think this is muddy at all. The Jewish people are the oldest continuous surviving culture in the region with clear, unarguable ties to the ancient history of the place. Other groups have roots going back centuries. They all have rights of place.
Its very clear, and very simple.
Hey Coyote, good to see you here!
I dropped out for a while - it seemed like the same old arguments over and over....
Still is. Sigh.
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.Jews were already there. Had been for a long time. That keeps getting left out.
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?Really, the indigenous people disagree as explained above,and the European immigration did not substantially impact those who already lived there
Look at the numbers and you tell me.You also had immigration of Arabs from surrounding countries who came for the jobs. Why is one bad and the other not?
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
Because the zionists came from another continent behind an army. They were not wanted after the first wave.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'm not sure what you mean.
The native Jews have always been accepted as Palestinians. This was a part of the PLO charter.The people in that area that are indigenous include the Jews,
Will you take back your false charge and respond to the topic yet? Or is 'deadly serious' another phrase for your trolling?Deadly serious
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?Really, the indigenous people disagree as explained above,and the European immigration did not substantially impact those who already lived there
Look at the numbers and you tell me.You also had immigration of Arabs from surrounding countries who came for the jobs. Why is one bad and the other not?
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
Because the zionists came from another continent behind an army. They were not wanted after the first wave.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'm not sure what you mean.The native Jews have always been accepted as Palestinians. This was a part of the PLO charter.The people in that area that are indigenous include the Jews,
So much BS and so little time. The Arabs were there continuously for at least 1000 years. There was a smaller group of Christians during this time and a minute to nonexistent Jewish population for most of that time. Again, the Hebrew language was not even spoken there for centuries.
7) After Not Being Spoken for Two Millennia, It Was Dramatically Revived.
Hebrew had not been a spoken language for two millennia, and yet at the end of the 19th century, European Jews dreaming of a cultural renaissance in Palestine began to resurrect the language.
7 Things You Should Know About Hebrew | My Jewish Learning
Stop with zionist talking points and go study!
The word "know" does not apply to Babbly.So much BS and so little time. The Arabs were there continuously for at least 1000 years. There was a smaller group of Christians during this time and a minute to nonexistent Jewish population for most of that time. Again, the Hebrew language was not even spoken there for centuries.
7) After Not Being Spoken for Two Millennia, It Was Dramatically Revived.
Hebrew had not been a spoken language for two millennia, and yet at the end of the 19th century, European Jews dreaming of a cultural renaissance in Palestine began to resurrect the language.
7 Things You Should Know About Hebrew | My Jewish Learning
Stop with zionist talking points and go study!
Did You know Jews used Hebrew alphabet to write Yiddish, Arabic and even English?
That is a common fallacy. The Zionist colonies lived as separate from the Palestinians as possible. One of the rules was that Jewish enterprises could only hire Jewish labor.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.British and French, please search this yourself.What army?
The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?
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.
The British were pressured by the Arabs to limit Jewish immigration and there was a lot of illegal immigration of both Arabs and Jews. In fact, didn't the Jewish immigration bring with it an economic boom that attracted Arabs to come work there?
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?
I don't think this is muddy at all. The Jewish people are the oldest continuous surviving culture in the region with clear, unarguable ties to the ancient history of the place. Other groups have roots going back centuries. They all have rights of place.
Its very clear, and very simple.
It's muddy because of the way people use it to give added weight to one or the other groups claims. That "indiginous" means greater rights of place and subsequently the others who while they may not have a continous culture have family roots going back as far as the Jews. It becomes a means to disenfranchise - whether it's the Palestinians or the Jews who immigrated from Europe and deliberately seperated out when it comes to rights.
Link?That is a common fallacy. The Zionist colonies lived as separate from the Palestinians as possible. One of the rules was that Jewish enterprises could only hire Jewish labor.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.British and French, please search this yourself.What army?
The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?
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.
The British were pressured by the Arabs to limit Jewish immigration and there was a lot of illegal immigration of both Arabs and Jews. In fact, didn't the Jewish immigration bring with it an economic boom that attracted Arabs to come work there?
Why would a Jew want an Arab as a neighbor?That is a common fallacy. The Zionist colonies lived as separate from the Palestinians as possible. One of the rules was that Jewish enterprises could only hire Jewish labor.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.British and French, please search this yourself.What army?
The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?
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.
The British were pressured by the Arabs to limit Jewish immigration and there was a lot of illegal immigration of both Arabs and Jews. In fact, didn't the Jewish immigration bring with it an economic boom that attracted Arabs to come work there?
You don't even know what you post. You asked yesterday and I showed you, then you left.What false charge is that?
I haven't made any claim. I'm asking you a question.
Your OP claims that neither historical indigeniety nor effective sovereignty is a viable justification for rights to self-determination.
That is a common fallacy. The Zionist colonies lived as separate from the Palestinians as possible. One of the rules was that Jewish enterprises could only hire Jewish labor.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.British and French, please search this yourself.What army?
The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?
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.
The British were pressured by the Arabs to limit Jewish immigration and there was a lot of illegal immigration of both Arabs and Jews. In fact, didn't the Jewish immigration bring with it an economic boom that attracted Arabs to come work there?
