Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that. I think not.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ms Arraf, esq. is up in Albany (more a political animal and less of an attorney --- clearly knows nothing about nation building). Like many attorneys-at-law, she has fairly good speaking skills and choses her words wisely. Like all Americans, she has her opinion.

Who are the Palestinians?
Huwaida Arraf

(COMMENT)

Her presentation, especially with the baby in arms, is a carefully crafted theatrical performance designed to appeal to the emotion of the audience which was pro-Palestinian. But make no mistake, without becoming confrontational, she espouses the Palestinian concept that Palestinian (from the river to the sea) is her national identity.

KHAN YOUNIS (Alresalah.ps) Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott. ... ... ... Al-Zahhar stressed that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) refuses a Palestinian state within the 1967 or 1948 territories, saying "Our policy is Palestine, all of Palestine". He explained that Palestine as a whole is a part of the Islamic dogma that is derived from the Holy Qura'an.

Speaking of relations with the Islamic Jihad, al-Zahhar confirmed that both movements cooperate at political, security, military, and syndicate levels. Political leaders meet continuously, said al-Zahhar. At military level, there is a full coordination between Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, added he.

Al-Zahhar expressed his aspirations that both movements would unit, alongside with other Palestinian parties, to confront the Israeli occupier.
​

This very important. This is a direction connection between HAMAS and another terrorist organization called the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. She advocate the same tenants that pro-HAMAS followers hold: the political position that "(T)here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

No matter how cute she might look up on the stage, she holds some dangerous ideas that parallel those of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is dangerous?

What did she say that was incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Her opinion implies some dangerous ideas that promote the continuation of conflict.

How so?

Her opinion suggest that to be Palestinian is to be from any place that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

Palestine was formerly under mandate.

So?

Thus, instead of being an Arab of Israel, she is Palestinian.

Isn't Arab a race and Palestinian a nationality? Why would they classify people by race unless they were racist. My ID does not list my race because where I live it doesn't matter.

That is improper although eloquently argued. If you were born in Israel, you are a citizen of Israel with the nationality as law dictates. To be Palestinian, you must have been a citizen of the West Bank or Gaza Strip; or born prior to 1948 during the Administration of the Mandate. (BTW: Huwaida Arraf was born in Detroit --- American.)

Her opinion implies that she is a member of a minority class in Israel; arguing as if there is something wrong or illegal about that.

Actually she said that Israel made Palestinians a minority in their own country. Remember, Palestinians are not immigrants. They were Palestinians who were living there before Israel.

It is a rare nation in the world that has the same number (equal proportions) of each ethnic constituents represented in the general population. Once you understand this, you can by logical extension, the absurdity of her argument. Of course their is going to be a majority aspect to a portion of the population. And, that means there will be a "minority." She is complaining that she is of a minority heritage. Well, somebody has to be the minority if that are not equal in numbers.

She points out that as a "Palestinian" she is subjected to extra security scrutiny at the Ben-Gurion Airport. As if that is a bad thing. The risk assessment suggests that given and Israeli and a Palestinian, the Palestinian is more likely to be a security threat to the aircraft and passengers that the Israeli. With the exception of Jewish Israeli named --- Israel Rabinowits --- how many Jewish suicide bombers have you heard of --- certainly none in the last 30 years (1983 was the last time). I can't find an example of a Jewish hijacker. But in scanning the List of Aircraft Hijackings, there are many many examples of Palestinians engaged in hijacking aircraft. People who identify with "Palestinians and the Palestinian Cause" are more likely to be a security threat than other ethnic groups.

She argue and by implication suggests that Israel being a "Jewish" State is somehow wrong. The San Remo Convention, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Resolution of November 1947 [A/RES/181(II)] all suggest otherwise; either in terms of the "Jewish National Home" or the "Jewish State." Whatever the State of Israel wants to call themselves is up to them. It is a domestic issue. Neither a crackpot attorney from the US --- nor the UN can challenge and change the internal decision.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Ms Arraf spent a lot of time on the topic of discrimination. Again, a domestic issues pertaining to laws enacted through the Knesset. But she also argues that laws and investigative responsibilities to pursue those people that provides material support or resources and functionally conceals or disguises the nature of the support to a terrorist or a terrorist organization. And by innuendo, suggests that this is malfeasant. The US knows quite well the consequences and impact of not pursuing those engaged in direct or indirect support to terrorist operations. By extension she is advocating that a Palestinian and a Jewish Citizen should be handled and considered to be the projecting the same level of threat --- thus given the same freedoms from scrutiny and access. If a Palestinian fits the profile and there is reasonable cause to suspect a terrorist connection, then of course they should be considered for investigation. In America, we call this "Probable Cause." And no matter a finely she wraps the argument around it, the persons suspected of illicit activity along those lines should be pursued and, if necessary, prosecuted. This is not a bad thing. This is how it is suppose to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the arabs had inhabited Palestine before the 7C, and had continued to hold sovereign control ever since ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that. I think not.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ms Arraf, esq. is up in Albany (more a political animal and less of an attorney --- clearly knows nothing about nation building). Like many attorneys-at-law, she has fairly good speaking skills and choses her words wisely. Like all Americans, she has her opinion.

Who are the Palestinians?
Huwaida Arraf

(COMMENT)

Her presentation, especially with the baby in arms, is a carefully crafted theatrical performance designed to appeal to the emotion of the audience which was pro-Palestinian. But make no mistake, without becoming confrontational, she espouses the Palestinian concept that Palestinian (from the river to the sea) is her national identity.

KHAN YOUNIS (Alresalah.ps) Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott. ... ... ... Al-Zahhar stressed that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) refuses a Palestinian state within the 1967 or 1948 territories, saying "Our policy is Palestine, all of Palestine". He explained that Palestine as a whole is a part of the Islamic dogma that is derived from the Holy Qura'an.

Speaking of relations with the Islamic Jihad, al-Zahhar confirmed that both movements cooperate at political, security, military, and syndicate levels. Political leaders meet continuously, said al-Zahhar. At military level, there is a full coordination between Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, added he.

Al-Zahhar expressed his aspirations that both movements would unit, alongside with other Palestinian parties, to confront the Israeli occupier.
​

This very important. This is a direction connection between HAMAS and another terrorist organization called the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. She advocate the same tenants that pro-HAMAS followers hold: the political position that "(T)here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

No matter how cute she might look up on the stage, she holds some dangerous ideas that parallel those of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is dangerous?

What did she say that was incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Her opinion implies some dangerous ideas that promote the continuation of conflict.

How so?

Her opinion suggest that to be Palestinian is to be from any place that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

Palestine was formerly under mandate.

So?

Thus, instead of being an Arab of Israel, she is Palestinian.

Isn't Arab a race and Palestinian a nationality? Why would they classify people by race unless they were racist. My ID does not list my race because where I live it doesn't matter.

That is improper although eloquently argued. If you were born in Israel, you are a citizen of Israel with the nationality as law dictates. To be Palestinian, you must have been a citizen of the West Bank or Gaza Strip; or born prior to 1948 during the Administration of the Mandate. (BTW: Huwaida Arraf was born in Detroit --- American.)

Her opinion implies that she is a member of a minority class in Israel; arguing as if there is something wrong or illegal about that.

Actually she said that Israel made Palestinians a minority in their own country. Remember, Palestinians are not immigrants. They were Palestinians who were living there before Israel.

It is a rare nation in the world that has the same number (equal proportions) of each ethnic constituents represented in the general population. Once you understand this, you can by logical extension, the absurdity of her argument. Of course their is going to be a majority aspect to a portion of the population. And, that means there will be a "minority." She is complaining that she is of a minority heritage. Well, somebody has to be the minority if that are not equal in numbers.

She points out that as a "Palestinian" she is subjected to extra security scrutiny at the Ben-Gurion Airport. As if that is a bad thing. The risk assessment suggests that given and Israeli and a Palestinian, the Palestinian is more likely to be a security threat to the aircraft and passengers that the Israeli. With the exception of Jewish Israeli named --- Israel Rabinowits --- how many Jewish suicide bombers have you heard of --- certainly none in the last 30 years (1983 was the last time). I can't find an example of a Jewish hijacker. But in scanning the List of Aircraft Hijackings, there are many many examples of Palestinians engaged in hijacking aircraft. People who identify with "Palestinians and the Palestinian Cause" are more likely to be a security threat than other ethnic groups.

She argue and by implication suggests that Israel being a "Jewish" State is somehow wrong. The San Remo Convention, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Resolution of November 1947 [A/RES/181(II)] all suggest otherwise; either in terms of the "Jewish National Home" or the "Jewish State." Whatever the State of Israel wants to call themselves is up to them. It is a domestic issue. Neither a crackpot attorney from the US --- nor the UN can challenge and change the internal decision.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Ms Arraf spent a lot of time on the topic of discrimination. Again, a domestic issues pertaining to laws enacted through the Knesset. But she also argues that laws and investigative responsibilities to pursue those people that provides material support or resources and functionally conceals or disguises the nature of the support to a terrorist or a terrorist organization. And by innuendo, suggests that this is malfeasant. The US knows quite well the consequences and impact of not pursuing those engaged in direct or indirect support to terrorist operations. By extension she is advocating that a Palestinian and a Jewish Citizen should be handled and considered to be the projecting the same level of threat --- thus given the same freedoms from scrutiny and access. If a Palestinian fits the profile and there is reasonable cause to suspect a terrorist connection, then of course they should be considered for investigation. In America, we call this "Probable Cause." And no matter a finely she wraps the argument around it, the persons suspected of illicit activity along those lines should be pursued and, if necessary, prosecuted. This is not a bad thing. This is how it is suppose to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the arabs had inhabited Palestine before the 7C, and had continued to hold sovereign control ever since ?

I don't even believe that all Palestinians are Arabs. Looking at their history it is highly unlikely.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that. I think not.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ms Arraf, esq. is up in Albany (more a political animal and less of an attorney --- clearly knows nothing about nation building). Like many attorneys-at-law, she has fairly good speaking skills and choses her words wisely. Like all Americans, she has her opinion.

(COMMENT)

Her presentation, especially with the baby in arms, is a carefully crafted theatrical performance designed to appeal to the emotion of the audience which was pro-Palestinian. But make no mistake, without becoming confrontational, she espouses the Palestinian concept that Palestinian (from the river to the sea) is her national identity.

KHAN YOUNIS (Alresalah.ps) Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott. ... ... ... Al-Zahhar stressed that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) refuses a Palestinian state within the 1967 or 1948 territories, saying "Our policy is Palestine, all of Palestine". He explained that Palestine as a whole is a part of the Islamic dogma that is derived from the Holy Qura'an.

Speaking of relations with the Islamic Jihad, al-Zahhar confirmed that both movements cooperate at political, security, military, and syndicate levels. Political leaders meet continuously, said al-Zahhar. At military level, there is a full coordination between Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, added he.

Al-Zahhar expressed his aspirations that both movements would unit, alongside with other Palestinian parties, to confront the Israeli occupier.
​

This very important. This is a direction connection between HAMAS and another terrorist organization called the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. She advocate the same tenants that pro-HAMAS followers hold: the political position that "(T)here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

No matter how cute she might look up on the stage, she holds some dangerous ideas that parallel those of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is dangerous?

What did she say that was incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Her opinion implies some dangerous ideas that promote the continuation of conflict.

How so?

Her opinion suggest that to be Palestinian is to be from any place that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

Palestine was formerly under mandate.

So?

Thus, instead of being an Arab of Israel, she is Palestinian.

Isn't Arab a race and Palestinian a nationality? Why would they classify people by race unless they were racist. My ID does not list my race because where I live it doesn't matter.

That is improper although eloquently argued. If you were born in Israel, you are a citizen of Israel with the nationality as law dictates. To be Palestinian, you must have been a citizen of the West Bank or Gaza Strip; or born prior to 1948 during the Administration of the Mandate. (BTW: Huwaida Arraf was born in Detroit --- American.)

Her opinion implies that she is a member of a minority class in Israel; arguing as if there is something wrong or illegal about that.

Actually she said that Israel made Palestinians a minority in their own country. Remember, Palestinians are not immigrants. They were Palestinians who were living there before Israel.

It is a rare nation in the world that has the same number (equal proportions) of each ethnic constituents represented in the general population. Once you understand this, you can by logical extension, the absurdity of her argument. Of course their is going to be a majority aspect to a portion of the population. And, that means there will be a "minority." She is complaining that she is of a minority heritage. Well, somebody has to be the minority if that are not equal in numbers.

She points out that as a "Palestinian" she is subjected to extra security scrutiny at the Ben-Gurion Airport. As if that is a bad thing. The risk assessment suggests that given and Israeli and a Palestinian, the Palestinian is more likely to be a security threat to the aircraft and passengers that the Israeli. With the exception of Jewish Israeli named --- Israel Rabinowits --- how many Jewish suicide bombers have you heard of --- certainly none in the last 30 years (1983 was the last time). I can't find an example of a Jewish hijacker. But in scanning the List of Aircraft Hijackings, there are many many examples of Palestinians engaged in hijacking aircraft. People who identify with "Palestinians and the Palestinian Cause" are more likely to be a security threat than other ethnic groups.

She argue and by implication suggests that Israel being a "Jewish" State is somehow wrong. The San Remo Convention, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Resolution of November 1947 [A/RES/181(II)] all suggest otherwise; either in terms of the "Jewish National Home" or the "Jewish State." Whatever the State of Israel wants to call themselves is up to them. It is a domestic issue. Neither a crackpot attorney from the US --- nor the UN can challenge and change the internal decision.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Ms Arraf spent a lot of time on the topic of discrimination. Again, a domestic issues pertaining to laws enacted through the Knesset. But she also argues that laws and investigative responsibilities to pursue those people that provides material support or resources and functionally conceals or disguises the nature of the support to a terrorist or a terrorist organization. And by innuendo, suggests that this is malfeasant. The US knows quite well the consequences and impact of not pursuing those engaged in direct or indirect support to terrorist operations. By extension she is advocating that a Palestinian and a Jewish Citizen should be handled and considered to be the projecting the same level of threat --- thus given the same freedoms from scrutiny and access. If a Palestinian fits the profile and there is reasonable cause to suspect a terrorist connection, then of course they should be considered for investigation. In America, we call this "Probable Cause." And no matter a finely she wraps the argument around it, the persons suspected of illicit activity along those lines should be pursued and, if necessary, prosecuted. This is not a bad thing. This is how it is suppose to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the arabs had inhabited Palestine before the 7C, and had continued to hold sovereign control ever since ?

I don't even believe that all Palestinians are Arabs. Looking at their history it is highly unlikely.

Many are Jews that have lived in the area for 4,500 years, the arabs cant even manage 100 years

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that. I think not.

What is dangerous?

What did she say that was incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Her opinion implies some dangerous ideas that promote the continuation of conflict.

How so?

Her opinion suggest that to be Palestinian is to be from any place that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

Palestine was formerly under mandate.

So?

Thus, instead of being an Arab of Israel, she is Palestinian.

Isn't Arab a race and Palestinian a nationality? Why would they classify people by race unless they were racist. My ID does not list my race because where I live it doesn't matter.

That is improper although eloquently argued. If you were born in Israel, you are a citizen of Israel with the nationality as law dictates. To be Palestinian, you must have been a citizen of the West Bank or Gaza Strip; or born prior to 1948 during the Administration of the Mandate. (BTW: Huwaida Arraf was born in Detroit --- American.)

Her opinion implies that she is a member of a minority class in Israel; arguing as if there is something wrong or illegal about that.

Actually she said that Israel made Palestinians a minority in their own country. Remember, Palestinians are not immigrants. They were Palestinians who were living there before Israel.

It is a rare nation in the world that has the same number (equal proportions) of each ethnic constituents represented in the general population. Once you understand this, you can by logical extension, the absurdity of her argument. Of course their is going to be a majority aspect to a portion of the population. And, that means there will be a "minority." She is complaining that she is of a minority heritage. Well, somebody has to be the minority if that are not equal in numbers.

She points out that as a "Palestinian" she is subjected to extra security scrutiny at the Ben-Gurion Airport. As if that is a bad thing. The risk assessment suggests that given and Israeli and a Palestinian, the Palestinian is more likely to be a security threat to the aircraft and passengers that the Israeli. With the exception of Jewish Israeli named --- Israel Rabinowits --- how many Jewish suicide bombers have you heard of --- certainly none in the last 30 years (1983 was the last time). I can't find an example of a Jewish hijacker. But in scanning the List of Aircraft Hijackings, there are many many examples of Palestinians engaged in hijacking aircraft. People who identify with "Palestinians and the Palestinian Cause" are more likely to be a security threat than other ethnic groups.

She argue and by implication suggests that Israel being a "Jewish" State is somehow wrong. The San Remo Convention, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Resolution of November 1947 [A/RES/181(II)] all suggest otherwise; either in terms of the "Jewish National Home" or the "Jewish State." Whatever the State of Israel wants to call themselves is up to them. It is a domestic issue. Neither a crackpot attorney from the US --- nor the UN can challenge and change the internal decision.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Ms Arraf spent a lot of time on the topic of discrimination. Again, a domestic issues pertaining to laws enacted through the Knesset. But she also argues that laws and investigative responsibilities to pursue those people that provides material support or resources and functionally conceals or disguises the nature of the support to a terrorist or a terrorist organization. And by innuendo, suggests that this is malfeasant. The US knows quite well the consequences and impact of not pursuing those engaged in direct or indirect support to terrorist operations. By extension she is advocating that a Palestinian and a Jewish Citizen should be handled and considered to be the projecting the same level of threat --- thus given the same freedoms from scrutiny and access. If a Palestinian fits the profile and there is reasonable cause to suspect a terrorist connection, then of course they should be considered for investigation. In America, we call this "Probable Cause." And no matter a finely she wraps the argument around it, the persons suspected of illicit activity along those lines should be pursued and, if necessary, prosecuted. This is not a bad thing. This is how it is suppose to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the arabs had inhabited Palestine before the 7C, and had continued to hold sovereign control ever since ?

I don't even believe that all Palestinians are Arabs. Looking at their history it is highly unlikely.

Many are Jews that have lived in the area for 4,500 years, the arabs cant even manage 100 years

Are all of these Palestinians Arabs? What do Arabs look like?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that. I think not.

(COMMENT)

Her opinion implies some dangerous ideas that promote the continuation of conflict.

How so?

Her opinion suggest that to be Palestinian is to be from any place that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

Palestine was formerly under mandate.

So?

Thus, instead of being an Arab of Israel, she is Palestinian.

Isn't Arab a race and Palestinian a nationality? Why would they classify people by race unless they were racist. My ID does not list my race because where I live it doesn't matter.

That is improper although eloquently argued. If you were born in Israel, you are a citizen of Israel with the nationality as law dictates. To be Palestinian, you must have been a citizen of the West Bank or Gaza Strip; or born prior to 1948 during the Administration of the Mandate. (BTW: Huwaida Arraf was born in Detroit --- American.)

Her opinion implies that she is a member of a minority class in Israel; arguing as if there is something wrong or illegal about that.

Actually she said that Israel made Palestinians a minority in their own country. Remember, Palestinians are not immigrants. They were Palestinians who were living there before Israel.

It is a rare nation in the world that has the same number (equal proportions) of each ethnic constituents represented in the general population. Once you understand this, you can by logical extension, the absurdity of her argument. Of course their is going to be a majority aspect to a portion of the population. And, that means there will be a "minority." She is complaining that she is of a minority heritage. Well, somebody has to be the minority if that are not equal in numbers.

She points out that as a "Palestinian" she is subjected to extra security scrutiny at the Ben-Gurion Airport. As if that is a bad thing. The risk assessment suggests that given and Israeli and a Palestinian, the Palestinian is more likely to be a security threat to the aircraft and passengers that the Israeli. With the exception of Jewish Israeli named --- Israel Rabinowits --- how many Jewish suicide bombers have you heard of --- certainly none in the last 30 years (1983 was the last time). I can't find an example of a Jewish hijacker. But in scanning the List of Aircraft Hijackings, there are many many examples of Palestinians engaged in hijacking aircraft. People who identify with "Palestinians and the Palestinian Cause" are more likely to be a security threat than other ethnic groups.

She argue and by implication suggests that Israel being a "Jewish" State is somehow wrong. The San Remo Convention, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Resolution of November 1947 [A/RES/181(II)] all suggest otherwise; either in terms of the "Jewish National Home" or the "Jewish State." Whatever the State of Israel wants to call themselves is up to them. It is a domestic issue. Neither a crackpot attorney from the US --- nor the UN can challenge and change the internal decision.

​

Ms Arraf spent a lot of time on the topic of discrimination. Again, a domestic issues pertaining to laws enacted through the Knesset. But she also argues that laws and investigative responsibilities to pursue those people that provides material support or resources and functionally conceals or disguises the nature of the support to a terrorist or a terrorist organization. And by innuendo, suggests that this is malfeasant. The US knows quite well the consequences and impact of not pursuing those engaged in direct or indirect support to terrorist operations. By extension she is advocating that a Palestinian and a Jewish Citizen should be handled and considered to be the projecting the same level of threat --- thus given the same freedoms from scrutiny and access. If a Palestinian fits the profile and there is reasonable cause to suspect a terrorist connection, then of course they should be considered for investigation. In America, we call this "Probable Cause." And no matter a finely she wraps the argument around it, the persons suspected of illicit activity along those lines should be pursued and, if necessary, prosecuted. This is not a bad thing. This is how it is suppose to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the arabs had inhabited Palestine before the 7C, and had continued to hold sovereign control ever since ?

I don't even believe that all Palestinians are Arabs. Looking at their history it is highly unlikely.

Many are Jews that have lived in the area for 4,500 years, the arabs cant even manage 100 years

Are all of these Palestinians Arabs? What do Arabs look like?

Can you prove they are arabs and not mixed race

 

[P F Tinmore]

How so?

Palestine was formerly under mandate.

So?
Isn't Arab a race and Palestinian a nationality? Why would they classify people by race unless they were racist. My ID does not list my race because where I live it doesn't matter.
Actually she said that Israel made Palestinians a minority in their own country. Remember, Palestinians are not immigrants. They were Palestinians who were living there before Israel.

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the arabs had inhabited Palestine before the 7C, and had continued to hold sovereign control ever since ?

I don't even believe that all Palestinians are Arabs. Looking at their history it is highly unlikely.

Many are Jews that have lived in the area for 4,500 years, the arabs cant even manage 100 years

Are all of these Palestinians Arabs? What do Arabs look like?

Can you prove they are arabs and not mixed race

Why? It doesn't matter.

 

[Phoenall]

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the arabs had inhabited Palestine before the 7C, and had continued to hold sovereign control ever since ?

I don't even believe that all Palestinians are Arabs. Looking at their history it is highly unlikely.

Many are Jews that have lived in the area for 4,500 years, the arabs cant even manage 100 years

Are all of these Palestinians Arabs? What do Arabs look like?

Can you prove they are arabs and not mixed race

Why? It doesn't matter.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't even believe that all Palestinians are Arabs. Looking at their history it is highly unlikely.

Many are Jews that have lived in the area for 4,500 years, the arabs cant even manage 100 years

Are all of these Palestinians Arabs? What do Arabs look like?

Can you prove they are arabs and not mixed race

Why? It doesn't matter.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

So what?

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

I'm not sure that this is a productive line of discussion.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

(COMMENT)

Race is a biologically dependent or based on certain shared physical characteristics and genetic outcomes. A person does not choose a race; it is assigned by society based upon distinct physical features.

Ethnicity is much more complex as it can be based on one or more aspects of culture, nationality and tradition. Ethnicity can be self-identified; based on a learned language, assimilation into the social norms culturally, and adoption of customs and courtesies, associated with an ethnic group.

It is exactly why the Jewish State of Israel cannot actually be an "apartheid" state. Embedded within the legal international definition of "apartheid" is a concept that it is the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is more racially diversified than the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If it were based on the simple distinctive difference between two segments of the population Caucasian and Black, the distinction would become obvious. But it is not.

In 1997, the US Census Bureau used these five (5) categories in the 2000 Census:

• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• White​

The 2010 Census question on race included 15 separate response categories and three areas where respondents could write-in detailed information about their race. The response categories and write-in answers can be combined to create the five minimum OMB race categories plus Some Other Race. In addition to White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Some Other Race, 7 of the 15 response categories are Asian groups and 4 are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups. (

You can be multi-racial although some genetic characteristics are dominant; and of course, you can be multi-cultural as a matter of emersion, assimilation and acceptance. But they are not the same thing. Race is much more difficult to define than ethnicity; and it has become less useful.

I tend to think that in defining "Race" --- no one definition will satisfy all. The term itself has become much too politically divisive.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

I'm not sure that this is a productive line of discussion.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

(COMMENT)

Race is a biologically dependent or based on certain shared physical characteristics and genetic outcomes. A person does not choose a race; it is assigned by society based upon distinct physical features.

Ethnicity is much more complex as it can be based on one or more aspects of culture, nationality and tradition. Ethnicity can be self-identified; based on a learned language, assimilation into the social norms culturally, and adoption of customs and courtesies, associated with an ethnic group.

It is exactly why the Jewish State of Israel cannot actually be an "apartheid" state. Embedded within the legal international definition of "apartheid" is a concept that it is the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is more racially diversified than the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If it were based on the simple distinctive difference between two segments of the population Caucasian and Black, the distinction would become obvious. But it is not.

In 1997, the US Census Bureau used these five (5) categories in the 2000 Census:

• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• White​

The 2010 Census question on race included 15 separate response categories and three areas where respondents could write-in detailed information about their race. The response categories and write-in answers can be combined to create the five minimum OMB race categories plus Some Other Race. In addition to White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Some Other Race, 7 of the 15 response categories are Asian groups and 4 are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups. (

You can be multi-racial although some genetic characteristics are dominant; and of course, you can be multi-cultural as a matter of emersion, assimilation and acceptance. But they are not the same thing. Race is much more difficult to define than ethnicity; and it has become less useful.

I tend to think that in defining "Race" --- no one definition will satisfy all. The term itself has become much too politically divisive.

Most Respectfully,
R

Only racists are concerned about race.

 

[foggedinn]

Palistinians are decendent's of the Cananites, not Ishmael. There has been a lot of mixing in the last 5000 years.

 

[Phoenall]

Many are Jews that have lived in the area for 4,500 years, the arabs cant even manage 100 years

Are all of these Palestinians Arabs? What do Arabs look like?

Can you prove they are arabs and not mixed race

Why? It doesn't matter.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

So what?

It shows that you are twisting and turning the facts to meet with your POV

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

I'm not sure that this is a productive line of discussion.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

(COMMENT)

Race is a biologically dependent or based on certain shared physical characteristics and genetic outcomes. A person does not choose a race; it is assigned by society based upon distinct physical features.

Ethnicity is much more complex as it can be based on one or more aspects of culture, nationality and tradition. Ethnicity can be self-identified; based on a learned language, assimilation into the social norms culturally, and adoption of customs and courtesies, associated with an ethnic group.

It is exactly why the Jewish State of Israel cannot actually be an "apartheid" state. Embedded within the legal international definition of "apartheid" is a concept that it is the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is more racially diversified than the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If it were based on the simple distinctive difference between two segments of the population Caucasian and Black, the distinction would become obvious. But it is not.

In 1997, the US Census Bureau used these five (5) categories in the 2000 Census:

• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• White​

The 2010 Census question on race included 15 separate response categories and three areas where respondents could write-in detailed information about their race. The response categories and write-in answers can be combined to create the five minimum OMB race categories plus Some Other Race. In addition to White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Some Other Race, 7 of the 15 response categories are Asian groups and 4 are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups. (

You can be multi-racial although some genetic characteristics are dominant; and of course, you can be multi-cultural as a matter of emersion, assimilation and acceptance. But they are not the same thing. Race is much more difficult to define than ethnicity; and it has become less useful.

I tend to think that in defining "Race" --- no one definition will satisfy all. The term itself has become much too politically divisive.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UK government under a left wing government clouded the issue even more by introducing mixed "race" into the equation. So we had white Irish, Pakistani Welsh, African scots etc. all in the name of diversity

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

I'm not sure that this is a productive line of discussion.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

(COMMENT)

Race is a biologically dependent or based on certain shared physical characteristics and genetic outcomes. A person does not choose a race; it is assigned by society based upon distinct physical features.

Ethnicity is much more complex as it can be based on one or more aspects of culture, nationality and tradition. Ethnicity can be self-identified; based on a learned language, assimilation into the social norms culturally, and adoption of customs and courtesies, associated with an ethnic group.

It is exactly why the Jewish State of Israel cannot actually be an "apartheid" state. Embedded within the legal international definition of "apartheid" is a concept that it is the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is more racially diversified than the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If it were based on the simple distinctive difference between two segments of the population Caucasian and Black, the distinction would become obvious. But it is not.

In 1997, the US Census Bureau used these five (5) categories in the 2000 Census:

• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• White​

The 2010 Census question on race included 15 separate response categories and three areas where respondents could write-in detailed information about their race. The response categories and write-in answers can be combined to create the five minimum OMB race categories plus Some Other Race. In addition to White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Some Other Race, 7 of the 15 response categories are Asian groups and 4 are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups. (

You can be multi-racial although some genetic characteristics are dominant; and of course, you can be multi-cultural as a matter of emersion, assimilation and acceptance. But they are not the same thing. Race is much more difficult to define than ethnicity; and it has become less useful.

I tend to think that in defining "Race" --- no one definition will satisfy all. The term itself has become much too politically divisive.

Most Respectfully,
R

Only racists are concerned about race.

So you must be a racist then as you brought it into the equation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

I'm not sure that this is a productive line of discussion.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

(COMMENT)

Race is a biologically dependent or based on certain shared physical characteristics and genetic outcomes. A person does not choose a race; it is assigned by society based upon distinct physical features.

Ethnicity is much more complex as it can be based on one or more aspects of culture, nationality and tradition. Ethnicity can be self-identified; based on a learned language, assimilation into the social norms culturally, and adoption of customs and courtesies, associated with an ethnic group.

It is exactly why the Jewish State of Israel cannot actually be an "apartheid" state. Embedded within the legal international definition of "apartheid" is a concept that it is the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is more racially diversified than the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If it were based on the simple distinctive difference between two segments of the population Caucasian and Black, the distinction would become obvious. But it is not.

In 1997, the US Census Bureau used these five (5) categories in the 2000 Census:

• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• White​

The 2010 Census question on race included 15 separate response categories and three areas where respondents could write-in detailed information about their race. The response categories and write-in answers can be combined to create the five minimum OMB race categories plus Some Other Race. In addition to White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Some Other Race, 7 of the 15 response categories are Asian groups and 4 are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups. (

You can be multi-racial although some genetic characteristics are dominant; and of course, you can be multi-cultural as a matter of emersion, assimilation and acceptance. But they are not the same thing. Race is much more difficult to define than ethnicity; and it has become less useful.

I tend to think that in defining "Race" --- no one definition will satisfy all. The term itself has become much too politically divisive.

Most Respectfully,
R

Only racists are concerned about race.

So you must be a racist then as you brought it into the equation.

Did I bring it in first or did I just respond to another post?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Palistinians are decendent's of the Cananites, not Ishmael. There has been a lot of mixing in the last 5000 years.

The Canaanites became extinct a long time ago.

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

I'm not sure that this is a productive line of discussion.

Yes it does as if they are not full blood they cant be arab, only part arab. Just as nagroes who have parents of two races are not full negroes but half negroes.

(COMMENT)

Race is a biologically dependent or based on certain shared physical characteristics and genetic outcomes. A person does not choose a race; it is assigned by society based upon distinct physical features.

Ethnicity is much more complex as it can be based on one or more aspects of culture, nationality and tradition. Ethnicity can be self-identified; based on a learned language, assimilation into the social norms culturally, and adoption of customs and courtesies, associated with an ethnic group.

It is exactly why the Jewish State of Israel cannot actually be an "apartheid" state. Embedded within the legal international definition of "apartheid" is a concept that it is the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is more racially diversified than the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If it were based on the simple distinctive difference between two segments of the population Caucasian and Black, the distinction would become obvious. But it is not.

In 1997, the US Census Bureau used these five (5) categories in the 2000 Census:

• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• White​

The 2010 Census question on race included 15 separate response categories and three areas where respondents could write-in detailed information about their race. The response categories and write-in answers can be combined to create the five minimum OMB race categories plus Some Other Race. In addition to White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Some Other Race, 7 of the 15 response categories are Asian groups and 4 are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups. (

You can be multi-racial although some genetic characteristics are dominant; and of course, you can be multi-cultural as a matter of emersion, assimilation and acceptance. But they are not the same thing. Race is much more difficult to define than ethnicity; and it has become less useful.

I tend to think that in defining "Race" --- no one definition will satisfy all. The term itself has become much too politically divisive.

Most Respectfully,
R

Only racists are concerned about race.

So you must be a racist then as you brought it into the equation.

Did I bring it in first or did I just respond to another post?

You asked the question so you brought it into the equation

 

[foggedinn]

Palistinians are decendent's of the Cananites, not Ishmael. There has been a lot of mixing in the last 5000 years.

The Canaanites became extinct a long time ago.

The Cananites are as extinct as the Romans. A political entity died, not all their children.

 

[montelatici]

Palistinians are decendent's of the Cananites, not Ishmael. There has been a lot of mixing in the last 5000 years.

The Canaanites became extinct a long time ago.

The Cananites are as extinct as the Romans. A political entity died, not all their children.

I think Romans today would not appreciate being called "extinct". There are quite a few million of them still around, they just don't control an empire as they once did. They still control their old area of Latium in Latin, now called Lazio in Italian.

"Lazio (pronounced [ˈlatt͡sjo], Latin: Latium), sometimes referred to in English as Latium,[4] is one of the 20 administrative regions of Italy, situated in the central peninsular section of the country. With about 5.889 million residents and a GDP of more than 170 billion euros, Lazio is the second most populated region of Italy (being approximately the same in population as Campania), [1] and has the second largest economy of the nation. Its capital is Rome, capital and largest city of Italy."

Lazio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

Palistinians are decendent's of the Cananites, not Ishmael. There has been a lot of mixing in the last 5000 years.

The Canaanites became extinct a long time ago.

The Cananites are as extinct as the Romans. A political entity died, not all their children.

I think Romans today would not appreciate being called "extinct". There are quite a few million of them still around, they just don't control an empire as they once did. They still control their old area of Latium in Latin, now called Lazio in Italian.

"Lazio (pronounced [ˈlatt͡sjo], Latin: Latium), sometimes referred to in English as Latium,[4] is one of the 20 administrative regions of Italy, situated in the central peninsular section of the country. With about 5.889 million residents and a GDP of more than 170 billion euros, Lazio is the second most populated region of Italy (being approximately the same in population as Campania), [1] and has the second largest economy of the nation. Its capital is Rome, capital and largest city of Italy."

Lazio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Is this one of the wiki entries you edit, and it thus one of your edits ?