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.
The Arab culture and Muslim religion spread widely - by conquest and also by benign conversion as with most religions.
"Benign" conversion can only happen in a place of equality. There was never such a thing, until VERY recently, and then only in certain places, the ME not being one of them, except for Israel. So, no, I'm not buying what you are selling.
Each group that wants to be recognized as a "people" has to make a case for it first - you can't just negate them automatically based on the premise they will eventually swallow a land. In fact, that isn't happening. No other group is fighting for same territories or claiming any rights.
Can you clarify what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand and don't want to assume.
Well...who decides when a people is a people? I don't know. I think each group that wants that recognition must make a case for it. I guess self identitification is a major part of it. Despite the seeming ease of it we don't have hundreds of groups clammering for recognition and rights. Does that clarify at all?
Each group that wants to be recognized as a "people" has to make a case for it first - you can't just negate them automatically based on the premise they will eventually swallow a land. In fact, that isn't happening. No other group is fighting for same territories or claiming any rights.
Can you clarify what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand and don't want to assume.
Well...who decides when a people is a people? I don't know. I think each group that wants that recognition must make a case for it. I guess self identitification is a major part of it. Despite the seeming ease of it we don't have hundreds of groups clammering for recognition and rights. Does that clarify at all?
Not really. Let me clarify my concern.
My concern is that we make new people over and over and over until the OTHER people still exist, but no longer have any territory to claim.
It would be like the Irish claiming a part of the US. And the British. And the French. And the Scots. And the Germans. And the Dutch. And they claim so much land, there is none left over for the First Nations People.
The Arab culture and Muslim religion spread widely - by conquest and also by benign conversion as with most religions.
"Benign" conversion can only happen in a place of equality. There was never such a thing, until VERY recently, and then only in certain places, the ME not being one of them, except for Israel. So, no, I'm not buying what you are selling.
Actually...benign conversion is quite frequent historically. For example - people simply decide that the other faith has more to offer than the original one. In the case of Islam, it had more to offer the poor and down trodden than the polytheistic faiths in the region. In other cases - the ruler or king converts and as a result his subjects do. It's no different than the way Christianity spread.
Spread of Islam - Wikipedia
Each group that wants to be recognized as a "people" has to make a case for it first - you can't just negate them automatically based on the premise they will eventually swallow a land. In fact, that isn't happening. No other group is fighting for same territories or claiming any rights.
Can you clarify what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand and don't want to assume.
Well...who decides when a people is a people? I don't know. I think each group that wants that recognition must make a case for it. I guess self identitification is a major part of it. Despite the seeming ease of it we don't have hundreds of groups clammering for recognition and rights. Does that clarify at all?
Not really. Let me clarify my concern.
My concern is that we make new people over and over and over until the OTHER people still exist, but no longer have any territory to claim.
It would be like the Irish claiming a part of the US. And the British. And the French. And the Scots. And the Germans. And the Dutch. And they claim so much land, there is none left over for the First Nations People.
But what do you do when both people's have roots extending back thousand or more years?
I don't see how it would be like the Irish claiming part of the US - no portion of their heritage is there...
Most acknowledge that there is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians and Syrians. That they are one people. They self-identify as one people.Self identification is important and most self identify as Palestians now and for generations.
That is NOT what team Israel are saying. No one on team Israel is saying that the Palestinians can't have a State of any kind on any territory. Not even Joel is saying that. Joel is simply saying that the Arab Palestinians shouldn't have yet ANOTHER State or three on territory that was granted to the Jewish people.They are saying the Palestinians have no right to self determination or a nation because other Arab peoples have it already and they are doing it by denying them their rights as a people.
First I want to apologize for the scarcity of my answers as I am relying on my phone and it sucks to type and produces a ton of typos. I would rather be more verbose snd use sources. Tonight i will try to be on the computer.
Second i want clarify a few things.
The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity.
When you are saying they should not have another state on the territory granted to Jews what exactly do you mean? They should go to Africa...South America? Or shift tbem to Jordan and Syria? See I havent seen Joel state snything beyond denying them any rights of place or identity. It isnt too disimilar to the ways that Myanmar is erasing the Rohinga identity (without the murder and violence Myanmar is conducting) banning even the word. They are nobody. A people with no name or citizenship. I see a systemic effort to deny the Palestinians an identity.
If what you mean is the territory that is currently recognized as Israel then i agree with you. There is Gaza and the West Bank (exactly what parts to be negotiated) then that is reasonable as many will still be in the area where they have cultural and familial ties.
There is a very significant difference between "You can not have a State ANYWHERE on this territory (or anywhere in the world) because you do not exist" and saying, "You can't have a State HERE because this is the place for the Jewish people, but you can have one THERE because that is the place for the Arab Palestinian people".
Agree.
The equivalent would be for team Israel to say, "The Arab Palestinians can not have a State anywhere in the world because they do not exist." (And we are going to stay at war with them until their State is destroyed.)
Is anyone saying the Jews can not have state anywhere in the world?
Great questions...and i am not sure I have an answer but it deserves a post of its own and fits into the topic perfectly. I am going to answer this part later.THAT is a fascinating question. Actually, I think the question should be reversed. When does a people cease to belong to a broad cultural group (a people)? Is self-identification the ONLY criteria? Or is there some requirement for some sort of significant cultural change or difference? If yes, what criteria would you choose?When does a people become a people? Is there a magical line where it is decided no new peoples can come into being or is it only Palestinians held to that line?
All these are great discussion points so i sill answer them later when i am not so constrained!Where does it end? This creation of new peoples and disappearance of Israel? Where does this creation of "new" peoples become an encroachment on the rights of the Jewish people to ALSO have a State? When 75% is removed? When 90% is removed? When 95% is removed? 100%? How to we prevent the Jewish State from growing smaller, and smaller and smaller with the continuous invention of new peoples?
Let's put shoe on other foot. Let's say the Jewish people decide they are actually four different peoples, based on their long history in so many places. They demand a sovereign State in Jordan. Another in Syria. Another in Lebanon. Yay or nay? And why?
And keep in mind, I am asking these questions because I'm a shit disturber (grin) and am looking for a higher level of conversation here (which you graciously provide). You know I believe that the Arab Palestinian people in the "West Bank" and Gaza should have another State if they want one. Or they should be able to join with Jordan or Egypt if they so desire.
Coyote, with all due respect:
"The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity."
You are confusing the people.
The Jews have been in, if one prefers to call it, Palestine.
They are the Palestinians the Romans changed the name into Syria Palestinia.
The Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the same ethnicity of Arabs who invaded the area in the 7th century, while Jews were still living there, and continued to live there. The Arabs did not call the Jews or any other people of the area "Palestinians".
The idea of calling Jews and Arabs, Druze, etc Palestinians, came from the British Mandate for Palestine (it should have been called after Israel, but it was not)
Not being able to stop the descendants of the ancient Jews from recreating their ancient nation, or destroy it after 1948, the Arabs leaders - Arafat - decided to adopt the identity of Palestinians, in 1964.
That was not because they wanted to create a State called Palestine because they identified as such. It was to continue to try to destroy Israel.
And these facts seem to be something you cannot absorb and think about.
Since the first Arab riot in 1920, the Jewish leaders have been able to share the land. 78 % was taken without asking the Jews and given to the Hashemites.
In 1937 the Jewish leaders agreed to a partition for Jews and Arabs.
What were they in the middle of? Did the Arab leaders accept?
The same thing for 1947 and the UN proposed partition.
Q: If the Arab leaders so identify with a Palestinian identity, and I am not speaking about the rest of the population, why are they so intent in destroying Israel in order to have their State on top of it?
I'm not confusing anyone Sixties...but you are mixing issues. Let's stick to one argument at the time.
Are the Palestinian a "people" - at this point in time? Yes.
Do they have a heritage and roots in those lands they inhabit? Yes.
You say they are nothing more than Arab invaders. Think on this a moment. The Arab culture and Muslim religion spread widely - by conquest and also by benign conversion as with most religions. The people who lived there - what of them? Did they automatically disappear? No. They converted, intermarried, whatever - but they are the same people who's ancestors were Christians, Jews and pagans and who farmed those same lands and grazed their herds. Those - plus immigrants from other Arab countries are who the Palestinians are today. Genetic studies support that. Palestinians are very close to Jews - infact closer than some Jewish groups are to each other. So saying they are nothing more than Arab invaders is dishonest.
On how Muslims feel about Jewish people - Muslims and Jews largely got along historically.
I call bullshit. Or, because I like you and you usually have good arguments, I respectfully disagree. Its kinda like saying that women and men get along great in the US. I mean, only three women a day get killed by their intimate partners and only 1 in 4 women are raped before they graduate college. Compared to Arab ME countries where we aren't allowed to drive, or show our ankles, or go to school or have a sexuality, or go to the grocery store without a male escort.
Was it a 20th century relationship of human rights, religious tolerance and democratic values? Of course not - that did not exist in any culture of those eras. It sucked to be the minority religions/ethnicities (and sucked worse to be a woman). But Jews in many areas flourished in ways they could not in Christian Europe.
and the virulant anti-semitism is relatively recent in the long history of both those faiths.
Again, calling bullshit, but nicely. Anti-semitism of the Arab/Muslim people CHANGED with the importation of Christian European ideas in the early 1900s but it existed consistently throughout thousands of years of history.
Coyote, Joel is not Jewish. Nor Israeli.So you are talking about forced deportationn of millions of people? That is what you support?Do you wont give a straight answer?Since “palestinians” identify with Greek Philistines, let them go to Greece LOL
22 Arab countries to accommodate “palestinians” including nearby Jordan. In fact, they have similar flags
He is speaking for himself and what he believes in.
That is not the Israeli or Jewish position, and you need to consider that.
Reacting to what one poster or another says, instead of looking at the facts on the ground, and what the history has been since 1920 needs to be the starting point of thinking and discussing about this.
One cannot sweep before 1948 or before 1967 under the rug.
Or the Muslim, Arab culture and mentality in regards to the Jewish people, either.
The previous 1300 years tell a lot about how Muslims were taught about the Jewish people and how they should be treated.
And, yes, that matters a lot and is at the bottom of this conflict, and why the Arab leaders (not the population) have refused a State in 1937, 1947 and after that.
A couple of things. Joel's position is not unique, there are other members here who have presented similar points of view. Israeli's and Jews are as diverse as any other group imo.
On how Muslims feel about Jewish people - Muslims and Jews largely got along historically. Was it a 20th century relationship of human rights, religious tolerance and democratic values? Of course not - that did not exist in any culture of those eras. It sucked to be the minority religions/ethnicities (and sucked worse to be a woman). But Jews in many areas flourished in ways they could not in Christian Europe.
The real conflict arose with the mandate, the rise of pan-Arab and of Jewish nationalism, and - yes - the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept a Jewish state on "Muslim land". But all that - and the virulant anti-semitism is relatively recent in the long history of both those faiths.
Actually...benign conversion is quite frequent historically. For example - people simply decide that the other faith has more to offer than the original one. In the case of Islam, it had more to offer the poor and down trodden than the polytheistic faiths in the region. In other cases - the ruler or king converts and as a result his subjects do. It's no different than the way Christianity spread.
The Arab culture and Muslim religion spread widely - by conquest and also by benign conversion as with most religions.
"Benign" conversion can only happen in a place of equality. There was never such a thing, until VERY recently, and then only in certain places, the ME not being one of them, except for Israel. So, no, I'm not buying what you are selling.
Actually...benign conversion is quite frequent historically. For example - people simply decide that the other faith has more to offer than the original one. In the case of Islam, it had more to offer the poor and down trodden than the polytheistic faiths in the region. In other cases - the ruler or king converts and as a result his subjects do. It's no different than the way Christianity spread.
Spread of Islam - Wikipedia
On how Muslims feel about Jewish people - Muslims and Jews largely got along historically.
I call bullshit. Or, because I like you and you usually have good arguments, I respectfully disagree. Its kinda like saying that women and men get along great in the US. I mean, only three women a day get killed by their intimate partners and only 1 in 4 women are raped before they graduate college. Compared to Arab ME countries where we aren't allowed to drive, or show our ankles, or go to school or have a sexuality, or go to the grocery store without a male escort.
Historically - religious minorities did not fare well in countries with a ruling religious majority. Values were very different then and tolerance was not considered a virtue. So - my references were HISTORICALLY. Jews and Muslims in Christian majority countries were a minority. Jews and Christians in Muslim majority countries were a minority. Minorities did not get treated with equality. That doesn't make it "anti-semitism" though and it wasn't directed at one religion but at those who were minorities. Despite that - there are historic periods where Jews flourished in Islamic countries. No, they weren't "equal" but equality was not a value in those times.
Was it a 20th century relationship of human rights, religious tolerance and democratic values? Of course not - that did not exist in any culture of those eras. It sucked to be the minority religions/ethnicities (and sucked worse to be a woman). But Jews in many areas flourished in ways they could not in Christian Europe.
and the virulant anti-semitism is relatively recent in the long history of both those faiths.
Again, calling bullshit, but nicely. Anti-semitism of the Arab/Muslim people CHANGED with the importation of Christian European ideas in the early 1900s but it existed consistently throughout thousands of years of history.
Most acknowledge that there is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians and Syrians. That they are one people. They self-identify as one people.Self identification is important and most self identify as Palestians now and for generations.
That is NOT what team Israel are saying. No one on team Israel is saying that the Palestinians can't have a State of any kind on any territory. Not even Joel is saying that. Joel is simply saying that the Arab Palestinians shouldn't have yet ANOTHER State or three on territory that was granted to the Jewish people.They are saying the Palestinians have no right to self determination or a nation because other Arab peoples have it already and they are doing it by denying them their rights as a people.
First I want to apologize for the scarcity of my answers as I am relying on my phone and it sucks to type and produces a ton of typos. I would rather be more verbose snd use sources. Tonight i will try to be on the computer.
Second i want clarify a few things.
The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity.
When you are saying they should not have another state on the territory granted to Jews what exactly do you mean? They should go to Africa...South America? Or shift tbem to Jordan and Syria? See I havent seen Joel state snything beyond denying them any rights of place or identity. It isnt too disimilar to the ways that Myanmar is erasing the Rohinga identity (without the murder and violence Myanmar is conducting) banning even the word. They are nobody. A people with no name or citizenship. I see a systemic effort to deny the Palestinians an identity.
If what you mean is the territory that is currently recognized as Israel then i agree with you. There is Gaza and the West Bank (exactly what parts to be negotiated) then that is reasonable as many will still be in the area where they have cultural and familial ties.
There is a very significant difference between "You can not have a State ANYWHERE on this territory (or anywhere in the world) because you do not exist" and saying, "You can't have a State HERE because this is the place for the Jewish people, but you can have one THERE because that is the place for the Arab Palestinian people".
Agree.
The equivalent would be for team Israel to say, "The Arab Palestinians can not have a State anywhere in the world because they do not exist." (And we are going to stay at war with them until their State is destroyed.)
Is anyone saying the Jews can not have state anywhere in the world?
Great questions...and i am not sure I have an answer but it deserves a post of its own and fits into the topic perfectly. I am going to answer this part later.THAT is a fascinating question. Actually, I think the question should be reversed. When does a people cease to belong to a broad cultural group (a people)? Is self-identification the ONLY criteria? Or is there some requirement for some sort of significant cultural change or difference? If yes, what criteria would you choose?When does a people become a people? Is there a magical line where it is decided no new peoples can come into being or is it only Palestinians held to that line?
All these are great discussion points so i sill answer them later when i am not so constrained!Where does it end? This creation of new peoples and disappearance of Israel? Where does this creation of "new" peoples become an encroachment on the rights of the Jewish people to ALSO have a State? When 75% is removed? When 90% is removed? When 95% is removed? 100%? How to we prevent the Jewish State from growing smaller, and smaller and smaller with the continuous invention of new peoples?
Let's put shoe on other foot. Let's say the Jewish people decide they are actually four different peoples, based on their long history in so many places. They demand a sovereign State in Jordan. Another in Syria. Another in Lebanon. Yay or nay? And why?
And keep in mind, I am asking these questions because I'm a shit disturber (grin) and am looking for a higher level of conversation here (which you graciously provide). You know I believe that the Arab Palestinian people in the "West Bank" and Gaza should have another State if they want one. Or they should be able to join with Jordan or Egypt if they so desire.
Coyote, with all due respect:
"The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity."
You are confusing the people.
The Jews have been in, if one prefers to call it, Palestine.
They are the Palestinians the Romans changed the name into Syria Palestinia.
The Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the same ethnicity of Arabs who invaded the area in the 7th century, while Jews were still living there, and continued to live there. The Arabs did not call the Jews or any other people of the area "Palestinians".
The idea of calling Jews and Arabs, Druze, etc Palestinians, came from the British Mandate for Palestine (it should have been called after Israel, but it was not)
Not being able to stop the descendants of the ancient Jews from recreating their ancient nation, or destroy it after 1948, the Arabs leaders - Arafat - decided to adopt the identity of Palestinians, in 1964.
That was not because they wanted to create a State called Palestine because they identified as such. It was to continue to try to destroy Israel.
And these facts seem to be something you cannot absorb and think about.
Since the first Arab riot in 1920, the Jewish leaders have been able to share the land. 78 % was taken without asking the Jews and given to the Hashemites.
In 1937 the Jewish leaders agreed to a partition for Jews and Arabs.
What were they in the middle of? Did the Arab leaders accept?
The same thing for 1947 and the UN proposed partition.
Q: If the Arab leaders so identify with a Palestinian identity, and I am not speaking about the rest of the population, why are they so intent in destroying Israel in order to have their State on top of it?
I'm not confusing anyone Sixties...but you are mixing issues. Let's stick to one argument at the time.
Are the Palestinian a "people" - at this point in time? Yes.
Do they have a heritage and roots in those lands they inhabit? Yes.
You say they are nothing more than Arab invaders. Think on this a moment. The Arab culture and Muslim religion spread widely - by conquest and also by benign conversion as with most religions. The people who lived there - what of them? Did they automatically disappear? No. They converted, intermarried, whatever - but they are the same people who's ancestors were Christians, Jews and pagans and who farmed those same lands and grazed their herds. Those - plus immigrants from other Arab countries are who the Palestinians are today. Genetic studies support that. Palestinians are very close to Jews - infact closer than some Jewish groups are to each other. So saying they are nothing more than Arab invaders is dishonest.
"Genetic studies support that. Palestinians are very close to Jews - infact closer than some Jewish groups are to each other."
Sorry, but genetic studies do not support what you are saying.
What you are saying comes from allegations, and not from actual DNA tests done on some Palestinians to see if they are closely related to Jews. These genetic studies have been debunked and it does not help for people who do not know that they are false, to keep repeating them.
They are more than Arab invaders. Some clans have been there for a thousand years.
But that is not the issue.
The issue is how Islam views Jews. What rights does Islam gives to Jews. What rights Islam has ever given to Jews for the past 1400 years, which is something which some people truly cannot understand.
It has led to 1300 years of oppression.
It has led to 100 years of rejection of any sovereignty for Jews on their ancient homeland.
The conflict is as basic as that.
Islam has replaced Judaism and they tell the Jews what rights they have.
You assume that the Jewish people after the 7th century converted to Islam, or Christianity. They did not, unless forced to.
Records show that the Jewish presence was constant, with Jews always returning to their ancient homeland, and even more so in the 19th century.
Arabs are not mainly invaders, like all the others. As Muslims they do believe that any land they have conquered will always remain under Islam, no matter which group. That is why one does not have any wars between the Turks and the Arabs for the 500 years of the Ottoman Empire.
All of these Muslims and Christian Arabs who have roots on the Land of Israel, born there, can live there. As I have said before, Jews never meant to expel them but to live with them in peace if possible.
The Al-Husseini clan chose otherwise and won the leadership of the Arab people by force.
I will say it again.
Get rid of the Arab leaders of today, sometime in the future, and peace will be possible.
No Iran, no Qatar, no other Arab or Muslim country meddling between the Israelis and Palestinians negotiating and wanting peace, and it will happen as it did with Egypt and Jordan.
Someday, who knows
Each group that wants to be recognized as a "people" has to make a case for it first - you can't just negate them automatically based on the premise they will eventually swallow a land. In fact, that isn't happening. No other group is fighting for same territories or claiming any rights.
Can you clarify what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand and don't want to assume.
Well...who decides when a people is a people? I don't know. I think each group that wants that recognition must make a case for it. I guess self identitification is a major part of it. Despite the seeming ease of it we don't have hundreds of groups clammering for recognition and rights. Does that clarify at all?
People are classified by language. Is there a palestinian language?
That is one of many classifications.
But what do you do when both people's have roots extending back thousand or more years?
I don't see how it would be like the Irish claiming part of the US - no portion of their heritage is there...
Most acknowledge that there is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians and Syrians. That they are one people. They self-identify as one people.
That is NOT what team Israel are saying. No one on team Israel is saying that the Palestinians can't have a State of any kind on any territory. Not even Joel is saying that. Joel is simply saying that the Arab Palestinians shouldn't have yet ANOTHER State or three on territory that was granted to the Jewish people.
First I want to apologize for the scarcity of my answers as I am relying on my phone and it sucks to type and produces a ton of typos. I would rather be more verbose snd use sources. Tonight i will try to be on the computer.
Second i want clarify a few things.
The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity.
When you are saying they should not have another state on the territory granted to Jews what exactly do you mean? They should go to Africa...South America? Or shift tbem to Jordan and Syria? See I havent seen Joel state snything beyond denying them any rights of place or identity. It isnt too disimilar to the ways that Myanmar is erasing the Rohinga identity (without the murder and violence Myanmar is conducting) banning even the word. They are nobody. A people with no name or citizenship. I see a systemic effort to deny the Palestinians an identity.
If what you mean is the territory that is currently recognized as Israel then i agree with you. There is Gaza and the West Bank (exactly what parts to be negotiated) then that is reasonable as many will still be in the area where they have cultural and familial ties.
There is a very significant difference between "You can not have a State ANYWHERE on this territory (or anywhere in the world) because you do not exist" and saying, "You can't have a State HERE because this is the place for the Jewish people, but you can have one THERE because that is the place for the Arab Palestinian people".
Agree.
The equivalent would be for team Israel to say, "The Arab Palestinians can not have a State anywhere in the world because they do not exist." (And we are going to stay at war with them until their State is destroyed.)
Is anyone saying the Jews can not have state anywhere in the world?
Great questions...and i am not sure I have an answer but it deserves a post of its own and fits into the topic perfectly. I am going to answer this part later.THAT is a fascinating question. Actually, I think the question should be reversed. When does a people cease to belong to a broad cultural group (a people)? Is self-identification the ONLY criteria? Or is there some requirement for some sort of significant cultural change or difference? If yes, what criteria would you choose?
All these are great discussion points so i sill answer them later when i am not so constrained!
Coyote, with all due respect:
"The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity."
You are confusing the people.
The Jews have been in, if one prefers to call it, Palestine.
They are the Palestinians the Romans changed the name into Syria Palestinia.
The Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the same ethnicity of Arabs who invaded the area in the 7th century, while Jews were still living there, and continued to live there. The Arabs did not call the Jews or any other people of the area "Palestinians".
The idea of calling Jews and Arabs, Druze, etc Palestinians, came from the British Mandate for Palestine (it should have been called after Israel, but it was not)
Not being able to stop the descendants of the ancient Jews from recreating their ancient nation, or destroy it after 1948, the Arabs leaders - Arafat - decided to adopt the identity of Palestinians, in 1964.
That was not because they wanted to create a State called Palestine because they identified as such. It was to continue to try to destroy Israel.
And these facts seem to be something you cannot absorb and think about.
Since the first Arab riot in 1920, the Jewish leaders have been able to share the land. 78 % was taken without asking the Jews and given to the Hashemites.
In 1937 the Jewish leaders agreed to a partition for Jews and Arabs.
What were they in the middle of? Did the Arab leaders accept?
The same thing for 1947 and the UN proposed partition.
Q: If the Arab leaders so identify with a Palestinian identity, and I am not speaking about the rest of the population, why are they so intent in destroying Israel in order to have their State on top of it?
I'm not confusing anyone Sixties...but you are mixing issues. Let's stick to one argument at the time.
Are the Palestinian a "people" - at this point in time? Yes.
Do they have a heritage and roots in those lands they inhabit? Yes.
You say they are nothing more than Arab invaders. Think on this a moment. The Arab culture and Muslim religion spread widely - by conquest and also by benign conversion as with most religions. The people who lived there - what of them? Did they automatically disappear? No. They converted, intermarried, whatever - but they are the same people who's ancestors were Christians, Jews and pagans and who farmed those same lands and grazed their herds. Those - plus immigrants from other Arab countries are who the Palestinians are today. Genetic studies support that. Palestinians are very close to Jews - infact closer than some Jewish groups are to each other. So saying they are nothing more than Arab invaders is dishonest.
"Genetic studies support that. Palestinians are very close to Jews - infact closer than some Jewish groups are to each other."
Sorry, but genetic studies do not support what you are saying.
What you are saying comes from allegations, and not from actual DNA tests done on some Palestinians to see if they are closely related to Jews. These genetic studies have been debunked and it does not help for people who do not know that they are false, to keep repeating them.
They are more than Arab invaders. Some clans have been there for a thousand years.
But that is not the issue.
The issue is how Islam views Jews. What rights does Islam gives to Jews. What rights Islam has ever given to Jews for the past 1400 years, which is something which some people truly cannot understand.
It has led to 1300 years of oppression.
It has led to 100 years of rejection of any sovereignty for Jews on their ancient homeland.
The conflict is as basic as that.
Islam has replaced Judaism and they tell the Jews what rights they have.
You assume that the Jewish people after the 7th century converted to Islam, or Christianity. They did not, unless forced to.
Records show that the Jewish presence was constant, with Jews always returning to their ancient homeland, and even more so in the 19th century.
Arabs are not mainly invaders, like all the others. As Muslims they do believe that any land they have conquered will always remain under Islam, no matter which group. That is why one does not have any wars between the Turks and the Arabs for the 500 years of the Ottoman Empire.
All of these Muslims and Christian Arabs who have roots on the Land of Israel, born there, can live there. As I have said before, Jews never meant to expel them but to live with them in peace if possible.
The Al-Husseini clan chose otherwise and won the leadership of the Arab people by force.
I will say it again.
Get rid of the Arab leaders of today, sometime in the future, and peace will be possible.
No Iran, no Qatar, no other Arab or Muslim country meddling between the Israelis and Palestinians negotiating and wanting peace, and it will happen as it did with Egypt and Jordan.
Someday, who knows
Where has this been debunked?
Actually...benign conversion is quite frequent historically. For example - people simply decide that the other faith has more to offer than the original one. In the case of Islam, it had more to offer the poor and down trodden than the polytheistic faiths in the region. In other cases - the ruler or king converts and as a result his subjects do. It's no different than the way Christianity spread.
Oh. My.
Okay. Phew. Um.
Benign conversion can only happen when there is political, ethnic, racial and gender equality. Benign conversion can only happen when individuals are free to choose, without oppression or "advantages". I would argue that this rarely, if ever, happened historically where religion was almost always paired with politics and conquest and the competition between tribes or nations or whatever you want to call them.
Further, I think you are "barbarian blaming" when you say that monotheistic religious offer the poor and the downtrodden more than the polytheistic faiths of any particular region. I think that is a very unfair and incorrect view of the pagan religions as well as an overly positive perception of the monotheistic religions.
And when a ruler or king converts, and everyone follows, that is not at all necessarily a benign conversion.
And the spread of Christianity was a series of brutal waves of persecution, "convert or die", J-man or hell. Still is in many parts of the world. As is Islam.
But what do you do when both people's have roots extending back thousand or more years?
I don't see how it would be like the Irish claiming part of the US - no portion of their heritage is there...
Be clear here. Either people who immigrate to a land have some sort of claim "extending back X number of years" or they don't. You gotta pick. You can't have it both ways.
Either the Irish have developed an attachment to American soil and thus have rights to sovereignty on it. Or the Irish, no matter how long they have lived here, will never have rights to sovereignty here.
Choose.
[/QUOTE]Actually...benign conversion is quite frequent historically. For example - people simply decide that the other faith has more to offer than the original one. In the case of Islam, it had more to offer the poor and down trodden than the polytheistic faiths in the region. In other cases - the ruler or king converts and as a result his subjects do. It's no different than the way Christianity spread.
Oh. My.
Okay. Phew. Um.
Benign conversion can only happen when there is political, ethnic, racial and gender equality. Benign conversion can only happen when individuals are free to choose, without oppression or "advantages". I would argue that this rarely, if ever, happened historically where religion was almost always paired with politics and conquest and the competition between tribes or nations or whatever you want to call them.
Further, I think you are "barbarian blaming" when you say that monotheistic religious offer the poor and the downtrodden more than the polytheistic faiths of any particular region. I think that is a very unfair and incorrect view of the pagan religions as well as an overly positive perception of the monotheistic religions.
I'm not particularly enamored with monotheistic religions but, when I was reading the history of early Islam and Christianity in particular - they do offer certain things that would attract followers. A way of escaping restrictive class and cast systems, dignity for the poor, mandated charity to widows, orphans and disadvantaged and - heaven. Life sucks - you can have eternity in heaven if you follow the proper procedure.
It may be we have differing definitions of "benign" - I'm using it to mean with out violent coercion. Conversion occurred both benignly and forceably in these religions.
And when a ruler or king converts, and everyone follows, that is not at all necessarily a benign conversion.
And the spread of Christianity was a series of brutal waves of persecution, "convert or die", J-man or hell. Still is in many parts of the world. As is Islam.
No, they weren't "equal" but equality was not a value in those times.
But what do you do when both people's have roots extending back thousand or more years?
I don't see how it would be like the Irish claiming part of the US - no portion of their heritage is there...
Be clear here. Either people who immigrate to a land have some sort of claim "extending back X number of years" or they don't. You gotta pick. You can't have it both ways.
Either the Irish have developed an attachment to American soil and thus have rights to sovereignty on it. Or the Irish, no matter how long they have lived here, will never have rights to sovereignty here.
Choose.
Well the all Palestinians didn't immigrate. Their ancestors have been there as long as they know. Excluding those who were known to have immigrated.
Actually...benign conversion is quite frequent historically. For example - people simply decide that the other faith has more to offer than the original one. In the case of Islam, it had more to offer the poor and down trodden than the polytheistic faiths in the region. In other cases - the ruler or king converts and as a result his subjects do. It's no different than the way Christianity spread.
Oh. My.
Okay. Phew. Um.
Benign conversion can only happen when there is political, ethnic, racial and gender equality. Benign conversion can only happen when individuals are free to choose, without oppression or "advantages". I would argue that this rarely, if ever, happened historically where religion was almost always paired with politics and conquest and the competition between tribes or nations or whatever you want to call them.
Further, I think you are "barbarian blaming" when you say that monotheistic religious offer the poor and the downtrodden more than the polytheistic faiths of any particular region. I think that is a very unfair and incorrect view of the pagan religions as well as an overly positive perception of the monotheistic religions.
I'm not particularly enamored with monotheistic religions but, when I was reading the history of early Islam and Christianity in particular - they do offer certain things that would attract followers. A way of escaping restrictive class and cast systems, dignity for the poor, mandated charity to widows, orphans and disadvantaged and - heaven. Life sucks - you can have eternity in heaven if you follow the proper procedure.
It may be we have differing definitions of "benign" - I'm using it to mean with out violent coercion. Conversion occurred both benignly and forceably in these religions.
And when a ruler or king converts, and everyone follows, that is not at all necessarily a benign conversion.
And the spread of Christianity was a series of brutal waves of persecution, "convert or die", J-man or hell. Still is in many parts of the world. As is Islam.
True but not in all cases.
