Al Nakba Denial vs Holocaust Denial, what's the Difference

[Coyote]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

Inhabiting an area (squatting the land), doesn't entitle ownership.

You should eventually realize that the geographic area you falsely believe to be your invented "Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land" was controlled by the Ottoman's who released all rights and title to the Mandatory.

The Palestinians aren't squatters.

 

[Coyote]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

 

[montelatici]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

What Arabs immigrated to the area? More Arabs from Palestine immigrated to Egypt to work with the British that had the Suez Canal and a large garrison there which provided more employment opportunities than in Palestine. From 1920 to 1946 there was hardly any Arab immigration into Palestine. As the Survey of Palestine depicts in the table below. Of the 414 thousand or so immigrants to Palestine, 376 thousand were Jews.

 

[Coyote]

......

Why didn't they go to some uninhabited area of the world?

You've GOT to be kidding me.

The Jewish people went home.

No the Zionists, Europeans, colonized a land and evicted the indigenous people. That's just fact when you take away the veil.

Seriously? Are you arguing that the Jewish people don't believe that they are going home?

People that practice Judaism may believe it, but it is fiction.

Not really. There's a good bit of archeological evidence supporting it. Also, genetic studies.

 

[Coyote]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

What Arabs immigrated to the area? More Arabs from Palestine immigrated to Egypt to work with the British that had the Suez Canal and a large garrison there which provided more employment opportunities than in Palestine. From 1920 to 1946 there was hardly any Arab immigration into Palestine. As the Survey of Palestine depicts in the table below. Of the 414 thousand or so immigrants to Palestine, 376 thousand were Jews.


View attachment 120276

There was Arab immigration, legal and illegal - it's impossible to discern exact numbers, and it is usually inflated those wanting to claim Palestinians are squatters - but there was Arab immigration.

You're trying to claim that it's somehow "different" than Jewish immigration. It's not.

 

[montelatici]

......

Why didn't they go to some uninhabited area of the world?

You've GOT to be kidding me.

The Jewish people went home.

No the Zionists, Europeans, colonized a land and evicted the indigenous people. That's just fact when you take away the veil.

Seriously? Are you arguing that the Jewish people don't believe that they are going home?

People that practice Judaism may believe it, but it is fiction.

Not really. There's a good bit of archeological evidence supporting it. Also, genetic studies.

What genetic studies? This one?

"Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts"

Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts | Genetic Literacy Project

 

[montelatici]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

What Arabs immigrated to the area? More Arabs from Palestine immigrated to Egypt to work with the British that had the Suez Canal and a large garrison there which provided more employment opportunities than in Palestine. From 1920 to 1946 there was hardly any Arab immigration into Palestine. As the Survey of Palestine depicts in the table below. Of the 414 thousand or so immigrants to Palestine, 376 thousand were Jews.


View attachment 120276

There was Arab immigration, legal and illegal - it's impossible to discern exact numbers, and it is usually inflated those wanting to claim Palestinians are squatters - but there was Arab immigration.

You're trying to claim that it's somehow "different" than Jewish immigration. It's not.

There was hardly any Arab immigration to Palestine. Why do you and others parrot Zionist propaganda? The facts are available within the UN archives.


UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947


(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.

A/364 of 3 September 1947

 

[Coyote]

So it's now 2017.

And we are discussing events that unfolded over the past...what...150 years?

Events that included the toppling and division of empires, the rise of ethnic nationalism, and the end of colonial projects, the creation of new states.

So what difference does it make NOW to keep rehashing these same things?

At this point - the "squatters" or "colonists" (depending on which side you're shooting from) have been there for generations if not centuries if not millinium.

So what?

 

[montelatici]

So it's now 2017.

And we are discussing events that unfolded over the past...what...150 years?

Events that included the toppling and division of empires, the rise of ethnic nationalism, and the end of colonial projects, the creation of new states.

So what difference does it make NOW to keep rehashing these same things?

At this point - the "squatters" or "colonists" (depending on which side you're shooting from) have been there for generations if not centuries if not millinium.

So what?

The colonists from Europe began arriving in earnest after 1920. Not that long ago. I don't get your point.

 

[Coyote]

......

You've GOT to be kidding me.

The Jewish people went home.

No the Zionists, Europeans, colonized a land and evicted the indigenous people. That's just fact when you take away the veil.

Seriously? Are you arguing that the Jewish people don't believe that they are going home?

People that practice Judaism may believe it, but it is fiction.

Not really. There's a good bit of archeological evidence supporting it. Also, genetic studies.

What genetic studies? This one?

"Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts"

Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts | Genetic Literacy Project

I was thinking of this one: Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
Jews break down into three genetic groups, all of which have Middle Eastern origins – which are shared with the Palestinians and Druze.

 

[montelatici]

......

No the Zionists, Europeans, colonized a land and evicted the indigenous people. That's just fact when you take away the veil.

Seriously? Are you arguing that the Jewish people don't believe that they are going home?

People that practice Judaism may believe it, but it is fiction.

Not really. There's a good bit of archeological evidence supporting it. Also, genetic studies.

What genetic studies? This one?

"Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts"

Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts | Genetic Literacy Project

I was thinking of this one: Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
Jews break down into three genetic groups, all of which have Middle Eastern origins – which are shared with the Palestinians and Druze.

European Jews are European. Southern Europeans have as many, if not more genetic ties to the Middle East as European Jews. There were certainly a few Jews among the indigenous people of Palestine/Israel that for one reason or another did not convert to Christianity, but it was a tiny number. Non-Christians were not allowed to reside in Jerusalem after 380 AD, nearly all (Jews, Pagans, Samaritans) converted to Christianity and a tiny number that had nothing to lose by leaving just left.

From 'The Scientist" magazine which doesn't have an axe to grind.

"The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women..."

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

You mean like the rights of the Jews inhabiting that territory and desiring a Jewish homeland?

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

 

[Coyote]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

You mean like the rights of the Jews inhabiting that territory and desiring a Jewish homeland?

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

 

[montelatici]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

You mean like the rights of the Jews inhabiting that territory and desiring a Jewish homeland?

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

 

[Coyote]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

I don't think it's fair to say Jews came there to "kick people out". In fact, Jewish immigration did not displace Palestinians. War did, and subsequent expulsions.

 

[Coyote]

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

You mean like the rights of the Jews inhabiting that territory and desiring a Jewish homeland?

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

 

[Shusha]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

Seriously? So when the Arabs do it it's just immigration. But when the Jewish people migrate to their own ancestral lands it takes in a sinister tone.

Sounds suspiciously like a racial prejudice.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

I don't think it's fair to say Jews came there to "kick people out". In fact, Jewish immigration did not displace Palestinians. War did, and subsequent expulsions.

The purpose of the war was to expel the Palestinians. The Zionist's goal was always all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It would be impossible to create a Jewish state where only 1/3 of the population was Jewish. The Palestinians had to go. It didn't just happen because of war. It was a necessity.

 

[Coyote]

So it's now 2017.

And we are discussing events that unfolded over the past...what...150 years?

Events that included the toppling and division of empires, the rise of ethnic nationalism, and the end of colonial projects, the creation of new states.

So what difference does it make NOW to keep rehashing these same things?

At this point - the "squatters" or "colonists" (depending on which side you're shooting from) have been there for generations if not centuries if not millinium.

So what?

The colonists from Europe began arriving in earnest after 1920. Not that long ago. I don't get your point.

Actually...1882 marked the first large scale immigration....around the same time as America also saw large swells in immigration.