Are the Palestinians a real people?

[Dogmaphobe]

Typical race bait of a desperate degenerate.

Maybe peace comes to Europe
when Span gives eastern Madrid to the Al-Andalus Caliphate.

Why don't you show by example?

Muslims Demand "Right of Return" to Spain

Antisemitic filth like to turn the tables by accusing the targets of theit insane
hatred of being the haters. Jewish people merely wanting to exist is reason
enough for these monsters to accuse them of racism.

​

Let's establish a clear distinction here:

The government of the United States and the american people.

The 3000 innocent american civilians who perished in 2001 were completely innocent and didn't do anything to deserve their horrendous fate.

But the american government, America as a tribe, as a country, as a nation-state is a whole different story.

America spent the last 70 years providing the weapons that murder the palestinian people like for example Apache helicopters this palestinian refugee fighting for his right to return to Yibna referred to:

​

The american civilians didn't deserve to die but their country fully deserved the punishment.

Now Rylah or Dogmaphobe can reply:

José, can you really separate the just punishment inflicted on America from the unjust punishment inflicted on those 3000 americans?

Aren't the two punishments inextricably intertwined?

This would be an excellent reply to which I don't have a good answer let alone an excellent one...

Or maybe I do...

The two punishments can't realy be separated at all.

And that's precisely why I feel kind of bad when I make these references to 9-11.

The country deserved the punishment it received and much more...

I personally believe 10 skyscrappers would be a just punishment for America's pornographic financing of the murder of palestinians refugees.

But the 3000 american civilians definitely didn't deserve to have a single broken nail.

Well, that's one ringing endorsement for terrorism.

GOLDA AND JOSÉ
​

Peace will come when the arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

Golda Meir

Peace will come when America will love her skyscrappers (and the americans inside them) more than she loves jewish racism in Palestine.

José

Typical race bait of a desperate degenerate.

Maybe peace comes to Europe
when Span gives eastern Madrid to the Al-Andalus Caliphate.

Why don't you show by example?

Muslims Demand "Right of Return" to Spain

Antisemitic filth like to turn the tables by accusing the targets of theit insane hatred of being the haters. Jewish people merely wanting to exist is reason enough for these monsters to accuse them of racism.

Jewish people are no different than any other people when it comes racism, bigotry or any of a number petty or major hatreds. They are just people, good and bad and everything in between. Jews can be racist. Blacks can racist. It is just another kind of tribalism usually hidden under a thin veneer of nationalism. The people I admire are those who rise above it and see the commonality in all of us.

I don't understand those who seek to elevate them to a higher pedestal any more than I understand those who denigrate them to a lower level. It comes off rather patronizing.

Yes, Jews can be racist.


Only a complete subhuman would accuse them of such for wanting to defend themselves against genocidal maniacs, however.

 

[Shusha]

Prior to that they were publicly declaring their submission to the rule of Arabian King of Mecca.

Arabs did not culturally appropriate the word until 1964 when it was deemed unacceptable for Arabs to continue their imperialist colonial ambitions.

The scheme couldn't be more in your face.

It is still common for Arab Palestinians to claim they are no different from Jordanians and Syrians. That they are all one people.

 

[Shusha]

...springing into existence quite suddenly as a propaganda tool.

Existence predicated on eliminating another's sovereignty is certainly sketchy and I agree, a disqualification.

 

[Shusha]

Then why are we arguing? That is essentially what I meant.

We are arguing because you didn't say "shared land" or "disputed land". You said "their land", in the context of Arab Palestinians. In future, if you mean shared land or disputed land you need to specify that.

Oh for heaven's sake. I wish you were as picky when team Israel claims it as Jewish land. No "their" arguments then.

You miss my point. Their arguments are consistent with their beliefs. Just as Tinmore's daily referral to Palestinian land is consistent with his beliefs.

But if you and I are going to continue to present ourselves as the only two people on this entire board who see the territory as *shared* land it is incumbent upon us to be consistent in our use of language.

I called you out because I want to know if you really believe that the territory is "Arab land" or "Palestinian land". Are you misrepresenting your beliefs?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

...springing into existence quite suddenly as a propaganda tool.

Existence predicated on eliminating another's sovereignty is certainly sketchy and I agree, a disqualification.

Also, they were invented in order to take advantage of all the familiar antisemit

...springing into existence quite suddenly as a propaganda tool.

Existence predicated on eliminating another's sovereignty is certainly sketchy and I agree, a disqualification.

Not only that, but Pallywood propaganda utilizes all the classic anti-Semitic canards from the Nazi era. That is why it was so essential to create this new "Palestinian" people to act as victim to the powerful and manipulative Jew forever working behind the scenes. Change the word Jew to Israel, and spin those tales of wagging the dog, sneaky Jews getting America to do their bidding, undue control and all the rest of the familiar themes. The Arabs in the region learned well from their years aligned with the Nazis and the casual Pallywood supporter todays feels perfectly comfortable repeating them.

For instance, here is a comment from a few Months ago accusing Jews of manipulating Muslims to kill Christians. It might as well have been lifted directly from the Protocols or Mein Kampf. I would suggest you pay close attention to who it was inspired enough to proclaim it a winner and soon thereafter agreed that it is a FACT that Jews are doing this.

Europe: The Psychological Gap Between East and West.

 

[flacaltenn]

How they came to be a real people does NOT invalidate their existence as a real people.

Doesn't it?

How can we define "a people" without having an understanding of what that means and how one people are differentiated from another people? For example, are the people of Nazareth a "real" people? How would we know if they are or if they are not? How are they differentiated from Arab Palestinians? Should they have rights and access to national sovereignty and self-determination? What about the people of Galilee? Are they a "real" people? How would we know? How are they differentiated from all other people? Should they have rights and access to national self-determination?

What if the people of Judea and Samaria were to declare themselves a "real" people with history going back thousands of years? Would they not gain the rights of sovereignty and self-determination in their homeland? Surely, you would champion a State of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, would you not?

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

Yes...it does. Because it's identity. An identity that recognizes a shared culture, heritage, and if they can get their act together - a future. Denying it is denying THEIR right to an identity, history, a being. And that is what this is all about isn't? When you deny a people their identity, you erase them.

I just told you that NO ONE can deny anyone their identity... Even if I choose to identify as a spotted owl or a unicorn....

THat's why this doesn't matter...

Now folks over history HAVE been deprived of their religion or political views or even their voice in total.. Been deprived of their FREEDOM which is even worse.. But writing a law taking away an identity, never made a diff in the struggles..

 

[rylah]

GOLDA AND JOSÉ
​

Peace will come when the arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

Golda Meir

Peace will come when America will love her skyscrappers (and the americans inside them) more than she loves jewish racism in Palestine.

José

Typical race bait of a desperate degenerate.

Maybe peace comes to Europe
when Span gives eastern Madrid to the Al-Andalus Caliphate.

Why don't you show by example?

Muslims Demand "Right of Return" to Spain

Antisemitic filth like to turn the tables by accusing the targets of theit insane hatred of being the haters. Jewish people merely wanting to exist is reason enough for these monsters to accuse them of racism.

Jewish people are no different than any other people when it comes racism, bigotry or any of a number petty or major hatreds. They are just people, good and bad and everything in between. Jews can be racist. Blacks can racist. It is just another kind of tribalism usually hidden under a thin veneer of nationalism. The people I admire are those who rise above it and see the commonality in all of us.

I don't understand those who seek to elevate them to a higher pedestal any more than I understand those who denigrate them to a lower level. It comes off rather patronizing.

Let's clear something up.

First of all tribalism and nationalism don't equal racism.
This is more an argument between globalist universalism and individualist particularism.

Very different attitudes.
The univeralist approach is globalist, imperialist.
While nationalism and tribalism are natural expressions of distinct communities aiming at preserving specific their specifically defined culture, and usually minorities, in modern terms - preservation of unique cultural source "as a trust of civilization"

Racism on the other hand is on the universalist side, viewing groups of nations as a supreme group seeking imperialist domination of wide regions.

The US and Israel are unique civilizations in this context.
For comparison, the US is not fundamentally particulaist, still an individualist society.
On the other hand the Russian Federation has a national church, and it's a collectivist society.


All versions of Arab nationalism, are strictly collectivist, with imperialist aims at achieving supremacy and domination of vast regions that span several continents, outside its particular cultural origin.Arab nationalism is the archetype of collectivist imperialism at its full force, and aside from reaching regional domination - has been in decline at the expense of all the decimated indigenous minorities.

Israel and the US are unique countries in this context, that they are both individualist,
in the range of it most healthy contrast and relevancy for human development.
Israel is as successful archetype of particularist individualism, and the US of more universalist individualism.

 

[rylah]

How they came to be a real people does NOT invalidate their existence as a real people.

Doesn't it?

How can we define "a people" without having an understanding of what that means and how one people are differentiated from another people? For example, are the people of Nazareth a "real" people? How would we know if they are or if they are not? How are they differentiated from Arab Palestinians? Should they have rights and access to national sovereignty and self-determination? What about the people of Galilee? Are they a "real" people? How would we know? How are they differentiated from all other people? Should they have rights and access to national self-determination?

What if the people of Judea and Samaria were to declare themselves a "real" people with history going back thousands of years? Would they not gain the rights of sovereignty and self-determination in their homeland? Surely, you would champion a State of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, would you not?

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

Yes...it does. Because it's identity. An identity that recognizes a shared culture, heritage, and if they can get their act together - a future. Denying it is denying THEIR right to an identity, history, a being. And that is what this is all about isn't? When you deny a people their identity, you erase them.

I just told you that NO ONE can deny anyone their identity... Even if I choose to identify as a spotted owl or a unicorn....

THat's why this doesn't matter...

Now folks over history HAVE been deprived of their religion or political views or even their voice in total.. Been deprived of their FREEDOM which is even worse.. But writing a law taking away an identity, never made a diff in the struggles..

When doctors deal with unhealthy individuals, especially those who threaten to kill themselves,
are not playing into identity games when time comes to receive medicine.

Johnny is prescribed Johnnie's medicine,
even if he now calls himself the woman he murdered...

 

[Coyote]

I didn't answer this earlier because I was on my phone during my lunch half hour and I feel you deserve a better answer then a snark - thank you for a serious reply!

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

I agree. That is a great definition. I would add to your list of traits - a shared national history that unites the group as one group and begins the process of separation into a different “people”. In my opinion that can be a turning point in separating a group of people out of a larger group. Much as genetic bottlenecks through geographical barriers can create new species, a similar thing can happen to separate one group from a larger culture and create a new one. In that sense it is an organic evolution of a people.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.


In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.


That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.


And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

First: is the “malice” malice? IS there malice and is it entirely where you seem to want to place it?


Here are the questions.


Is there a group of people disenfranchised from the nationalist movements playing out around them? Jews…Pan-Arabs….?


Is there a group of people who see themselves as losing out in this?


What is the malice in their choosing to express their identity and solidarity (which, I might add began before they were supposedly “invented”?


Why is it ok for Jews and other Arabs to express their national identity but not Palestinians? Why is it “malice” when applied to Palestinian identity? I do think that the idea of Jewish nationalism is a 19th/20th century phenomenum - unless you can make the argument otherwise. Before then they were a persecuted religious group.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

It seems to me that a shared unique history that binds them is sufficient.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

Does there have to be a “purpose”?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

I agree, and agree likely there are other things. I believe the Palestinians meet some of those requirements: myths and stories, a shared history Naqba, life and cultural changes within refugee camps. It might not be centuries old but if there is no magical date or time frame, then I think these would qualify to separate them as a their own entity.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Agree. Though from an anthropological view point, language separation comes later in the process of becoming a people.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

[/quote]


Thank you! I’m so happy to hear this because I’m so sick of the constant refrain of “what nation existed” blah blah blah.


A new people is always coming into being.

 

[Coyote]

What is "a people"?

A "people" is a cohesive group of individuals who self-identify and can be distinguished in point of fact from other groups through measurable traits or factors. Those traits have traditionally included culture, language, religious beliefs, geographic locality, ceremony and ritual, a system of laws, worldview, specific ceremonial practices, system of myths and legends, connection to monuments and antiquities, political views or aspirations, tribal and familial relationships and probably a few things I've missed. A "people" typically has a number of these different traits and can be readily distinguished from others, even if they may share some similar traits.

Who gets to decide whether or not they are a "people"?

Tough question.

In the absence of malice, I'd say that only the people can decide if they are different from all other people.

That said, malice exists and thus an objective standard would be a reasonable starting place.

And that said, recognition is also a factor, in that if there is no way for a reasonable person to distinguish between your people and another people...um....shrug.

At what point do they become a "people"?

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Do they need a unique culture

Depends on what they "need" it for. What's the purpose of being a "people"?

(and what "defines" a unique culture"?)

Language. Ceremonial practices. Life event practices. Celebrations. Holidays. Religious practices. System of laws. Special diets. Distinctive clothing. Rituals and ritual objects. Myths and stories. Moral precepts. Probably some I've missed.

Do they need a unique language?

As an objective requirement? No. They very often do, however. Its a definitive marker, imo.

Do they have to have had a nation?

As an objective requirement, in the modern sense? No. This presumes that new cultures and "peoples" can not come into being which is sort of ridiculous. On the other hand, most of today's "peoples" do actually have a some sort of history as a self-governing entity.

When they are sufficiently distinguished, in point of fact, from other people.

Palestinians were born in Palestine and hold that citizenship.

Nobody else can make that claim. That distinguishes them from all other people.

Citizenship is a function of state - not of being "a people".

 

[Coyote]

...springing into existence quite suddenly as a propaganda tool.

Existence predicated on eliminating another's sovereignty is certainly sketchy and I agree, a disqualification.

And is that all you think it is Shusha?

I think it is more than that and narrowing existence to that is pretty low.

The Palestinians, whether you agree with their view or not saw their existence at stake under Jewish sovereignty.

You can argue it, but that is their view. And to a degree it is justified by the refusal of Israeli Jews to allow them (not their hundreds of descendants) but those who originally fled from the ravages of war - to return. That was followed by very unjust absentee landowner laws (ya, I know, we don't agree on that either ). It's their perspective.

 

[Coyote]

Typical race bait of a desperate degenerate.

Maybe peace comes to Europe
when Span gives eastern Madrid to the Al-Andalus Caliphate.

Why don't you show by example?

Muslims Demand "Right of Return" to Spain

Antisemitic filth like to turn the tables by accusing the targets of theit insane
hatred of being the haters. Jewish people merely wanting to exist is reason
enough for these monsters to accuse them of racism.

​

Let's establish a clear distinction here:

The government of the United States and the american people.

The 3000 innocent american civilians who perished in 2001 were completely innocent and didn't do anything to deserve their horrendous fate.

But the american government, America as a tribe, as a country, as a nation-state is a whole different story.

America spent the last 70 years providing the weapons that murder the palestinian people like for example Apache helicopters this palestinian refugee fighting for his right to return to Yibna referred to:

​

The american civilians didn't deserve to die but their country fully deserved the punishment.

Now Rylah or Dogmaphobe can reply:

José, can you really separate the just punishment inflicted on America from the unjust punishment inflicted on those 3000 americans?

Aren't the two punishments inextricably intertwined?

This would be an excellent reply to which I don't have a good answer let alone an excellent one...

Or maybe I do...

The two punishments can't realy be separated at all.

And that's precisely why I feel kind of bad when I make these references to 9-11.

The country deserved the punishment it received and much more...

I personally believe 10 skyscrappers would be a just punishment for America's pornographic financing of the murder of palestinians refugees.

But the 3000 american civilians definitely didn't deserve to have a single broken nail.

Well, that's one ringing endorsement for terrorism.

GOLDA AND JOSÉ
​

Peace will come when the arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

Golda Meir

Peace will come when America will love her skyscrappers (and the americans inside them) more than she loves jewish racism in Palestine.

José

Typical race bait of a desperate degenerate.

Maybe peace comes to Europe
when Span gives eastern Madrid to the Al-Andalus Caliphate.

Why don't you show by example?

Muslims Demand "Right of Return" to Spain

Antisemitic filth like to turn the tables by accusing the targets of theit insane hatred of being the haters. Jewish people merely wanting to exist is reason enough for these monsters to accuse them of racism.

Jewish people are no different than any other people when it comes racism, bigotry or any of a number petty or major hatreds. They are just people, good and bad and everything in between. Jews can be racist. Blacks can racist. It is just another kind of tribalism usually hidden under a thin veneer of nationalism. The people I admire are those who rise above it and see the commonality in all of us.

I don't understand those who seek to elevate them to a higher pedestal any more than I understand those who denigrate them to a lower level. It comes off rather patronizing.

Yes, Jews can be racist.


Only a complete subhuman would accuse them of such for wanting to defend themselves against genocidal maniacs, however.

Weird.

For one brief moment we kind a agree. I'll savor its brevity.

 

[Coyote]

If we can discuss it civily .... I'm happy to clear it up. Otherwise. not so much.

Let's clear something up.


First of all tribalism and nationalism don't equal racism.

This is more an argument between globalist universalism and individualist particularism.


Very different attitudes.

The univeralist approach is globalist, imperialist.

While nationalism and tribalism are natural expressions of distinct communities aiming at preserving specific their specifically defined culture, and usually minorities, in modern terms - preservation of unique cultural source "as a trust of civilization"


Racism on the other hand is on the universalist side, viewing groups of nations as a supreme group seeking imperialist domination of wide regions.

I’m going to argue against this. (I’m sure that doesn’t shock you).


Tribalism and nationalism depend on a model based on exclusiveness, not inclusiveness.


There is “us” and there is “the other”.


Racism is a direct reflection of “the other” (the “other” is that group who is a different race, religion, ethnicity or sexuality). Racism is just a very easy marker of “the other”.


The universalist approach (as I understand it) is to increase inclusion of who is defined as “us”, and while it means a greater role for the state in government it also is inclined to give greater protections to minorities (typically “the other”.


I see tribalism and nationalism as a dangerous narrowing of the definition of “us” and “not us”.

The US and Israel are unique civilizations in this context.

For comparison, the US is not fundamentally particulaist, still an individualist society.

On the other hand the Russian Federation has a national church, and it's a collectivist society.

I don’t think “collectivist” is relevant here….at least I am not seeing it. The Russian Federation is less “collectivist” than autocratic and where once communism tried to erase religion - now religion is stepping in to fill the void.

All versions of Arab nationalism, are strictly collectivist, with imperialist aims at achieving supremacy and domination of vast regions that span several continents, outside its particular cultural origin.Arab nationalism is the archetype of collectivist imperialism at its full force, and aside from reaching regional domination - has been in decline at the expense of all the decimated indigenous minorities.

I don’t see that. Maybe we define things differently. I see Arab nationalism as more along autocratic and nationalist lines. Collectivist implies state control through a democratic process. The US is to an extent collectivist as are many western nations that have strong social safety net and a strong protection of minority populations.

Israel and the US are unique countries in this context, that they are both individualist,

in the range of it most healthy contrast and relevancy for human development.

Israel is as successful archetype of particularist individualism, and the US of more universalist individualism.

I’m not sure I agree.


I see strong similarities in that both the US and Israel are at heart a nation of immigrants. Israel has welcomed Jews from different cultures all over the world and that has enriched Israel in a way that it’s Arab neighbors have never experienced. I see similarities in basic values: human rights, minority protections, independent judiciary. All that, imo, is a product of Israel’s diverse immigrant experience.


Individualism in and of itself is both admirable and incredibly selfish. It is admirable in that it builds a strong economy, it is selfish in that it spurns a social safety net, and treats badly those who don’t manage to make it. I don’t know where Israel falls in this, so I’m only speaking for the US.

 

[Coyote]

How they came to be a real people does NOT invalidate their existence as a real people.

Doesn't it?

How can we define "a people" without having an understanding of what that means and how one people are differentiated from another people? For example, are the people of Nazareth a "real" people? How would we know if they are or if they are not? How are they differentiated from Arab Palestinians? Should they have rights and access to national sovereignty and self-determination? What about the people of Galilee? Are they a "real" people? How would we know? How are they differentiated from all other people? Should they have rights and access to national self-determination?

What if the people of Judea and Samaria were to declare themselves a "real" people with history going back thousands of years? Would they not gain the rights of sovereignty and self-determination in their homeland? Surely, you would champion a State of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, would you not?

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

Yes...it does. Because it's identity. An identity that recognizes a shared culture, heritage, and if they can get their act together - a future. Denying it is denying THEIR right to an identity, history, a being. And that is what this is all about isn't? When you deny a people their identity, you erase them.

I just told you that NO ONE can deny anyone their identity... Even if I choose to identify as a spotted owl or a unicorn....

THat's why this doesn't matter...

Now folks over history HAVE been deprived of their religion or political views or even their voice in total.. Been deprived of their FREEDOM which is even worse.. But writing a law taking away an identity, never made a diff in the struggles..

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand you.

IMO people can and are deprived of their identity. Case in point - the Rohinga in Myanmar.

 

[Coyote]

Prior to that they were publicly declaring their submission to the rule of Arabian King of Mecca.

Arabs did not culturally appropriate the word until 1964 when it was deemed unacceptable for Arabs to continue their imperialist colonial ambitions.

The scheme couldn't be more in your face.

It is still common for Arab Palestinians to claim they are no different from Jordanians and Syrians. That they are all one people.

And yet they claim they are NOT Shusha. They have experienced a very different history from both Jordanians and Syrians.

 

[flacaltenn]

Doesn't it?

How can we define "a people" without having an understanding of what that means and how one people are differentiated from another people? For example, are the people of Nazareth a "real" people? How would we know if they are or if they are not? How are they differentiated from Arab Palestinians? Should they have rights and access to national sovereignty and self-determination? What about the people of Galilee? Are they a "real" people? How would we know? How are they differentiated from all other people? Should they have rights and access to national self-determination?

What if the people of Judea and Samaria were to declare themselves a "real" people with history going back thousands of years? Would they not gain the rights of sovereignty and self-determination in their homeland? Surely, you would champion a State of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, would you not?

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

Yes...it does. Because it's identity. An identity that recognizes a shared culture, heritage, and if they can get their act together - a future. Denying it is denying THEIR right to an identity, history, a being. And that is what this is all about isn't? When you deny a people their identity, you erase them.

I just told you that NO ONE can deny anyone their identity... Even if I choose to identify as a spotted owl or a unicorn....

THat's why this doesn't matter...

Now folks over history HAVE been deprived of their religion or political views or even their voice in total.. Been deprived of their FREEDOM which is even worse.. But writing a law taking away an identity, never made a diff in the struggles..

When doctors deal with unhealthy individuals, especially those who threaten to kill themselves,
are not playing into identity games when time comes to receive medicine.

Johnny is prescribed Johnnie's medicine,
even if he now calls himself the woman he murdered...

Just considering Arabs as some kind of homogeneous "people" is a very "imperialist" construct..

And today the big secret is that Iran is nearing the "Red Zone" is constructing a NEW and improved Ottoman Empire...

Even if they don't identify as "Arab"...

Aside -- "Red Zone" is an American football term for having the offense of one team inside the opponents 20 yard line... And that's really what's happening without anybody IMPORTANT (like the American press) pointing this out...

The Iranians have quietly been occupying large sections of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.. They have a large proxy presence in the Sinai Pen. and Yemen and Gaza.. They are conducting joint military exercises with Russia/China..

I think Israel is soon to be "best buddies" with Jordan and Egypt and a few other "Arab League" players...



And I thought Americans HATED empires and colonialism....

 

[flacaltenn]

Doesn't it?

How can we define "a people" without having an understanding of what that means and how one people are differentiated from another people? For example, are the people of Nazareth a "real" people? How would we know if they are or if they are not? How are they differentiated from Arab Palestinians? Should they have rights and access to national sovereignty and self-determination? What about the people of Galilee? Are they a "real" people? How would we know? How are they differentiated from all other people? Should they have rights and access to national self-determination?

What if the people of Judea and Samaria were to declare themselves a "real" people with history going back thousands of years? Would they not gain the rights of sovereignty and self-determination in their homeland? Surely, you would champion a State of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, would you not?

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

Yes...it does. Because it's identity. An identity that recognizes a shared culture, heritage, and if they can get their act together - a future. Denying it is denying THEIR right to an identity, history, a being. And that is what this is all about isn't? When you deny a people their identity, you erase them.

I just told you that NO ONE can deny anyone their identity... Even if I choose to identify as a spotted owl or a unicorn....

THat's why this doesn't matter...

Now folks over history HAVE been deprived of their religion or political views or even their voice in total.. Been deprived of their FREEDOM which is even worse.. But writing a law taking away an identity, never made a diff in the struggles..

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand you.

IMO people can and are deprived of their identity. Case in point - the Rohinga in Myanmar.

Cases like the Rohinga or the Uyghars are ethnic persecution.. When a govt power decides to persecute them, it's because the govt ACCEPTS their identity as a crime.. You and I both know how extreme this is..

But nobody is stripping them of their identity/ethnicity.. They are being persecuted BECAUSE of it...

ALL of the Palis within Israel probably are not genuine Palestinian.. In terms of when they came and what allegiances to countries that they had before... Palestinians simply don't WANT "Israeli rights".. They want sovereignty.. They are not being stripped of rights because they are Palestinian.. They are refugees from conflict that have been occupied.. And if they HAD a history of self-governance and self-representation to go along with that Pali identity -- they'd be much farther towards negotiating a settlement...

But the "Pali identity" lacks that history and determination....

 

[Shusha]

And is that all you think it is Shusha?

I think it is more than that and narrowing existence to that is pretty low.

They have had nearly a hundred years to prove me wrong. They have done nothing AT ALL to build their own nation with their own cultural values. They spend millions of dollars every year to pay their people to slay Jews. They march at the border screaming "rip the hearts out of Jews!" If their national aspirations was based on something they wanted to build, rather than something they wanted to destroy -- they would have built something.

And don't give me the sob story that the poor Arabs couldn't do anything because Israel. Its a cop-out and I don't buy it.

The Palestinians, whether you agree with their view or not saw their existence at stake under Jewish sovereignty.

No, they didn't. They saw their Arab Caliphate lose a tiny slice of territory to the indigenous inhabitants and had a temper tantrum.

You can argue it, but that is their view. And to a degree it is justified by the refusal of Israeli Jews to allow them (not their hundreds of descendants) but those who originally fled from the ravages of war - to return. That was followed by very unjust absentee landowner laws (ya, I know, we don't agree on that either ). It's their perspective.

We can discuss return when the war ends.

 

[Coyote]

...springing into existence quite suddenly as a propaganda tool.

Existence predicated on eliminating another's sovereignty is certainly sketchy and I agree, a disqualification.

Also, they were invented in order to take advantage of all the familiar antisemit

...springing into existence quite suddenly as a propaganda tool.

Existence predicated on eliminating another's sovereignty is certainly sketchy and I agree, a disqualification.

Not only that, but Pallywood propaganda utilizes all the classic anti-Semitic canards from the Nazi era. That is why it was so essential to create this new "Palestinian" people to act as victim to the powerful and manipulative Jew forever working behind the scenes. Change the word Jew to Israel, and spin those tales of wagging the dog, sneaky Jews getting America to do their bidding, undue control and all the rest of the familiar themes. The Arabs in the region learned well from their years aligned with the Nazis and the casual Pallywood supporter todays feels perfectly comfortable repeating them.

For instance, here is a comment from a few Months ago accusing Jews of manipulating Muslims to kill Christians. It might as well have been lifted directly from the Protocols or Mein Kampf. I would suggest you pay close attention to who it was inspired enough to proclaim it a winner and soon thereafter agreed that it is a FACT that Jews are doing this.

Europe: The Psychological Gap Between East and West.

And that is different from your obsessive hatred of Muslims...so much so you will resort to hate sites to promote outright lies (like when you claimed the notorious American Pedo Larry Nasser was a Muslim) It is time to start discussing the rape of Britain’s children. Ya know....that could come right out of Mein Kampf couldn't it? Canards based in hate and lies.

Pot Kettle Black.

I suggest you don't go down the bigot road and derail this thread without examining your own blemishes in the mirror (but please don't pop your zits publicly.)

 

[Coyote]

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

Being g a people and rights of national sovereignty are two different things imo.

There ya go... Been trying to tell you that...

You figured out how to say it in less than my 150 words.. So -- I ask you AGAIN -- does it matter if they ARE a people if they can't organize for representation and governance?

Yes...it does. Because it's identity. An identity that recognizes a shared culture, heritage, and if they can get their act together - a future. Denying it is denying THEIR right to an identity, history, a being. And that is what this is all about isn't? When you deny a people their identity, you erase them.

I just told you that NO ONE can deny anyone their identity... Even if I choose to identify as a spotted owl or a unicorn....

THat's why this doesn't matter...

Now folks over history HAVE been deprived of their religion or political views or even their voice in total.. Been deprived of their FREEDOM which is even worse.. But writing a law taking away an identity, never made a diff in the struggles..

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand you.

IMO people can and are deprived of their identity. Case in point - the Rohinga in Myanmar.

Cases like the Rohinga or the Uyghars are ethnic persecution.. When a govt power decides to persecute them, it's because the govt ACCEPTS their identity as a crime.. You and I both know how extreme this is..

But nobody is stripping them of their identity/ethnicity.. They are being persecuted BECAUSE of it...

ALL of the Palis within Israel probably are not genuine Palestinian.. In terms of when they came and what allegiances to countries that they had before... Palestinians simply don't WANT "Israeli rights".. They want sovereignty.. They are not being stripped of rights because they are Palestinian.. They are refugees from conflict that have been occupied.. And if they HAD a history of self-governance and self-representation to go along with that Pali identity -- they'd be much farther towards negotiating a settlement...

But the "Pali identity" lacks that history and determination....

Actually - with the Rohinga they ARE being stripped of their identity. That is the peculiar evil of it (other than the obvious genocide) - they are not called "Rohinga" - an identity that establishes them as a minority in Myanmar, but "Bengali" by the Myanmar government. They are stripped of their identity, history and lives.