Consider The Facts

[MJB12741]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

 

[Boston1]

What I'm learning is that the pro revisionists have trouble with truth.

I don't think you are going to convince to many of them to comment on the history of the term palestine honestly, or on the term palestinian people; as much of their narrative depends on the belief that a circle is actually square.

 

[turzovka]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

 

[MJB12741]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

 

[Coyote]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

From "who we are":
This website is devoted to fighting Terrorism and the forced integration of Marxist oriented ideals and values into the American mainstream. By exposing the violent actions and the violent speech (and it is very violent, just keep reading) of these so-called "Non-Violent" and "Peaceful" groups, the truth is revealed for all to see. Their brand of Radical Marxist Liberalism poses a serious threat to the American public. They are among us and this website exposes them for who they are and what they are based on THEIR actions and THEIR agendas.

Why exactly should we take anything from this site as "truth"?

Facts are documented. Semi-truth. What facts are documented and how they are spun and what is left out is determined by the winner of the conflict. When the "established" narrative (that given by the winner) is questioned - it's labeled "revisionist history" - even though it too provides documented facts (and it's own spin).

So where is the truth?

 

[Coyote]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay? Sure. But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).

 

[Boston1]

I don't think anyone is saying Israel has always existed. What we are saying is that ancient Judea Jerusalem and the Canaan valley area is where the Judaic peoples developed and grew into a strong culture. The genesis of this culture with its distinct language and customs, religion and ideologies came out of the local tribes of the area dating prior to the late bronze age collapse roughly 4500 years ago.

The Arab Muslim colonists who arrived in about the 9th century CE on the other hand brought their culture, language and beliefs with them from the Arabian peninsula area in wha is known as the Muslim Conquests

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggiMAE&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine&usg=AFQjCNFtriCpKYbW6lMG04J-LZFepmDm3A&sig2=QV9koB4Jjmw8elG_6r5LJA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

and

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggpMAI&url=http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_when_islam.php&usg=AFQjCNEWknDyOBktBlxeWXFcejnTN2sBFw&sig2=XLAT4rnn-_G9j0QjL2qz3A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Well thats crazy, no idea why its not just pasting simple links.

In any case the argument isn't that a place called Israel ever existed prior to 48 the argument is that the Arab Muslim colonists already have two states within the mandated area and don't need a third. What they need is an excuse to try and destabilize Israel.

So the question of who or what is an indigenous people was brought up.

The Arab Muslim colonists would like us to believe there is a distinct culture called palestinian, so began the refutation of palestine.

Which brings us to there having been no palestine or distinct palestinian culture of language, religion or ideologies develop out of the Arab Muslim colonial period or people. As apposed to the Judaic people who most certainly do have all the defining characteristics of a distict cultural and ethnic group. A first nations people.

In the end there's really no posible debate as to who is the first nations people of Judea Jerusalem and the Canaan valley area. The Egyptians bailed out in the late bronze age collapse leaving the proto Judaic tribes room to develop into the modern Jewish culture and peoples we see today.

The Arab Muslim colonists ( first wave in about the 9th century CE. Second wave in the early to mid Zionist period ) simply don't fit the description of a first people or indigenous.

If we are to consider the facts one must accept that Israel is today in the exact place of its early development through the Judaic culture, language and belief system.

 

[MJB12741]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay? Sure. But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).

AOL Image Searchresult for "http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/ot_israel-flat.jpg"

 

[Coyote]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay? Sure. But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).

AOL Image Searchresult for "http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/ot_israel-flat.jpg"

No one is denying it existed thousands of years ago.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think anyone is saying Israel has always existed. What we are saying is that ancient Judea Jerusalem and the Canaan valley area is where the Judaic peoples developed and grew into a strong culture. The genesis of this culture with its distinct language and customs, religion and ideologies came out of the local tribes of the area dating prior to the late bronze age collapse roughly 4500 years ago.

MJB specifically said it: "For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom." The Israel of today is not the Israel of thousands of years ago. It's a brand new modern nation recreated in the 20th century. Even the language had to be resurected. The sort of argument that MJB goes alongside the one about "where is Palestine" - inherent in the "questions" are the claims that the one has been a state and other (including it's people) never existed until modern times. Neither is totally true and the purpose in those sorts of claims is to disenfranchise one side's right to be there. The Jewish people, alongside other people's have existed there for thousands of years. States and nations have risen and fallen. That is the only actual fact imo.

The Arab Muslim colonists who arrived in about the 9th century CE on the other hand brought their culture, language and beliefs with them from the Arabian peninsula area in wha is known as the Muslim Conquests

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggiMAE&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine&usg=AFQjCNFtriCpKYbW6lMG04J-LZFepmDm3A&sig2=QV9koB4Jjmw8elG_6r5LJA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Why are you calling them colonists? You realize, don't you, that the people who today call themselves "Israeli Jews" were themselves colonists of an earlier people? The Muslim conquests ended in many native people converting to Islam, just as the earlier Christian conquests resulted in many people converting to Christianity. Cultures in that area are built upon layers and layers of conquests.

and

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0_6h7K7KAhVGzWMKHSP6BNsQFggpMAI&url=http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_when_islam.php&usg=AFQjCNEWknDyOBktBlxeWXFcejnTN2sBFw&sig2=XLAT4rnn-_G9j0QjL2qz3A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Well thats crazy, no idea why its not just pasting simple links.

It does that sometimes - not sure why!

In any case the argument isn't that a place called Israel ever existed prior to 48 the argument is that the Arab Muslim colonists already have two states within the mandated area and don't need a third. What they need is an excuse to try and destabilize Israel.

So the question of who or what is an indigenous people was brought up.

The Arab Muslim colonists would like us to believe there is a distinct culture called palestinian, so began the refutation of palestine.

You're constant referral to native people's as "Arab Muslim colonists" is as annoying as another poster's constant referral to "Jewish colonists" and it's not any more accurate. The Palestinian people are descendents of people who have lived there as long as the Jews mixed with later migrations (kind of like todays Jews). They have every right to be there. Every Arab state is it's own entity, not sure why there is this insistence that there must some sort of equity here. There are more European states than Arab states - should one of them be given to the Jews then? Why should Europeans have more states than anyone else? That's the kind of argument you're making. In the end - it resolves nothing. As you say - Israel is here to stay. So are the Palestinians. Despite the best efforts of both sides to diminsh them and turn them into non-people.

Which brings us to there having been no palestine or distinct palestinian culture of language, religion or ideologies develop out of the Arab Muslim colonial period or people. As apposed to the Judaic people who most certainly do have all the defining characteristics of a distict cultural and ethnic group. A first nations people.

Every "people" starts somewhere. They don't drop onto the earth from alien starships. What you are saying is some people (due to arbritrary definitions and an arbritrary length of existence) have more rights than others. There is not much of a distinct cultural/ethnic difference between America and Canada but I have never heard that used as an excuse to deny the rights of either to their nations.

 

[Boston1]

the bottom line is that the British mandate area has been split into two states. An Arab Muslim state and a Jewish state. With Gaza left over, which will eventually become a third Arab Muslim state.

I use the term Arab because it defines the language
Muslim because it defines the religion
and colonists because it defines there having come from somewhere else.

Cultures are more accurately described as being defined by language, belief systems and customs among a few other things. In which case the Arab Muslims brought there culture in an armed conquest not unlike the Romans did earlier. The term colonist seems most accurate to describe those who remained to emplace these criteria. What locals remained from the conquest, who didn't flee would have been incorporated into the new culture.

What you are stressing is that there will be some of the remaining inhabitants who carry the original blood line. No problem, but the predominant people and the culture they imposed on the survivors were colonists

Oh and the 35% or so of returnees who came from Europe for instance don't really qualify as colonists. Its a definitions thing. They are returning to the place of their ancestral origins. Not colonizing a new area. I started a definitions thread over this one.

 

[aris2chat]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay? Sure. But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).

and the US only began it's "existence" a couple hundred years ago. The jewish people, as a national identity and religion never ceased to exist, not did they totally leave their ancient heritage land.

They were invited by the Ottoman and promised by the LoN and the UN their land as a state for jews.
Palestine was a later thought and never existed as a state before. Most of the middle east and the british empire became states without real historic basis.
World have seen changing and rehanging is the dawn of time.

 

[Coyote]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay? Sure. But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).

and the US only began it's "existence" a couple hundred years ago. The jewish people, as a national identity and religion never ceased to exist, not did they totally leave their ancient heritage land.

They were invited by the Ottoman and promised by the LoN and the UN their land as a state for jews.
Palestine was a later thought and never existed as a state before. Most of the middle east and the british empire became states without real historic basis.
World have seen changing and rehanging is the dawn of time.

That is the point I was making. It's inaccurate to say Israel has existed all this time. It hasn't. The people have. Just like the Palestinian people have even if they did not go by that name.

What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important? The only reason I can see is this. One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights. The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.

The fact of the matter is they both have rights to be there so how are we going to deal with it? With continual nonsensical arguments about who is or isn't indiginous, who is or isn't an "invader" or "squatter" - who is or isn't a "real people" - and all the old genetic crap?

 

[Coyote]

the bottom line is that the British mandate area has been split into two states. An Arab Muslim state and a Jewish state. With Gaza left over, which will eventually become a third Arab Muslim state.

I use the term Arab because it defines the language
Muslim because it defines the religion
and colonists because it defines there having come from somewhere else.

Cultures are more accurately described as being defined by language, belief systems and customs among a few other things. In which case the Arab Muslims brought there culture in an armed conquest not unlike the Romans did earlier. The term colonist seems most accurate to describe those who remained to emplace these criteria. What locals remained from the conquest, who didn't flee would have been incorporated into the new culture.

What you are stressing is that there will be some of the remaining inhabitants who carry the original blood line. No problem, but the predominant people and the culture they imposed on the survivors were colonists

Oh and the 35% or so of returnees who came from Europe for instance don't really qualify as colonists. Its a definitions thing. They are returning to the place of their ancestral origins. Not colonizing a new area. I started a definitions thread over this one.

I disagree - while the existing people were "arabicized" - that does not mean the predominant people were Arab invaders. Even the Jews spoke Arabic and while they retained their religion, their culture was heavily arabicized. In fact, aren't their modern day tensions between the indiginous Jews and Jewish immigrants from Europe? If you call them "colonists" then, you should also be calling the European Jews "colonists".

 

[Boston1]

col·o·ny
ˈkälənē/
noun
noun: colony; plural noun: colonies

1. 1.
   a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
   [TABLE="class: t1"][TBODY][TR][TD]
   • synonyms:
   [/TD]
   [TD]
   • settlement, dependency, protectorate, satellite, territory, outpost, province "a French colony"
   [/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
   1. • a group of people living in colony, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors.
      • chiefly British term for Thirteen Colonies.plural noun: the colonies; plural noun: the Colonies
        
      • all the foreign countries or areas formerly under British political control.plural noun: the colonies
   2. 
      
      
      
   3. 2.
      a group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country."the British colony in New York"
      [TABLE="class: t1"][TBODY][TR][TD]
      • synonyms:
      [/TD]
      [TD]
      • community, commune; Morequarter, district, ghetto
        "an artists' colony"
      [/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

I think another look at the definition would help clear this up.

My ancestors come from the north east area of the USA. I'm Iroquois, Cayuga to be precise. While it MIGHT be said I'm colonizing Colorado it can't be said I'd be colonizing that same north east coast area my ancestors developed in were I to return.

Same logic holds true of the Judaic people returning to the lands their ancestors developed in.

The culture of Judaism, beliefs, customs, language, all developed in the canaan valley area.

The same simply can't be said for the Arab Muslim colonists. Their beliefs, customs, language, all developed in on the Arab peninsula area.

Ergo the application of accurate language is needed to build a factual framework for any discussion.

While you can reasonably say that "some" people from the areas conquered in the Arab Muslim colonial period are native to the lands and therefor have a legal claim to remain there. I don't think its reasonable to NOT allow those native inhabitants who have retained their first peoples language and customs from also inhabiting this region.

The mandate specifically made allowances for that fact as well and enacted those allowances when it split the area 75/25 in favor of the Arab Muslim colonists, regardless of their actual lineage.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiGncPFhq_KAhUCKWMKHQ_zAvsQFggcMAA&url=http://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees&usg=AFQjCNE3wUC8knkwlvF82fj2F7SaaOwo3w&sig2=8-enAFvElR4dpE9KlGMjxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Quote

WHO ARE PALESTINE REFUGEES?
Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”
UNRWA services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

End Quote

The reality is that from the start the UN failed to follow its own protocols and segregate combatants from refugees and lent aid to both within the palestinian sphere.

I would agree that there are Arab Muslim not colonists living in the mandate area, I'm just saying that they already got their slice of the pie and seem hell bent of denying Israel theirs.

This whole fraud of palestinians requiring ONE MORE slice of land before they will suddenly be able to live in peace thing, now thats something I'd argue endlessly. The Arab Muslims of the mandated area have more than their share of the pie.

 

[Coyote]

col·o·ny
ˈkälənē/
noun
noun: colony; plural noun: colonies

I think another look at the definition would help clear this up.

My ancestors come from the north east area of the USA. I'm Iroquois, Cayuga to be precise. While it MIGHT be said I'm colonizing Colorado it can't be said I'd be colonizing that same north east coast area my ancestors developed in were I to return.

Same logic holds true of the Judaic people returning to the lands their ancestors developed in.

No, it doesn't really because it's arbritrary. The people today called Jews, conquered yet another earlier people.

How far back to you go?

The culture of Judaism, beliefs, customs, language, all developed in the canaan valley area.

The culture is a mix of the culture they came with and of the regional cultures in the area the Israelites conquered. It's not too different from other conquists where they end up adopting some of the regional culture, language, religion and mixing it into their own.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same simply can't be said for the Arab Muslim colonists. Their beliefs, customs, language, all developed in on the Arab peninsula area.

Yes. It can. Arabization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arabization or Arabisation (Arabic: تعريب‎ taʻrīb) describes either a forced conquest of a non-Arab area and migration of Arab settlers into the new domain or a growing Arab influence on non-Arab populations, causing a gradual adoption of Arabic language and/or incorporation of Arab culture and Arab identity. It was most prominently achieved during the 7th century Arabian Muslim conquests, in which Arab armies were followed by massive tribal migration into the Muslim-occupied territories across Middle East and North Africa, spreading the Arabic culture, language, and in some cases Arab identity upon conquered nations. Arabian Muslims, as opposed to Arab Christians, brought the religion of Islam to the lands they conquered. The result: some elements of Arabian origin combined in various forms and degrees with elements taken from conquered civilizations and ultimately denominated "Arab". The Arabization continued also in modern times, being aggressively carried by the Ba'athist regimes of Iraq[1] and Syria, Sudan,[2] Mauritania, Algeria[2] and Libya, enforcing policies of expanding colonial Arab settlements, expulsion of non-Arab minorities and in some cases enforcement of Arab identity and culture upon non-Arab populations. Some also described the aggressive expansion and persecution of non-Arab minorities by the Arab-dominated terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as Arabization.[3]

After the rise of Islam in Hejaz, Arab culture and language spread through conquest, trade and intermarriage of the non-Arab local population with the Arabs - in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Sudan Tunisia. The Arabic language became common across these areas; dialects also formed. Although Yemen is traditionally held to be the homeland of Arabs, most[4][5] of the Yemeni population did not speak Arabic (but instead South Semitic languages) prior to the spread of Islam. The influence of Arabic has also been profound in many other countries, whose cultures have been influenced by Islam. Arabic was a major source of vocabulary for languages as diverse as Berber, Indonesian, Tagalog, Malay, Maltese, Persian, Punjabi, Sindhi, Somali, Swahili, Turkish, Urdu, Bengali, Spanish as well as other languages in countries, where these languages are spoken; a process that reached its high point in the 10th to the 14th centuries, the high point of Arab culture, and although many of Arabic words have fallen out of use since, many still remain. For example, the Arabic word for book /kita:b/ is used in all the languages listed, apart from Malay, Somali, and Indonesian (where it specifically means "religious book")​

Ergo the application of accurate language is needed to build a factual framework for any discussion.

If you want accurate language - colonists is not the right term unless you apply it to the Zionists as well. Your application is arbritrarily used and does not contribute to a factual framework.

While you can reasonably say that "some" people from the areas conquered in the Arab Muslim colonial period are native to the lands and therefor have a legal claim to remain there. I don't think its reasonable to NOT allow those native inhabitants who have retained their first peoples language and customs from also inhabiting this region.

The native inhabitants of that region are a mix of Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze, Samaritan and such peoples who have weathered numerous conquests and re-alignments. I deny none of them the right to inhabit the region nor do I persist in calling any of them "colonists", "squatters" or "invaders".

The mandate specifically made allowances for that fact as well and enacted those allowances when it split the area 75/25 in favor of the Arab Muslim colonists, regardless of their actual lineage.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiGncPFhq_KAhUCKWMKHQ_zAvsQFggcMAA&url=http://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees&usg=AFQjCNE3wUC8knkwlvF82fj2F7SaaOwo3w&sig2=8-enAFvElR4dpE9KlGMjxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Quote

WHO ARE PALESTINE REFUGEES?
Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”
UNRWA services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

End Quote

The reality is that from the start the UN failed to follow its own protocols and segregate combatants from refugees and lent aid to both within the palestinian sphere.

I wouldn't disagree that there are Arab Muslim not colonists living in the mandate area, I'm just saying that they already got their slice of the pie and seem hell bent of denying Israel theirs.

This whole fraud of palestinians requiring ONE MORE slice of land before they will suddenly be able to live in peace thing, now thats something I'd argue endlessly. The Arab Muslims of the mandated area have more than their share of the dirt.

If you are going to persist in calling Arab Muslims colonists, then European Jews should be labeled the process of diaspora included many religious conversions of non-Jews to Judaism, for example and marriages into non-Jewish populations. The returning people would be as much a "colonist" as the Arab Muslims who intermarried into the indiginious populatoin.

There is no "fraud" of palestinians. There are simply people who lived there and were then forced out. Like Israel - they are there to stay. So how will you deal with them?

 

[aris2chat]

col·o·ny
ˈkälənē/
noun
noun: colony; plural noun: colonies

I think another look at the definition would help clear this up.

My ancestors come from the north east area of the USA. I'm Iroquois, Cayuga to be precise. While it MIGHT be said I'm colonizing Colorado it can't be said I'd be colonizing that same north east coast area my ancestors developed in were I to return.

Same logic holds true of the Judaic people returning to the lands their ancestors developed in.

No, it doesn't really because it's arbritrary. The people today called Jews, conquered yet another earlier people.

How far back to you go?

The culture of Judaism, beliefs, customs, language, all developed in the canaan valley area.

The culture is a mix of the culture they came with and of the regional cultures in the area the Israelites conquered. It's not too different from other conquists where they end up adopting some of the regional culture, language, religion and mixing it into their own.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same simply can't be said for the Arab Muslim colonists. Their beliefs, customs, language, all developed in on the Arab peninsula area.

Yes. It can. Arabization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arabization or Arabisation (Arabic: تعريب‎ taʻrīb) describes either a forced conquest of a non-Arab area and migration of Arab settlers into the new domain or a growing Arab influence on non-Arab populations, causing a gradual adoption of Arabic language and/or incorporation of Arab culture and Arab identity. It was most prominently achieved during the 7th century Arabian Muslim conquests, in which Arab armies were followed by massive tribal migration into the Muslim-occupied territories across Middle East and North Africa, spreading the Arabic culture, language, and in some cases Arab identity upon conquered nations. Arabian Muslims, as opposed to Arab Christians, brought the religion of Islam to the lands they conquered. The result: some elements of Arabian origin combined in various forms and degrees with elements taken from conquered civilizations and ultimately denominated "Arab". The Arabization continued also in modern times, being aggressively carried by the Ba'athist regimes of Iraq[1] and Syria, Sudan,[2] Mauritania, Algeria[2] and Libya, enforcing policies of expanding colonial Arab settlements, expulsion of non-Arab minorities and in some cases enforcement of Arab identity and culture upon non-Arab populations. Some also described the aggressive expansion and persecution of non-Arab minorities by the Arab-dominated terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as Arabization.[3]

After the rise of Islam in Hejaz, Arab culture and language spread through conquest, trade and intermarriage of the non-Arab local population with the Arabs - in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Sudan Tunisia. The Arabic language became common across these areas; dialects also formed. Although Yemen is traditionally held to be the homeland of Arabs, most[4][5] of the Yemeni population did not speak Arabic (but instead South Semitic languages) prior to the spread of Islam. The influence of Arabic has also been profound in many other countries, whose cultures have been influenced by Islam. Arabic was a major source of vocabulary for languages as diverse as Berber, Indonesian, Tagalog, Malay, Maltese, Persian, Punjabi, Sindhi, Somali, Swahili, Turkish, Urdu, Bengali, Spanish as well as other languages in countries, where these languages are spoken; a process that reached its high point in the 10th to the 14th centuries, the high point of Arab culture, and although many of Arabic words have fallen out of use since, many still remain. For example, the Arabic word for book /kita:b/ is used in all the languages listed, apart from Malay, Somali, and Indonesian (where it specifically means "religious book")​

Ergo the application of accurate language is needed to build a factual framework for any discussion.

If you want accurate language - colonists is not the right term unless you apply it to the Zionists as well. Your application is arbritrarily used and does not contribute to a factual framework.

While you can reasonably say that "some" people from the areas conquered in the Arab Muslim colonial period are native to the lands and therefor have a legal claim to remain there. I don't think its reasonable to NOT allow those native inhabitants who have retained their first peoples language and customs from also inhabiting this region.

The native inhabitants of that region are a mix of Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze, Samaritan and such peoples who have weathered numerous conquests and re-alignments. I deny none of them the right to inhabit the region nor do I persist in calling any of them "colonists", "squatters" or "invaders".

The mandate specifically made allowances for that fact as well and enacted those allowances when it split the area 75/25 in favor of the Arab Muslim colonists, regardless of their actual lineage.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiGncPFhq_KAhUCKWMKHQ_zAvsQFggcMAA&url=http://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees&usg=AFQjCNE3wUC8knkwlvF82fj2F7SaaOwo3w&sig2=8-enAFvElR4dpE9KlGMjxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Quote

WHO ARE PALESTINE REFUGEES?
Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”
UNRWA services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

End Quote

The reality is that from the start the UN failed to follow its own protocols and segregate combatants from refugees and lent aid to both within the palestinian sphere.

I wouldn't disagree that there are Arab Muslim not colonists living in the mandate area, I'm just saying that they already got their slice of the pie and seem hell bent of denying Israel theirs.

This whole fraud of palestinians requiring ONE MORE slice of land before they will suddenly be able to live in peace thing, now thats something I'd argue endlessly. The Arab Muslims of the mandated area have more than their share of the dirt.

If you are going to persist in calling Arab Muslims colonists, then European Jews should be labeled the process of diaspora included many religious conversions of non-Jews to Judaism, for example and marriages into non-Jewish populations. The returning people would be as much a "colonist" as the Arab Muslims who intermarried into the indiginious populatoin.

There is no "fraud" of palestinians. There are simply people who lived there and were then forced out. Like Israel - they are there to stay. So how will you deal with them?

conquered?
They were forced by those who conquered them to leave their homes, but gradually many tried to return. Every time they were persecuted they moved. Trade and investments also added to their "migration" since owning land was often forbidden to them.
Jews have always been returning to Jerusalem and the "holy land". All jews today that can return for aliyah. Not all stay but it is a way to connect to their roots, much the same way muslim go to mecca once in their life if they can to connect with their faith.

 

[Boston1]

The people today called Jews ARE the earliest people that can be traced to the area. While there has been substantial migrations of people over the years taking it back as far as possible.

Before tackling your post I'd like to reiterate that the mandating powers did take all this into account and provide a 75/25 split for the two major components. Israel also allowed any peaceful Arab Muslims who wished to remain and become Israeli citizens to do so.

So really the issue is one of bigotry and racism against the Israeli's who are under pressure to now accomodate a manufactured people "palestinians"

I'd hesitate to draw to much from WIKI as its subject to the same revisionist views as is any non peer reviewed source. While I do use it myself sometimes its not really all that accurate. But I'll try and address some of your points brought up by the use of WIKI anyway.

My initial take away from the WIKI quote you provided would be that it by and large agrees with the sentiments I've expressed thus far.

Quote

Arabization or Arabisation (Arabic: تعريب‎ taʻrīb) describes either a forced conquest of a non-Arab area and migration of Arab settlers into the new domain

End Quote

I'd stress this first segment as being the most likely scenario for the conquest of the Canaan area given it occurred early in the Muslim conquest period

I realize you disagree with my use of the term colonist however I believe I'm applying it in a reasonable fashion.

from
Vocabulary.com

Quote

Colonization is the act of setting up a colony away from one's place of origin.

End Quote

If we are going to be facing facts then the Judaic people regardless of where they were expelled to were from Judea. Developed their language culture belief system and customs in ancient times right smack in Canaan

See
The Bible Unearthed.

Which actually refutes the old testament stories and replaces it with actual science concerning what is known about human development in this area.

The Arab Muslims culture language, customs and belief system developed elsewhere and there was a well defined military expansion of that culture into the area where the Judean people developed.

I'm not sure why that is an issue as its extremely well established in known history

I understand that you are trying to impose indiginous status on the a group you refer to as palestinians however I'd rebut that claim by saying that the area was southern Syria in Ottoman times, provinces of Gaza Acre and Lebanon as I recall. Throughout virtually the entire Muslim period. Since the people of the mandate area prior to the return of the Judaic people have failed to develop into a distinctive culture and there is no national distinction placed on the area throughout the Muslim period it seems reasonable to say there is in fact no such thing as a palestinian untill you get to the mandated period.

Ergo palestinian is an invention of the mandate period designed to define Arab Muslims who were former residents of the Ottoman Syrian provinces.

 

[MJB12741]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay? Sure. But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).

and the US only began it's "existence" a couple hundred years ago. The jewish people, as a national identity and religion never ceased to exist, not did they totally leave their ancient heritage land.

They were invited by the Ottoman and promised by the LoN and the UN their land as a state for jews.
Palestine was a later thought and never existed as a state before. Most of the middle east and the british empire became states without real historic basis.
World have seen changing and rehanging is the dawn of time.

That is the point I was making. It's inaccurate to say Israel has existed all this time. It hasn't. The people have. Just like the Palestinian people have even if they did not go by that name.

What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important? The only reason I can see is this. One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights. The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.

The fact of the matter is they both have rights to be there so how are we going to deal with it? With continual nonsensical arguments about who is or isn't indiginous, who is or isn't an "invader" or "squatter" - who is or isn't a "real people" - and all the old genetic crap?

I read your comments as history should be forgotten by both sides. The past is past. Time for Kumbaya & lets start all over. Problem is neither side will ever forget the history that led to the conflict of today. And how can that ever be as all history of today, anywhere in the world, has evolved from past history.

Regretfully I believe history has shown us the only hope for a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians will enough dead bodies on both sides.

 

[Shusha]

What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important? The only reason I can see is this. One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights. The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.

People are also trying to provide counter-arguments for the disenfranchisement they see the other side doing. Small distinction, but I think an important one.

But yes, you are bang on. The key to solving the problem and ending the conflict is for both sides to recognize one another.

But I also think Boston has a point. The concern on the Israeli side is the chipping away of the Jewish State by the invention of new distinct peoples -- each of whom require self-determination.

For example, in the 1920's it was determined that there should be a Palestinian Arab State and a Jewish State and, thus Jordan came into being. It has been well-documented by Boston that Jordan and Palestine were one and the same, in terms of culture and people. Yet, in the 1940's it was decided that there were actually two Arab groups so that there should be two Arab States and a Jewish State. And through the 1950's and 1960's the Palestinians began to differentiate between themselves and the Jordanians even further.

Given that it is well-understood and oft-publicized that the Arab Muslim intent is to remove the Jewish State, by whatever means are available, the concern is that this picking away of the Jewish State might be part of a larger strategy.

Again, keep in mind my position here. I do not intend to delegitimize the Palestinians nor their right to self-determination. Nor do I think Israel is especially interested in absorbing a hostile population. (The stabbings and car-rammings suggest that will be problematic).