Consider The Facts

[Boston1]

If you look at the ICJ advisory opinion ( which I might add is nothing more than an opinion ) its pretty easy to find its chalk full of errors.

Quote

...under customary international law as reflected (...) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

End Quote

The first and most obvious error is that Israel is not the "hostile army".

The term hostile used in this context is indicative of the aggressor and Israel is not the aggressor in this conflict. Had the opinion read "one or the other hostiles, or beligerants then I might have been able to read it as indicating Israel was ONE of the combatants, however the use of the word in singular can only be a reference to the Arab Muslim side.

The second highlighted pericope represents a blatantly false statement. The Jordan at no point denoted a boundary to palestine, what it denoted was a boundary within palestine which designated the areas available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and the area not available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. As such, Israel is not occupying this area of Israel.

The opinion can be refuted on multiple levels but its not really worth it because again its only an opinion.

If we're discussing various facts then the exact facts are important. Israel is not occupying Arab Muslim land. Arab Muslims could be more accurately said to be occupying Israeli land.

 

[Coyote]

Actually - I've said, multiple times, that there is a difference between words and likely outcome. There is so much entrenched hate on both sides that it would be hard to guarantee safety and security - or for Jews to trust that guarantee. None of that changes what Abbas actually said which you keep distorting.

Arabs can buy some land. But they are prevented from living in Jewish only settlements aren't they?

Because that is the covenant on that land. Just as I cant park a van outside my house if it has a company name or logo on the sides. In other places an external TV antenna is not allowed, and I believe in the US housing projects ban the erection of boundary fences to the from of some properties..


What Abbas said mirrors what is in the Palestinian charter, that the only Jews/Israelis that would be allowed to live in a unified Palestine would be those born before the first Zionist set foot in Palestine. Why do you ignore the facts

People aren't vans.

In the US, It is illegal to discrimminate against religion, race, gender or ethnicity in housing.

.....and yet many in the US still do
US is not the middle east or the world. Just because we are not supposed, can't wipe out the feeling of people so easily. We see that everyday on this forum.

Consider that many don't want crosses hung in a building or non-christians not wanting to be in homes near churches. Consider each groups has their own day off and are offended by businesses that are open on "their" particular sabbath. No parking on certain sides of the road for jews to park and not have to move their car on Saturdays. Parks closed to non-jews on Saturday in designated areas.
Old world orthodoxies and trying to accommodate so many faiths in conflict for such a small piece of land.

For some it is discrimination, for other accommodations, for others just keeping the peace.

No matter how clean (yes, I know they can be very clean) a pig is or how beloved a pet, muslims would call it discrimination to allow pigs or dog as pets in a building. Those with pet would call it discrimination to keep them out because of their pet.
A building with christians that cook pork and bacon would be inappropriate for jews and muslims to live in.
Buildings where alcohol is permitted would be inappropriate for muslims.
Nudists have their own buildings in many cities, but others would consider it "unclean" to improper for a building to be nudist and discriminatory for those who wear clothing inside.
There are subdivisions and building where sex offenders cannot live or neighborhoods they must avoid.
Sometimes separate building and neighborhoods are required. More an more there are smoke free buildings and homes and even allergy free homes being made. Special construction of those with disabilities or special needs. If the "right" space for special requirements are rare, is it fare for able-bodied to take those spaces away? Ethnic neighborhoods should be forcibly integrated? Half the homes and apartments in black neighborhoods should be sold to right whites to integrate? Stores with higher priced merchandise in lower income areas that the people can't afford should replace thrift stores and corner bodegas? Ethnic foods should open in areas where those ethnics groups don't live? Why are there zoning regulations and neighborhood standards?

Why should all building be open to the needs of muslims/palestinians and their specific requirements instead of for jews or christians?

I understand what you you are saying, but - you criticize Palestinians for not wanting Jews living in their communities and then you turn around and say how it's ok for Jews to discrimminate against Palestinians?

You can't have it both ways.

There are enough building that each can have their own particular space. They don't all have to be in the same building or the same exact neighborhood to get along.

Israel is building for everyone. Palestinians are building for muslim only, where christians are finding it harder to stay and live in the WB. More and more christians are being forced out with no other place to go within the PA.
In Israel there are arab towns and bedouin town close to larger towns that are mixed. Some ethnic groups prefer to be among their own. Some muslims prefer not to live with jews and christians, especially where holy days and holidays are in conflict.

Israel allows for separation, it does no demand it if people are willing to abide by rules. In Israel it is a way of avoiding conflict. Other countries have minority communities and special areas for outsider workers. There are towns across the world that are more friendly to foreigners and some very closed and provincial that distrust outsiders.

In the US Mormons, Mennonites and Amish don't generally mix with the "english" if they can avoid it. There are areas where there is no electric, phones for cars. Some areas are more Catholic, some more Protestant where people can choose to live. Some more asian and some more italian. There are areas where no one even speaks english in the US. It was no all by design but where people could be closer to their own kind, with others they have a heritage in common. Why if there is any separation in Israel is it discrimination or apartheid? Why can't orthodox or muslims just prefer to be living near their own for practical reason?

Aris - I don't see any difference between Israel and Palestine in terms of exclusive communities. When you say Israel is building for all - that's not really quite true. How many new Jewish-only settlements have been constructed over the past decade? How many Arab settlements?

Choosing to live within certain communities is different than having NO choice. Do you see what I mean?

 

[Coyote]

Lets put it in modern terms, if for some reason the US were to kick out all illegal and Mexico refused to take them but created refugee camps instead where they were told they were the true indigenous of the US for the next 70 years and they would only get their country back by killing all americans, would you feel the same about "right of return" to the US?

It's not comparable because those Mexicans were not indigninous to the area. The Palestinians - many of whom have roots going back over a thousand years, and even as long as the Jews - are.

A better comparison would be if the US were annex Sonora and decide to kick out the native Mexicans.

Mexican's believe they are indigenous in the west, especially the south west. French speaking americans are indigenous to Louisiana. There are chinese communities that have been in the states as long as whites christians.

Even in the middle east you will find the kurds, sunni, shiites, druze, zoroastrians and others living among their own. Why do most languages live in their own neighborhoods or have their own countries? Maybe vegetarians prefer to living in areas with fewer meat restaurants and stores. Why do most Buddhists live near temples and not churches, and more asian grocers and asian medicine in those areas? Why so few butchers in hindu neighborhoods?

Why is it only prejudice if it involves jews or Israel but not other cultures or countries around the world? Why must Israel take the palestinian refugees when other nations would execute them if they tried to return? Why is it ok for palestinians to retain their "identity" but for kurds and armeneans it could mean persecution or death?[/quote]

The Palestinians have roots that trace back as far as the Jews. That puts them on the same footing in terms of rights.

Who is saying it's only prejudice if it involves Jews? The same arguments were levied against South Africa, and against Burma. No one is denying Kurds or Armeneans their right to demand an identity - why are the Palestinians rights dependent on the rights of others? Each is a unique case.

Why is it ok for Jews to retain their "identity" but not Palestinians?

 

[Coyote]

By what law?

Try the mandate of Palestine and its findings over the years. Winston Churchill stood up in the house of commons and stated that the arabs had flooded into Palestine once the word went out that the Jews were to have their own homeland and the muslims would not be in control. Is that good enough for you the future Prime Minister of Britain declaring the arab illegal migration in parliament

No. You aren't citing any law. What law "deems" them all "illegal immigrants"?

What law deems the Israelis to be illegal immigrants as well, or that they are illegal settlers. All you have for them is islamonazi propaganda that seems to take more jurisprudence than actual law

Two different things here.

First - who's claiming that Israeli's are illegal immigrants? I sure haven't. Nice strawman though.

Second - illegal settlers. That's based on international law in regards to how occupied territories are administered. Here's an "islamonazi propaganda" source for you: ICRC service

The problem with all these arguments is that Israel isn't an occupying power. Until that issue is settled then the articles you present don't apply.

Another problem is that the Israeli government hasn't forced any movement of its own population. The people who live in the disputed territories do so voluntarily.

There's enough holes in the argument against Israel using land intended for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland to establish that state that there's really no end to the particulars of suggesting there is an occupation.


Quote

With regard to Israel's legal status in the West Bank, the Levy Committee declared that Israel is not an occupying power. The panel arrived at that conclusion after considering two conflicting legal approaches on the question.


The first approach, presented by elements generally identified with the left, holds that Judea and Samaria are "occupied territories" under international law, ever since they were captured from the Jordanian kingdom in 1967.


(...)


Members of the panel accepted the legal opinion presented by the right. They explained that the generally accepted concept of occupation relates to short periods in which territory is capture from a sovereign state until the dispute between the two sides is resolved. But Judea and Samaria have been under Israeli control for decades, and it is impossible to foresee a time when Israel will relinquish these territories, if ever.

End Quote

What standing does the Levy Committee have? They're a politically appointed committee, appointed by Netanyahu. They certainly have their own agenda. What gives them any more standing than a Palestinian committee? What makes them credible? Not much apparently: Levy Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does the UN say? International law?

This article is prior to withdrawal from Gaza, so statements about Gaza no longer apply, but the rest does:

"Occupation" is a legal status in international law, not just a description of the forceful means by which Israel has controlled the territories it seized in 1967. Although Israeli diplomats contest the designation of the territories as "occupied," and describe them as merely "administered" by Israel, there is no such status in international law.


All competent legal authorities - including the International Court of Justice, the United Nations Security Council and Israel's own Supreme Court -- recognize the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights as occupied territories.


International law imposes obligations and limitations on the actions of an occupying power, and the Charter of the United Nations bars acquisition of territory by war. Thus Israel has never had any legal rights of sovereignty over any of the lands it took in 1967, and never had any right to settle its own citizens there.
​

The West Bank: If It's Not Occupation, Then What Is It?

...The Levy Committee, headed by former court vice president Edmond Levy, recommends a fundamental change in the legal regime in the West Bank, including the annulment of a long list of laws, High Court of Justice Rulings and procedures in order to permit Jews to settle in all of Judea and Samaria.​

What this means, if implemented, is simple: The Israeli government would treat West Bank land as if it were land in Israel proper (pre-1967 Israel). Now, of course, if Israel were to treat the land of the West Bank as part of Israel, it would necessarily follow that it would have to treat the people who live on that land as Israeli citizens, extending them full voting rights, just as it extends citizenship to people who live in Israel proper, regardless of ethnicity. So: The natural consequence of this notion, if it is carried through to law, would be to extend voting rights to the Palestinians of the West Bank. This would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy, but the right-wing in Israel seems more enamored of land-ownership than it does of such antiquated notions as, you know, Zionism.​

Frankly....the Levy Committee is nothing more than a political committee trying to justify land grabbing and revise history so as to make an occupation...not an occupation.

 

[Boston1]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

 

[Coyote]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

 

[Boston1]

Try the mandate of Palestine and its findings over the years. Winston Churchill stood up in the house of commons and stated that the arabs had flooded into Palestine once the word went out that the Jews were to have their own homeland and the muslims would not be in control. Is that good enough for you the future Prime Minister of Britain declaring the arab illegal migration in parliament

No. You aren't citing any law. What law "deems" them all "illegal immigrants"?

What law deems the Israelis to be illegal immigrants as well, or that they are illegal settlers. All you have for them is islamonazi propaganda that seems to take more jurisprudence than actual law

Two different things here.

First - who's claiming that Israeli's are illegal immigrants? I sure haven't. Nice strawman though.

Second - illegal settlers. That's based on international law in regards to how occupied territories are administered. Here's an "islamonazi propaganda" source for you: ICRC service

The problem with all these arguments is that Israel isn't an occupying power. Until that issue is settled then the articles you present don't apply.

Another problem is that the Israeli government hasn't forced any movement of its own population. The people who live in the disputed territories do so voluntarily.

There's enough holes in the argument against Israel using land intended for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland to establish that state that there's really no end to the particulars of suggesting there is an occupation.


Quote

With regard to Israel's legal status in the West Bank, the Levy Committee declared that Israel is not an occupying power. The panel arrived at that conclusion after considering two conflicting legal approaches on the question.


The first approach, presented by elements generally identified with the left, holds that Judea and Samaria are "occupied territories" under international law, ever since they were captured from the Jordanian kingdom in 1967.


(...)


Members of the panel accepted the legal opinion presented by the right. They explained that the generally accepted concept of occupation relates to short periods in which territory is capture from a sovereign state until the dispute between the two sides is resolved. But Judea and Samaria have been under Israeli control for decades, and it is impossible to foresee a time when Israel will relinquish these territories, if ever.

End Quote

What standing does the Levy Committee have? They're a politically appointed committee, appointed by Netanyahu. They certainly have their own agenda. What gives them any more standing than a Palestinian committee? What makes them credible? Not much apparently: Levy Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does the UN say? International law?

This article is prior to withdrawal from Gaza, so statements about Gaza no longer apply, but the rest does:

"Occupation" is a legal status in international law, not just a description of the forceful means by which Israel has controlled the territories it seized in 1967. Although Israeli diplomats contest the designation of the territories as "occupied," and describe them as merely "administered" by Israel, there is no such status in international law.


All competent legal authorities - including the International Court of Justice, the United Nations Security Council and Israel's own Supreme Court -- recognize the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights as occupied territories.


International law imposes obligations and limitations on the actions of an occupying power, and the Charter of the United Nations bars acquisition of territory by war. Thus Israel has never had any legal rights of sovereignty over any of the lands it took in 1967, and never had any right to settle its own citizens there.
​

The West Bank: If It's Not Occupation, Then What Is It?

...The Levy Committee, headed by former court vice president Edmond Levy, recommends a fundamental change in the legal regime in the West Bank, including the annulment of a long list of laws, High Court of Justice Rulings and procedures in order to permit Jews to settle in all of Judea and Samaria.​

What this means, if implemented, is simple: The Israeli government would treat West Bank land as if it were land in Israel proper (pre-1967 Israel). Now, of course, if Israel were to treat the land of the West Bank as part of Israel, it would necessarily follow that it would have to treat the people who live on that land as Israeli citizens, extending them full voting rights, just as it extends citizenship to people who live in Israel proper, regardless of ethnicity. So: The natural consequence of this notion, if it is carried through to law, would be to extend voting rights to the Palestinians of the West Bank. This would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy, but the right-wing in Israel seems more enamored of land-ownership than it does of such antiquated notions as, you know, Zionism.​

Frankly....the Levy Committee is nothing more than a political committee trying to justify land grabbing and revise history so as to make an occupation...not an occupation.

The beauty of the Levy commission is that its recommendations are likely to become Israeli law. The ICC issued an opinion which actually has less authority as it has no chance of influencing Israeli law.

Huge difference. Although they both were politically appointed entities

Oh and if the Israeli's do annex the disputed territories, which I wholeheartedly think they should. The interesting thing is that the op ed about the levy commission failed to consider that the Israeli's are under no obligation to offer citizenship to POWs

 

[Boston1]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians.

Its one of the facts we should be considering.

 

[Coyote]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians.

Its one of the facts we should be considering.

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time. People have suddenly decided that some people are "invented" and thus have no rights even if their ancestors have occupied the same space for hundreds or thousands of years. What better way to disenfranchise them that claim they don't exist.

 

[Boston1]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians.

Its one of the facts we should be considering.

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time. People have suddenly decided that some people are "invented" and thus have no rights even if their ancestors have occupied the same space for hundreds or thousands of years. What better way to disenfranchise them that claim they don't exist.

Sure but at what point are they considered a separate people ? One must bear in mind that the first use of the term palestinian in reference to these particular people appears to be in 1967.

previous to that they were Jordanians.

So what differentiates Jordanians from palestinians. Is there a single distinguishable characteristic of culture that separates the palestiinians from any other of the middle east Arabs?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time.

But only one did so in the middle part of the 21st century quite intentionally as a propaganda ploy calculated to appeal to ignorant Westerners.

 

[Coyote]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians.

Its one of the facts we should be considering.

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time. People have suddenly decided that some people are "invented" and thus have no rights even if their ancestors have occupied the same space for hundreds or thousands of years. What better way to disenfranchise them that claim they don't exist.

Sure but at what point are they considered a separate people ? One must bear in mind that the first use of the term palestinian in reference to these particular people appears to be in 1967.

previous to that they were Jordanians.

So what differentiates Jordanians from palestinians. Is there a single distinguishable characteristic of culture that separates the palestiinians from any other of the middle east Arabs?

At this point, they can be considered a people. They've formed their own identity. They don't HAVE to be substantially different from Jordanians.

 

[Coyote]

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time.

But only one did so in the middle part of the 21st century quite intentionally as a propaganda ploy calculated to appeal to ignorant Westerners.

What difference does it make? Every people started somewhere.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time.

But only one did so in the middle part of the 21st century quite intentionally as a propaganda ploy calculated to appeal to ignorant Westerners.

What difference does it make? Every people started somewhere.

It makes a difference to intelligent people who wish to understand the intent involved.

Understood properly as an issue regarding Arabs and Jews, one can see who is the actual minority. Creating this fictitious group was nothing but a ploy to make the Jews look like the big, powerful group picking on the little guy instead of the truly big group -- Arabs -- persecuting Jews.

It acted as a framing mechanism to fool the weak minded into supporting the majority's persecution of a minority by making it look as if it were the other way around. .

 

[Coyote]

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time.

But only one did so in the middle part of the 21st century quite intentionally as a propaganda ploy calculated to appeal to ignorant Westerners.

What difference does it make? Every people started somewhere.

It makes a difference to intelligent people who wish to understand the intent involved.

Understood properly as an issue regarding Arabs and Jews, one can see who is the actual minority. Creating this fictitious group was nothing but a ploy to make the Jews look like the big, powerful group picking on the little guy instead of the truly big group -- Arabs -- persecuting Jews.

It acted as a framing mechanism to fool the weak minded into supporting the majority's persecution of a minority by making it look as if it were the other way around. .

They are people - human beings, who have lived in that area for a long time. As human beings - they have fundamental rights.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They are people - human beings, who have lived in that area for a long time. As human beings - they have fundamental rights.

Jewish history in the region predates the invention of the "Palestinians" by 3000 years, and they have rights as well. Killing Jews is not a "right" and so in order to accommodate the ACTUAL rights of both Arabs and Jews, the Jews were given a tiny sliver of land while the Arabs control enormous expances.

Sure -- you want the majority you support to own even more of the territory, and this is obviously at the expense of the tiny minority you hate and persecute like you do, but there is no inherent "right" for Arab supremacists to have it all.

 

[Coyote]

They are people - human beings, who have lived in that area for a long time. As human beings - they have fundamental rights.

Jewish history in the region predates the invention of the "Palestinians" by 3000 years, and they have rights as well. Killing Jews is not a "right" and so in order to accommodate the ACTUAL rights of both Arabs and Jews, the Jews were given a tiny sliver of land while the Arabs control enormous expances.

Sure -- you want the majority you support to own even more of the territory, and this is obviously at the expense of the tiny minority you hate and persecute like you do, but there is no inherent "right" for Arab supremacists to have it all.

Of course the Jewish people have rights. Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states. I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Of course the Jewish people have rights. Both the Palestinians and the Jews need to learn to accommodate each other peacefully and with tolerance - in two states. I don't support the mass expulsion of anyone.

Ever hear of a place called Jordan?

It's the second state -- the arab portion -- and comprises 77% of the original mandate of Palestine.

 

[Boston1]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians.

Its one of the facts we should be considering.

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time. People have suddenly decided that some people are "invented" and thus have no rights even if their ancestors have occupied the same space for hundreds or thousands of years. What better way to disenfranchise them that claim they don't exist.

Sure but at what point are they considered a separate people ? One must bear in mind that the first use of the term palestinian in reference to these particular people appears to be in 1967.

previous to that they were Jordanians.

So what differentiates Jordanians from palestinians. Is there a single distinguishable characteristic of culture that separates the palestiinians from any other of the middle east Arabs?

At this point, they can be considered a people. They've formed their own identity. They don't HAVE to be substantially different from Jordanians.

Why wouldn't that allow just about any population group to declare themselves a unique cultural group and demand a country for themselves ?

My friends and I could declare ourselves a culture even though we have no cultural uniqueness outside existing established cultural groups and set up our countries with our own system of taxes ( none ) and education, fire and police. And demand a portion of the USA or China for our homeland saying we'd "hoped" for a nation of our own in that location and someone else is "occupying" our land ;--) .

I'm not disenfranchising a group of people when I say there must be a few discernible characteristics in order to qualify as a unique culture, I'm suggesting that group was never enfranchised in the first place.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its another twist on false equivalency. There doesn't seem to be a palestinian culture that can be found anywhere in history. Judaic culture sure, it goes back to the stone age.

There's a post in this thing somewhere that even outlines the first known use of the term palestinian, which apparently was an Arafat invention.

Someone else pointed out that there was no such thing as palestine or a palestinian people until after Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of the area of their Jordanian citizenship.

There's also the issue of terrorism. Why hold open the doors to terrorists ? And why if that isn't the case are those simply trying to protect their wives and children somehow guilty of anything when they wall off the terrorists ?

Lots of reasons segregating the Arab Muslim terrorists is a must do.

There's no false equivalency - only one poster attempting to disenfranchise a people.

actually there were numerous posters who lent facts to the conversation which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the palestinian people are an invention of the mid 20th century

Of course you could say the same about the Israeli's except for the fact that their culture, language, foods, style of dress, so on, dates back to the mid bronze age. The Arab Muslims of the mandated areas culture is identical to Arab culture anywhere else in the middle east and particularly of the Jordanians.

Its one of the facts we should be considering.

Every "people" started somewhere at some point in time. People have suddenly decided that some people are "invented" and thus have no rights even if their ancestors have occupied the same space for hundreds or thousands of years. What better way to disenfranchise them that claim they don't exist.

Sure but at what point are they considered a separate people ? One must bear in mind that the first use of the term palestinian in reference to these particular people appears to be in 1967.

previous to that they were Jordanians.

So what differentiates Jordanians from palestinians. Is there a single distinguishable characteristic of culture that separates the palestiinians from any other of the middle east Arabs?

What a stupid argument.