Consider The Facts

[Boston1]

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Its neither magic nor arbitrary. With respect to being indigenous -- the test is a recognizable unique culture developed in place. It is not a culture imported from elsewhere. And its not based on genetics (as I've said before, racism assisted by technology).

That said, though the Palestinians are demonstrably NOT indigenous, they still have developed, over time, the right to self-determination and even sovereignty (if they can get their sh*t together in time to take it). Rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory do not arise solely from being indigenous.

That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"? Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable? Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation? Where does it end?

And THAT said, the reason why it is important for First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture. Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples. This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews". As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount". As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it". As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."

If Israel ever granted the Palestinians their own Palestinian State with self determination without Israel to provide for them any longer, the Palestinians would kill each other over who will rule them & starve to death.

Not a chance.

Here's what I think would happen. And I'll draw from the lessons of history.

The disputed territories would explode in sectarian violence with hamas likely coming out on top. They'd continue on the UN tit for all of eternity with the world cheering on and eventually succumb to an ISIS like state. The main thrust of any energies wouldn't be to improve the living conditions of civilians just as we see in Gaza it would be on the building of a tunnel system and go towards the purchase of arms.

Terrorism would go through the roof as the area is so intertwined with Israeli towns and eventually an all out war would ensue. In which Israel no matter what happened would be portrayed by the Arab Muslim colonists as the aggressors even if Israel has proven a viable peace partner so many times before.

In the end it would only make matters much much worse.

Which is another reason I firmly believe a policy of

NOT ANOTHER INCH

is the only policy I can support.

The solution lies in identifying the combatants and throwing the bums out along with anyone who can be associated with them as accomplices. Deport to Jordan. It is after all the Arab Muslim state of the mandated area

 

[aris2chat]

Coyote wants to forgo history and just say we are all mutts. But the facts are somewhat different. Culture, what defines a people is a primary consideration when defining first nations people.

The native american tribes for instance which were highly nomadic each however had unique customs, beliefs, ritchuals, and cerimonies, languages and origins. ( ps english isn't my first language and I'm sick of looking shit up today, so oops on the spelling ) yet each had a traditional homeland they felt responsible for, custodians is about the best term for the connection. Yet they took prisoners and had a lot of genetic exchange. Yet we have remaining of the initial 500 nations about 200 still considered unique cultures associated with thier own individual native homelands.

The middle east isn't entirely unlike NA when it comes to the development of its native tribes. but the Arab Muslim tribe is well described and we know it came from the Arab peninsula. NOT the Canaan valley area. The first identified group in the area is the late stone age Hyksos who have no known culture or language. As soon as culture art, language, written or otherwise, pottery, type of homes constructed come into play the early Hyksos were divided into the various proto cultures.

The native tribes of the Canaan valley developed into the Judaic people from as far back as a culture can be identified in the area.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Judaic people developed in Judea as a native people from the late stone age on.

There is equally no doubt that the Arab Muslims developed from the Arabian peninsula from the remnants of multiple waring peoples who fled there over the centuries since the development of ancient civilizations in about the 7th century and into the the century. With additional expansions as far as Europe up to about the 12th century.

This is all just basic history.

The Judaic culture is unique in its language, customs, dress and religious practices to name just a few.

There is no distinct palestinian culture

But lets tackle this from another angle.

The Arab Muslim colonists already have 75% of the mandate area

The Judaic first nations people won 25% in a bitter war of extermination waged against them by the Muslim colonists.

Whats the problem ?

75% isn't enough

I'm a mutt, but a mutt with a pedigree as well

 

[Boston1]

Looks more like a cat to me ;--)

 

[Coyote]

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan,
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area.

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining

"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years. Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion. To insist they are colonists is false. They aren't. To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Since Jerusalem is the historic and spiritual center of the jewish faith for over 3000 years, do jewish have a right to live in the land and pray at the mount?


Do muslims have a right to refuse, massacre and erase the history of the jewish people?

Do jews who have been persecuted throughout history and identify as a people and a faith, have a right to a safe homeland?

Did the UN, UK Mandate and LoN have the right to decide the make up and division of the failed Ottoman empire?

Did jewish have a right to buy land in and around Jerusalem since the 1800's and not have the land stolen from them or to be massacred because they bought or developed the land?

When offered the chance by the UN, did the Jews not have the right to create Israel and live in peace there? Did they have the right to defend themselves when attacked?

Jews have always identified as jews, both faith and as a people. Even in countries where they settled they were treated as separated often forced to live apart from the rest of the community and limited to certain jobs and crafts.

Simple question for you Aris. Do the Palestinians have a right to live there where they have lived for generations or, do you believe like Boston they should be expelled?

All of your questions involve historic wrongs. Are you saying it's ok to perpetrate yet more wrongs because of that? The Jewish Israeli's aren't all innocents, sweetness and light either.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote wants to forgo history and just say we are all mutts. But the facts are somewhat different. Culture, what defines a people is a primary consideration when defining first nations people.

The native american tribes for instance which were highly nomadic each however had unique customs, beliefs, ritchuals, and cerimonies, languages and origins. ( ps english isn't my first language and I'm sick of looking shit up today, so oops on the spelling ) yet each had a traditional homeland they felt responsible for, custodians is about the best term for the connection. Yet they took prisoners and had a lot of genetic exchange. Yet we have remaining of the initial 500 nations about 200 still considered unique cultures associated with thier own individual native homelands.

The middle east isn't entirely unlike NA when it comes to the development of its native tribes. but the Arab Muslim tribe is well described and we know it came from the Arab peninsula. NOT the Canaan valley area. The first identified group in the area is the late stone age Hyksos who have no known culture or language. As soon as culture art, language, written or otherwise, pottery, type of homes constructed come into play the early Hyksos were divided into the various proto cultures.

The native tribes of the Canaan valley developed into the Judaic people from as far back as a culture can be identified in the area.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Judaic people developed in Judea as a native people from the late stone age on.

There is equally no doubt that the Arab Muslims developed from the Arabian peninsula from the remnants of multiple waring peoples who fled there over the centuries since the development of ancient civilizations in about the 7th century and into the the century. With additional expansions as far as Europe up to about the 12th century.

This is all just basic history.

The Judaic culture is unique in its language, customs, dress and religious practices to name just a few.

There is no distinct palestinian culture

But lets tackle this from another angle.

The Arab Muslim colonists already have 75% of the mandate area

The Judaic first nations people won 25% in a bitter war of extermination waged against them by the Muslim colonists.

Whats the problem ?

75% isn't enough

Your very argument ignores history - the history that has had these people, called Palestinians, living on that land for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. You want to delete that history, and expell them. You deliberately minimize and disenfranchise them as a people by using the term "colonists". You are no different than those who consistantly refer to the immigration of European Jews as "invaders" and "colonists".

 

[Boston1]

Actually even a rudimentary exam of history will show there were no people called palestinians that weren't Judaic until very recently.

It would appear that the term palestinian when applied to Arab Muslim colonists was invented some time in the 1950s

The other part you are forgetting is that those Arab Muslim colonists you are referring to have already recieved 75% of the mandate area.

Why should the native peoples give up more land to the colonists ?

Is 25% really to much to ask for the first nations tribes ? And 75% really not enough for the Arab Muslim colonists

 

[Coyote]

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Its neither magic nor arbitrary. With respect to being indigenous -- the test is a recognizable unique culture developed in place. It is not a culture imported from elsewhere. And its not based on genetics (as I've said before, racism assisted by technology).

That said, though the Palestinians are demonstrably NOT indigenous, they still have developed, over time, the right to self-determination and even sovereignty (if they can get their sh*t together in time to take it). Rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory do not arise solely from being indigenous.

How can they not be "indiginous" when their history includes descent from indiginous peoples?

If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.

If a distinct culture is a requirement - what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews? Not religion - culture.

That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"? Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable? Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation? Where does it end?

Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless. That at the very least should be addressed. As to how much land should be "given away" - none. Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion. Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear. The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as Boston implies is weak. There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" - only with the Palestinians. Why?

And THAT said, the reason why it is important for First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture. Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples. This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews". As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount". As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it". As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."

I disagree. For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi. Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.

I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage. Judaism is the founding Abrahamic faith. When Christianity was invented it usurped much of the Jewish faith for it's own. When Islam was invented it did the same. This is common with religions - they are almost all built upon earlier faiths and traditions.

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.

 

[Coyote]

Actually even a rudimentary exam of history will show there were no people called palestinians that weren't Judaic until very recently.

That's deceptive if not downright dishonest. Ottoman and Mandate census figures show a considerable non-Jewish population. In fact, the number of Jews were relatively small until Zionist immigration started. Whether you call them "Palestinians" or Martians - the people who lived in that region were a mixture of religions that had been there for some time. Your statement would have us believe that until recently there were only Jews there and that is demonstratably false unless "recent" means the last thousand years or so.

It would appear that the term palestinian when applied to Arab Muslim colonists was invented some time in the 1950s

The term is irrelevant. The people are. And they did not just drop from the sky in the 1950's.

The other part you are forgetting is that those Arab Muslim colonists you are referring to have already recieved 75% of the mandate area.

Why should the native peoples give up more land to the colonists ?

Is 25% really to much to ask for the first nations tribes ? And 75% really not enough for the Arab Muslim colonists

They aren't First Nation tribes. To use YOUR terminology they are "European colonizers".

 

[Boston1]

for whatever reason nothing on this site works. Quote boxes are an impossible dream on this end.

I hope word pastes OK into this thing cause thats about the only way I can reasonably take your points one at a time

 

[Coyote]

for whatever reason nothing on this site works. Quote boxes are an impossible dream on this end.

I hope word pastes OK into this thing cause thats about the only way I can reasonably take your points one at a time

I find they get messy too. Sometimes - I remove the quotes and just put them in again to try and get it to divide the way I want - very frustrating!

 

[aris2chat]

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan,
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area.

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining

"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years. Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion. To insist they are colonists is false. They aren't. To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Since Jerusalem is the historic and spiritual center of the jewish faith for over 3000 years, do jewish have a right to live in the land and pray at the mount?


Do muslims have a right to refuse, massacre and erase the history of the jewish people?

Do jews who have been persecuted throughout history and identify as a people and a faith, have a right to a safe homeland?

Did the UN, UK Mandate and LoN have the right to decide the make up and division of the failed Ottoman empire?

Did jewish have a right to buy land in and around Jerusalem since the 1800's and not have the land stolen from them or to be massacred because they bought or developed the land?

When offered the chance by the UN, did the Jews not have the right to create Israel and live in peace there? Did they have the right to defend themselves when attacked?

Jews have always identified as jews, both faith and as a people. Even in countries where they settled they were treated as separated often forced to live apart from the rest of the community and limited to certain jobs and crafts.

Simple question for you Aris. Do the Palestinians have a right to live there where they have lived for generations or, do you believe like Boston they should be expelled?

All of your questions involve historic wrongs. Are you saying it's ok to perpetrate yet more wrongs because of that? The Jewish Israeli's aren't all innocents, sweetness and light either.

Not all the palestinians have lived in the mandate for generations, nor did they all own the land they had lived on.

many lived and worked on land owned by others or the church, who sold it. No they do not have a right to remain n the land.

Half the people did not leave, they stayed and helped build Israel. Those that left did not have loyalty to a palestinian identity or to the land they let beause they through they would reap the benefits after the jews were all dead.
Palestinians sold land, then tried to nullify the same, without returning the money years after the fact. They left at the urging of other arabs, not because they were forced to leave by Israelis. Even the nazi mufti once admitted that the jews did not steal the land, fact many palestinians either don't know or pretend never happened.

Israel has allowed paestinians to enter and become citizens through unification and allwed them to gain back land through Israeli courts.

How many more do you really believe have any claim or right to live in Israel? How many of them have been involved in terrorism or attacks on Israel or jews? How many have committed crimes? How many would be able to pay tax on their land, develop their land or live off their land?

So what happens to the millions of other palestinian that think they have any claim or right and in the process displace or kill Israelis? Who many would be willing to be israelis and not palestinians?

No, I don't think there are that many that can or should be brought into Israel or have any rights to land there.

Just being born and listed by the UN as a refugee does not give them any legal or moral claim to Israel. Even if Israel agreed to 200,000 palestinians, the rest don't.

Most have been raised on a delusion of a future. Most won't recognize Israel let alone want to become Israeli.

Millions are under a false idea they have a right to claim Israel as their palestinian home land, as if there was ever a palestinian state or native palestinian people. They were arabs, ottomans, syrian, muslims, but they were not palestinians that owned a palestinian nation.

Where is the responsibility for israel to take in millions of palestinians that have for the last 65 yrs been trying to kill them? It is not even taking in refugees suffering by war like the syrians or central african for humanitarian reasons. You are talking about people who did not have to become refugees, remained refugees on the UN toll rather than accept a state and people that for the most part openly hate Israel. So why??????

Most that could or would have already entered Israel.

 

[Coyote]

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan,
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area.

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining

"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years. Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion. To insist they are colonists is false. They aren't. To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Since Jerusalem is the historic and spiritual center of the jewish faith for over 3000 years, do jewish have a right to live in the land and pray at the mount?


Do muslims have a right to refuse, massacre and erase the history of the jewish people?

Do jews who have been persecuted throughout history and identify as a people and a faith, have a right to a safe homeland?

Did the UN, UK Mandate and LoN have the right to decide the make up and division of the failed Ottoman empire?

Did jewish have a right to buy land in and around Jerusalem since the 1800's and not have the land stolen from them or to be massacred because they bought or developed the land?

When offered the chance by the UN, did the Jews not have the right to create Israel and live in peace there? Did they have the right to defend themselves when attacked?

Jews have always identified as jews, both faith and as a people. Even in countries where they settled they were treated as separated often forced to live apart from the rest of the community and limited to certain jobs and crafts.

Simple question for you Aris. Do the Palestinians have a right to live there where they have lived for generations or, do you believe like Boston they should be expelled?

All of your questions involve historic wrongs. Are you saying it's ok to perpetrate yet more wrongs because of that? The Jewish Israeli's aren't all innocents, sweetness and light either.

Not all the palestinians have lived in the mandate for generations, nor did they all own the land they had lived on.

many lived and worked on land owned by others or the church, who sold it. No they do not have a right to remain n the land.

Half the people did not leave, they stayed and helped build Israel. Those that left did not have loyalty to a palestinian identity or to the land they let beause they through they would reap the benefits after the jews were all dead.
Palestinians sold land, then tried to nullify the same, without returning the money years after the fact. They left at the urging of other arabs, not because they were forced to leave by Israelis. Even the nazi mufti once admitted that the jews did not steal the land, fact many palestinians either don't know or pretend never happened.

Israel has allowed paestinians to enter and become citizens through unification and allwed them to gain back land through Israeli courts.

How many more do you really believe have any claim or right to live in Israel? How many of them have been involved in terrorism or attacks on Israel or jews? How many have committed crimes? How many would be able to pay tax on their land, develop their land or live off their land?

So what happens to the millions of other palestinian that think they have any claim or right and in the process displace or kill Israelis? Who many would be willing to be israelis and not palestinians?

No, I don't think there are that many that can or should be brought into Israel or have any rights to land there.

Just being born and listed by the UN as a refugee does not give them any legal or moral claim to Israel. Even if Israel agreed to 200,000 palestinians, the rest don't.

Most have been raised on a delusion of a future. Most won't recognize Israel let alone want to become Israeli.

Millions are under a false idea they have a right to claim Israel as their palestinian home land, as if there was ever a palestinian state or native palestinian people. They were arabs, ottomans, syrian, muslims, but they were not palestinians that owned a palestinian nation.

Where is the responsibility for israel to take in millions of palestinians that have for the last 65 yrs been trying to kill them? It is not even taking in refugees suffering by war like the syrians or central african for humanitarian reasons. You are talking about people who did not have to become refugees, remained refugees on the UN toll rather than accept a state and people that for the most part openly hate Israel. So why??????

Most that could or would have already entered Israel.

There is Israel and there is the Occupied Territories. I was referring to the Occupied Territories and people calling for expelling the Palestinians because Israel has a "moral claim" on the land. Do you think that is right?

I don't personally support the "right of return" - it's not going to happen.

It's not as simple as "Israel purchased all the land" - that is not strictly true either. Much was purchased, but land was also annexed and confiscated - and, the owners were denied residency permits to return.

 

[aris2chat]

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Its neither magic nor arbitrary. With respect to being indigenous -- the test is a recognizable unique culture developed in place. It is not a culture imported from elsewhere. And its not based on genetics (as I've said before, racism assisted by technology).

That said, though the Palestinians are demonstrably NOT indigenous, they still have developed, over time, the right to self-determination and even sovereignty (if they can get their sh*t together in time to take it). Rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory do not arise solely from being indigenous.

How can they not be "indiginous" when their history includes descent from indiginous peoples?

If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.

If a distinct culture is a requirement - what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews? Not religion - culture.

That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"? Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable? Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation? Where does it end?

Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless. That at the very least should be addressed. As to how much land should be "given away" - none. Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion. Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear. The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as Boston implies is weak. There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" - only with the Palestinians. Why?

And THAT said, the reason why it is important for First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture. Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples. This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews". As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount". As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it". As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."

I disagree. For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi. Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.

I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage. Judaism is the founding Abrahamic faith. When Christianity was invented it usurped much of the Jewish faith for it's own. When Islam was invented it did the same. This is common with religions - they are almost all built upon earlier faiths and traditions.

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.

Born in a new york hospital or lived a couple of years in a new york appartment does not mean you have a right to be given land you did not own or that you have to live in new york. You go where there is wrok and where you can find a place to live. If you are recognized as palestinian and a state in fact, not just in name, actually comes to fruition, they have a right to seek work and try to find a place to live in palestine, not Israel. Working, parents that worked, a few years in the mandate and then leaving does not make one an indigenous to what became Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Your very argument ignores history - the history that has had these people, called Palestinians, living on that land for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. You want to delete that history, and expell them.

But lets give recognition to WHY Boston wants to expel them.

1. They are categorically unable to live in a peaceful partnership under Jewish rule.
2. They want their own sovereignty and self-determination (supposedly).
3. They already have a State where they have their own sovereignty and self-determination.

 

[aris2chat]

The mixture issue is somewhat remote as you'd have to define what level of mixture there is. The exact quote suggest the lesser inclusion of non native genes than a greater in terms of the Judaic people but is so vague its pretty much pure conjecture.

Quote
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan,
End Quote

This is one of the many reasons I question the value of Wiki. The pericope leaves a lot to be defined. What exactly does predominantly mean, what percentage ? What people are they talking about indigenous to canaan if its the Judaic people itself who appear to be the ONLY indigenous people of the area.

Does the term predominantly have a greater importance when it relates to a 6500 year old culture that developed in an are that has been subject to multiple colonizations.

VS
what percentage of palestinian origins contain a substantial amount of ( what is unspecified ) admixture and how does that importance weigh when considering that there is no distinct palestinian culture and that the Arab Muslims being identified as palestinians first colonized the area roughly 1000 years ago.

The Wiki article is so vastly inadequate in its comparison its simply not able to really denote any specifics that might actually settle the issue.

The best evidence is archeological in nature and clearly shows that the Judaic people were the first nations people and as such have every right to a homeland within this area.

Given that the mandate awarded 75% of the area to the Arab Muslims already, I don't see what the problem is in allowing the Judaic people to establish a homeland on the 25% remaining

"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years. Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion. To insist they are colonists is false. They aren't. To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Since Jerusalem is the historic and spiritual center of the jewish faith for over 3000 years, do jewish have a right to live in the land and pray at the mount?


Do muslims have a right to refuse, massacre and erase the history of the jewish people?

Do jews who have been persecuted throughout history and identify as a people and a faith, have a right to a safe homeland?

Did the UN, UK Mandate and LoN have the right to decide the make up and division of the failed Ottoman empire?

Did jewish have a right to buy land in and around Jerusalem since the 1800's and not have the land stolen from them or to be massacred because they bought or developed the land?

When offered the chance by the UN, did the Jews not have the right to create Israel and live in peace there? Did they have the right to defend themselves when attacked?

Jews have always identified as jews, both faith and as a people. Even in countries where they settled they were treated as separated often forced to live apart from the rest of the community and limited to certain jobs and crafts.

Simple question for you Aris. Do the Palestinians have a right to live there where they have lived for generations or, do you believe like Boston they should be expelled?

All of your questions involve historic wrongs. Are you saying it's ok to perpetrate yet more wrongs because of that? The Jewish Israeli's aren't all innocents, sweetness and light either.

Not all the palestinians have lived in the mandate for generations, nor did they all own the land they had lived on.

many lived and worked on land owned by others or the church, who sold it. No they do not have a right to remain n the land.

Half the people did not leave, they stayed and helped build Israel. Those that left did not have loyalty to a palestinian identity or to the land they let beause they through they would reap the benefits after the jews were all dead.
Palestinians sold land, then tried to nullify the same, without returning the money years after the fact. They left at the urging of other arabs, not because they were forced to leave by Israelis. Even the nazi mufti once admitted that the jews did not steal the land, fact many palestinians either don't know or pretend never happened.

Israel has allowed paestinians to enter and become citizens through unification and allwed them to gain back land through Israeli courts.

How many more do you really believe have any claim or right to live in Israel? How many of them have been involved in terrorism or attacks on Israel or jews? How many have committed crimes? How many would be able to pay tax on their land, develop their land or live off their land?

So what happens to the millions of other palestinian that think they have any claim or right and in the process displace or kill Israelis? Who many would be willing to be israelis and not palestinians?

No, I don't think there are that many that can or should be brought into Israel or have any rights to land there.

Just being born and listed by the UN as a refugee does not give them any legal or moral claim to Israel. Even if Israel agreed to 200,000 palestinians, the rest don't.

Most have been raised on a delusion of a future. Most won't recognize Israel let alone want to become Israeli.

Millions are under a false idea they have a right to claim Israel as their palestinian home land, as if there was ever a palestinian state or native palestinian people. They were arabs, ottomans, syrian, muslims, but they were not palestinians that owned a palestinian nation.

Where is the responsibility for israel to take in millions of palestinians that have for the last 65 yrs been trying to kill them? It is not even taking in refugees suffering by war like the syrians or central african for humanitarian reasons. You are talking about people who did not have to become refugees, remained refugees on the UN toll rather than accept a state and people that for the most part openly hate Israel. So why??????

Most that could or would have already entered Israel.

There is Israel and there is the Occupied Territories. I was referring to the Occupied Territories and people calling for expelling the Palestinians because Israel has a "moral claim" on the land. Do you think that is right?

I don't personally support the "right of return" - it's not going to happen.

It's not as simple as "Israel purchased all the land" - that is not strictly true either. Much was purchased, but land was also annexed and confiscated - and, the owners were denied residency permits to return.

We have played this game and the classification of state, public, church and unarable land as opposed to private land in the past.

 

[Coyote]

"Predominantly" - not "solely".

The point is - no one knows exactly, what IS known is many of the Palestinians have been living there hundreds if not thousands of years. Many Jews also converted to Christianity and both to Islam when those became the dominant religion. To insist they are colonists is false. They aren't. To insist that on this basis, they have no rights to be there is also false since they share the same heritage.

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Since Jerusalem is the historic and spiritual center of the jewish faith for over 3000 years, do jewish have a right to live in the land and pray at the mount?


Do muslims have a right to refuse, massacre and erase the history of the jewish people?

Do jews who have been persecuted throughout history and identify as a people and a faith, have a right to a safe homeland?

Did the UN, UK Mandate and LoN have the right to decide the make up and division of the failed Ottoman empire?

Did jewish have a right to buy land in and around Jerusalem since the 1800's and not have the land stolen from them or to be massacred because they bought or developed the land?

When offered the chance by the UN, did the Jews not have the right to create Israel and live in peace there? Did they have the right to defend themselves when attacked?

Jews have always identified as jews, both faith and as a people. Even in countries where they settled they were treated as separated often forced to live apart from the rest of the community and limited to certain jobs and crafts.

Simple question for you Aris. Do the Palestinians have a right to live there where they have lived for generations or, do you believe like Boston they should be expelled?

All of your questions involve historic wrongs. Are you saying it's ok to perpetrate yet more wrongs because of that? The Jewish Israeli's aren't all innocents, sweetness and light either.

Not all the palestinians have lived in the mandate for generations, nor did they all own the land they had lived on.

many lived and worked on land owned by others or the church, who sold it. No they do not have a right to remain n the land.

Half the people did not leave, they stayed and helped build Israel. Those that left did not have loyalty to a palestinian identity or to the land they let beause they through they would reap the benefits after the jews were all dead.
Palestinians sold land, then tried to nullify the same, without returning the money years after the fact. They left at the urging of other arabs, not because they were forced to leave by Israelis. Even the nazi mufti once admitted that the jews did not steal the land, fact many palestinians either don't know or pretend never happened.

Israel has allowed paestinians to enter and become citizens through unification and allwed them to gain back land through Israeli courts.

How many more do you really believe have any claim or right to live in Israel? How many of them have been involved in terrorism or attacks on Israel or jews? How many have committed crimes? How many would be able to pay tax on their land, develop their land or live off their land?

So what happens to the millions of other palestinian that think they have any claim or right and in the process displace or kill Israelis? Who many would be willing to be israelis and not palestinians?

No, I don't think there are that many that can or should be brought into Israel or have any rights to land there.

Just being born and listed by the UN as a refugee does not give them any legal or moral claim to Israel. Even if Israel agreed to 200,000 palestinians, the rest don't.

Most have been raised on a delusion of a future. Most won't recognize Israel let alone want to become Israeli.

Millions are under a false idea they have a right to claim Israel as their palestinian home land, as if there was ever a palestinian state or native palestinian people. They were arabs, ottomans, syrian, muslims, but they were not palestinians that owned a palestinian nation.

Where is the responsibility for israel to take in millions of palestinians that have for the last 65 yrs been trying to kill them? It is not even taking in refugees suffering by war like the syrians or central african for humanitarian reasons. You are talking about people who did not have to become refugees, remained refugees on the UN toll rather than accept a state and people that for the most part openly hate Israel. So why??????

Most that could or would have already entered Israel.

There is Israel and there is the Occupied Territories. I was referring to the Occupied Territories and people calling for expelling the Palestinians because Israel has a "moral claim" on the land. Do you think that is right?

I don't personally support the "right of return" - it's not going to happen.

It's not as simple as "Israel purchased all the land" - that is not strictly true either. Much was purchased, but land was also annexed and confiscated - and, the owners were denied residency permits to return.

We have played this game and the classification of state, public, church and unarable land as opposed to private land in the past.

You bring it up.

 

[Coyote]

Your very argument ignores history - the history that has had these people, called Palestinians, living on that land for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. You want to delete that history, and expell them.

But lets give recognition to WHY Boston wants to expel them.

1. They are categorically unable to live in a peaceful partnership under Jewish rule.
2. They want their own sovereignty and self-determination (supposedly).
3. They already have a State where they have their own sovereignty and self-determination.

They do not already have a state.

 

[Coyote]

At what point do you decide (arbritarily) people have a right to be there?

At what point do they "become" (magically and arbritarily) a "people"?

Its neither magic nor arbitrary. With respect to being indigenous -- the test is a recognizable unique culture developed in place. It is not a culture imported from elsewhere. And its not based on genetics (as I've said before, racism assisted by technology).

That said, though the Palestinians are demonstrably NOT indigenous, they still have developed, over time, the right to self-determination and even sovereignty (if they can get their sh*t together in time to take it). Rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory do not arise solely from being indigenous.

How can they not be "indiginous" when their history includes descent from indiginous peoples?

If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.

If a distinct culture is a requirement - what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews? Not religion - culture.

That said, Boston also has a point when he asks how much of the Jewish people's lands should be given away as more and more previously not distinguishable peoples develop their own "culture"? Shall Nazareth become the next territory which develops its own "unique culture", seperate and distinct from Palestinian and Jordanian culture, even though the cultures are indistinguishable? Will the Arab Muslims in Nazareth insist on having their own sovereign nation? Where does it end?

Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless. That at the very least should be addressed. As to how much land should be "given away" - none. Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion. Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear. The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as Boston implies is weak. There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" - only with the Palestinians. Why?

And THAT said, the reason why it is important for First Nations people and the Jewish people to stand together to combat the false claim that Palestinians are indigenous and the Jewish people are not is to prevent the usurping of original peoples stories into the colonist culture. Its to prevent the erasure of the original peoples. This is already happening with the Jewish people as the Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews". As in, "There was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount". As in, "Jerusalem is and has always been a Muslim holy place and the Jewish people have no ties to it". As in, "the Canaanites were Palestinians."

I disagree. For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi. Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.

I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage. Judaism is the founding Abrahamic faith. When Christianity was invented it usurped much of the Jewish faith for it's own. When Islam was invented it did the same. This is common with religions - they are almost all built upon earlier faiths and traditions.

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.

Born in a new york hospital or lived a couple of years in a new york appartment does not mean you have a right to be given land you did not own or that you have to live in new york. You go where there is wrok and where you can find a place to live. If you are recognized as palestinian and a state in fact, not just in name, actually comes to fruition, they have a right to seek work and try to find a place to live in palestine, not Israel. Working, parents that worked, a few years in the mandate and then leaving does not make one an indigenous to what became Israel.

I'm not talking about those.

 

[Boston1]

Coyote ;--) lets see if this paste from pages works.

====================================


Quote
How can they not be "indiginous" when their history includes descent from indiginous peoples?

If a mixed pedigree is an automatic exclusion than you would also have to exclude many Jews who are the products of mixed descent during the diaspora.

If a distinct culture is a requirement - what distinct culture is common and unique to all Jews? Not religion - culture.

========================================

It doesn’t, thats one of the problems with WIKI it fails utterly to use specific language, that error would have been corrected in a peer review but on WIKI its allowed to stand.

And yes, religion, language, customs all part of culture. The Judaic peoples have retained their uniqueness throughout the centuries. They are a truly unique culture.

========================================

Quote
Unlike Nazareth - the Palestinians are stateless. That at the very least should be addressed. As to how much land should be "given away" - none. Because the Occupied Territories are not Israel's to give - in my opinion. Israel controls them, but ownership is far from clear. The insistence that a people must have a unique culture to be a people and have considered rights as Boston implies is weak. There are many nations who's people have indistinguishable cultures but no one questions their existance or implies they aren't a "real people" - only with the Palestinians. Why?

========================================

The Nazareth ? give me a hint ;—))

The Arab Muslims you are referring to as palestinians are not stateless, they have 75% of the mandate area as the state of Jordan. This whole thing is really about just taking more land from israel.

The intent of the mandate is clear. EVERYTHING west of the Jordan River is available for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Including Judea and Summaria.
========================================

Quote
I disagree. For one - the only Jewish people who are truly indiginous imo, would be the Mizrahi. Those who left married out into other nationalities and their culture changed along with that.

I'm curious why you say "Muslims reject Jewish history, and convert Jewish myths and religious into their own. As in, "Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon were Muslims, not Jews" as if this is some unique way of destroying Jewish heritage. Judaism is the founding Abrahamic faith. When Christianity was invented it usurped much of the Jewish faith for it's own. When Islam was invented it did the same. This is common with religions - they are almost all built upon earlier faiths and traditions.

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.

=======================================

The Judaic people originated in the Canaan valley area have remained a distinct people with a distinct culture. You can claim they have been absorbed into whatever culture you want but without any evidence to support your claim it remains nothing but a claim. DNA evidence clearly shows that the Judaic people have remained by and large unaffected by their time in foreign lands.

Although I would be the first to point out that DNA evidence can also show we are 99% chimps and I’m not about to support giving chimpanzees a homeland in israel either.

I think you are mistaken about who claimed Muslims reject Jewish history. I’m innocent on that one although I wouldn’t be surprised.

I would suggest that Christianity actually incorporated little of the Judaic faith and instead relies heavily on Hellenistic pagan beliefs more known to Paul the Myth Maker, as H McCobby might suggest.

Oh and palestinians are part of no heritage, they seem to be an invention of the 1950s era.
========================================

QuoteThat's deceptive if not downright dishonest. Ottoman and Mandate census figures show a considerable non-Jewish population. In fact, the number of Jews were relatively small until Zionist immigration started. Whether you call them "Palestinians" or Martians - the people who lived in that region were a mixture of religions that had been there for some time. Your statement would have us believe that until recently there were only Jews there and that is demonstratably false unless "recent" means the last thousand years or so.

========================================

Not at all, you are assuming once again that the people called palestinians previous to about 1950ish were Arab Muslims, they were not. You have to remember that the first time the term palestinian is applied to an Arab Muslim colonist is about 1950 with the invention of the PLO.

The lack of Judaic people in Judea at various times in history is virtually entirely due to the various pogroms enacted against them.

While there were various other peoples from a variety of faiths remaining you’d be hard pressed to find any reference to palestinians other than of the Jewish faith. Most identified themselves with their country of origin or with being Southern Syrian IE one of the three Ottoman Syrian provinces. Gaza Acre or Lebanon, I think, I’d have to go look up the names, but i”m pretty sure I nailed it.

In a nutshell I don’t believe the Arab Muslim colonists referred to themselves as palestinians until about 1950 ish.

========================================

Quote
They aren't First Nation tribes. To use YOUR terminology they are "European colonizers".

========================================

The Judaic people returning to Judea from Europe make up about 35% of the overall population of Israel today. The term returning is far more accurate than the term colonizing.

The term returning implies the people came from this area in the first place. They did, their ancestral line can be traced back to a pre bronze age people in the Canaan valley area.

The term Colonist implies that a person is moving into new territory and displacing a native people. We know that the Arab Mulsim colonists came from the Arabian peninsula in two waves, one between the 7th and 9th centuries and another in the mid Zionist period. That fact isn’t really in dispute. All you are arguing is that there were some survivors of the various pogroms and their genetics are evident in the colonist populations.

Big deal
A people is defined by its heritage, language, culture, belief systems, customs and uniqueness. None of which define the Arab Muslim colonists of the mandate area. But all of which define the Judaic peoples.

Which brings us to the point.

Why do the Arab Muslim colonists deserve more than 75% of the mandate area when the indigenous people only get 25% ?

Cheers

PS
Its quite refreshing to finally have a peaceful discussion instead of the usual pissing contest. I appreciate your input

 

[aris2chat]

Your very argument ignores history - the history that has had these people, called Palestinians, living on that land for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. You want to delete that history, and expell them.

But lets give recognition to WHY Boston wants to expel them.

1. They are categorically unable to live in a peaceful partnership under Jewish rule.
2. They want their own sovereignty and self-determination (supposedly).
3. They already have a State where they have their own sovereignty and self-determination.

They do not already have a state.

How many tie have they oped for violence, demand Israel as their state, walked away from negotiations, refused statehood or citizenship elsewhere............

Palestinians could have had a state but they did everything to prove they were not ready or willing.