Consider The Facts

[Coyote]

Yes. It is. It legitimately belongs to two sets of people who've lived there for eons. If they both have rights, then there needs to be a way to divide it. No one is going to be entirely happy.

Can you prove it "legitimately" belongs to both people?

First you'd have to prove that the Arab Muslim colonizers had a legal right. If you recall the Arabs rejected every attempt to give it to them, instead they insisted on it all. Then you'd have to find a legal instrument which exactly defines the borders. Then you'd have to argue that acts of aggression do not give the defending nation a claim to territory necessary to its own defense. And of course you'd have to argue that there is no war and that martial law isn't enforceable.

Also you claim to have provided evidence of the Arab Muslim colonists on one side of the Jordan ( about 100' away from each other ) are somehow unique from Arab Muslim colonists on the other side.

If you could repeat that information, I'd appreciate it, I must have missed it.

There are no "Arab colonists". If you are going to continue with that it's difficult to have a discussion. I already pointed out what made Palestinians unique - if it isn't "unique enough" that is not my problem.

 

[Boston1]

You have not pointed out what makes who'm you call palestinians unique.

I can show that 99% of the Arab genome is exactly similar to that of a chimp. Shall we insist on setting up a chimpanzee homeland in Meca ?

 

[Coyote]

You have not pointed out what makes who'm you call palestinians unique.

I can show that 99% of the Arab genome is exactly similar to that of a chimp. Shall we insist on setting up a chimpanzee homeland in Meca ?

Are you falling back on genetics then?

 

[Boston1]

Not at all. But I can't imagine what argument you are thinking of when you suggest you've proven the Arab Muslim colonists are unique in some way.

You didn't answer my question when I asked so I can only assume you are referring to the only argument you presented, which was the genetic one

 

[Coyote]

I haven't relied on genetics though genetics show Palestinians closely related to many Jewish groups - infact, closer to some Jewish groups than other Jewish groups are.

I am not going to repeat what I posted about Palestinian culture - it's in the thread.

 

[Boston1]

Um, I'm baffled, there is no unique Arab Muslim colonist culture. There is absolutely no difference between the culture of Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan than those on the right bank, less than 100' Away and originating form the exact same colonial expansion.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you could be talking about. I'll reread the thread but I don't recall any specific difference ever being listed or discussed. Can you give me a hint and give me at least a post number where to start ?

 

[aris2chat]

No worries, English is a difficult language.

The deal is you have yet to substantiate your claim that there is some difference between the Arab Mulsim colonists existing ( according to you ) within 100 feet or so of each other for all of known history, are somehow a distinctive cultural group deserving of some homeland, particularly carved out of Israel rather than Jordan.

My contention is there is absolutely not a shred of science to support your view.

There is nothing that says a people must be "unique" to be deserving of a nation. Nothing. I can point out multiple examples of nations where there is little unique difference between inhabitants. I think that is a distraction.

The reason it should be, as you like to put it "carved out of Israel" is that that is there native land.

Your solution is mass expulsions. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

How will you accomplish that?

The Arab Muslim colonists on the east bank of the Jordan in no way different from the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side ( about 100' away ).

Ergo the Arab Muslim colonists within the mandated area already have a state. A 75% stake actually within the mandated area, the Judaic peope, 25%. The two state solution

So how is a third or actually a fourth ( if you include Gaza ) state solution going to help ?

And why should any additional states be carved out of the 25% of the mandate awarded to Israel rather than the 75% awarded to the Arab Muslim colonists.

Actually, the Palestinians do have their own unique cultural aspects that differentiate them from other Arabicized cultures (I posted that earlier).

What do you propose to do with Gaza? No way to hook it up to any of the West Bank while meeting Israel's needs for security and both their needs for continuity.

I wouldn't "do" anything with Gaza, Israel already relinquished that part of its land to the Arab Muslim colonists and I can't imagine they'd want ti back. Particularly after building such a nice fence around it ;--)

As for the Arab Muslim colonists in Judea and Samaria I'd expel only those that weren't legitimate refugees.

Let's get this part straight first. You would expel Muslim inhabitents of West Bank even though they'd lived there for generations - hundreds if not thousands of years?

There are migrants, workers and illegals living in the US, but that does not make them american citizens or mean they have he right to be here permanently.
People might have lived and worked land but if they did not own the land, they have no rights after the and is sold. Some were offered a chance to register land and pay taxes for the land, many did not want want to or have the money to.
You can have a home for generation but if don't pay taxes or have a valid deed, you will loose the home. If you sell it and years later for "sentimental reason" want to have the sale nullified because it was your grandfathers, you will be laughed out of court. If for some reason it is offered back if you return the money and you don't have it, no one is going to give it back.

Your family might have lived for generation in an apartment, but if you don't pay rent or the building goes condo and you can't buy it, you have to leave.

Palestinians did not have to leave, the arab told them to and it was there choice to close their doors and hit the road so the land could be bathed in jewish blood. If they did not want to be Israelis, why should they be allowed back just because their grandmother was born there. When people migrate to the US and become citizens, just because your great great grandmother came from italy, does not mean you go the front of the line for italian citizenship.

Many countries require you to pick your country by age 18 if you are born in one country but one or both of your parents are born elsewhere. Some allow duel citizenship, it is not the same everywhere.

Parents, grandparents, great grandparents left, why should the children of today be allowed to claim land they have no deed or tax payment for? Why should they return as palestinians if the country is now Israel? Do they have money to buy land? Do they want to become citizens, learn the language, do army or community service, find a job and pay taxes as an Israeli?

Israel bought land in the WB and G in the 19th to mid 20th C. that they were forced to leave and tried to reclaim, with great hostility. Why were palestinians, arabs, churches willing to take their money and then think they will just give up and walk away?

Ottomans (before the young turks), LoN, Mandate and UN offered the jews a return to their historic and religious homeland. The land was greatly under populated, under developed, swamp and desert, but jews were willing to pay for and build.

Why should palestinians who were not born in Israel, perhaps not even their grandparents, have the gates of Israel swung open for them, when they still seek to wipe Israel off the global maps and out of history? Why?

Thousands have been allowed to reunite families and to get legal cases and land claims heard so they can return.

Why should all the others be allowed to enter, just "because"? Palestinians can't live in peace side by side with the Israeli state, why should they be let in?

Why?

PA and G did not want them. Even refugees being killed were not welcome in the WB or G. UN can't afford to support them any longer and limited funds are needed for those in even greater need, they are limited in even funding the very minimal needs for them. It is unfortunate but refugees have become a threat for nations that tried to open the door for them, why should Israel endanger it's people more than they are now?

The whole middle east and most of the world became "created" states. Populations, were brutally oppressed, moved, were forced to leave, were killed off, were renamed. Is india going to allow all the pakistanis back? Is China going to allow all the tibet buddhists to reestablish their government, give them back all their land? Are all the sikhs going to be allowed to their land without persecution by muslims? Are the armeneans and kurds going to be given back all their historic land and be allowed to live in peace?

Jews were offered a homeland in the early to mid 19th C. They were offered a homeland in the early 20th C. Israel has been forced to fight for their very existence ever since, why should they allow an enemy in if thee is no peace or disarmament? No willingness to become Israelis instead of palestinians?

If the palestinians wanted a homeland, why have they refused it so many times?

We've been back and forth on this before...


You know, don't you - that Israel is one of those created states? So, now that they have their state they can sit back and deny another?

But I think your missing the point. No one is talking about the "right of return" - Israel accepting them all. There IS contested territory - Occupied Territories. That is what we're talking about. That and allowing a state for a STATELESS people. Give it to them and if they F it up, they suffer the international consequences. There is NO OTHER people I can think of who's existence is defined by the propoganda of another state, who's ability to have a state is contingent upon upteen requirements of that other state. Israel was won in blood and terrorism. They have their state. Now, their opponents, wanting the same thing and using the same methods are held to a higher standard. Why? So Israel can claim the entire enchilada?

What would you do with the Palestinians Aris? You seem to think the Israeli's are angels who do no wrong. So would you expel them from the West Bank and Gaza? Where would you send over 4 million people that the pro-Israeli's want to pretend aren't "a people"?

Why must Jews leave all the square acres of land they lost when jordan occupied he land? Jews gave up their land in Gaza for the sake of peace, which became a launching ground for more attacks. Without some assurances of peace and cooperation, why should Israel force jews off the high ground? If the PA did not full comply, why should they relinquish more land that would endanger Israel? Is the PA going to compensate the jews for the land? Why if arab muslims already live in Israel, shouldn't jews be allowed to live in a PA state if and when one does come about?

Refugees should be incorporated in other arab/muslim land or sent to the WB were there is land yet unused for them to build, farm or develop. Why if Israel is not a muslim/arab free country should the PA be jew free and forced yet again off land?

If the PA and Israel are willing to cooperate on security patrols and prisoner bargains for young teens that brutally attack Israelis, can't they accept to live side by side with Israel and jews?

Hardliners want Israeli blood, others just want to get on with life. How do you bring them together and let Israel exist? I tried for years to reason and help palestinians, thank you but I also have the scars of thanks as well for my years of efforts. What I would suggest or have tried in the past is not so different now, and there will still be an impasse because of the extremists.

Hate is far too indoctrinated in the people for should be and best compromises to even be tried. The worst make it impossible for the best and moderates to work out what is best for them and Israel. Too many want nothing less than absolutely no Israel or jews, they don't want to work out a compromise at all, ever.

How do you separate the good from the bad and give half a state and turn the other half into a death camp/prison, legally or morally, rather than let them kill you?

Blockades, sanctions, restriction, war, easing of restrictions, trying to take through intermediators.................., the answer to Israel is die from the hardliners. PA is about to fall apart an the hardliners don't care and don't want to compromise with the PA, Israel or Egypt for the sake of the people.

What is reasonable, what is logical, what I think is best, what I would like to see, is just not at all within the realm of possibility where the hardliners are concerned.

I'll speak to the ration, but I don't have the will to fight against the absolute irrational and immovable. Eventually I'll just put them on ignore after trying to get through them them. I'll let the younger more energetic and ideological ones take the hard path and tilt with windmills and stone walls. I have my own battles at home with a, sometimes violent, Alzheimer to try convince to work with me so I can care for. It can be just as hard, and it just gets worse not better.

Same problems in a different package. There is life span limit eventually for me, unforgettably for Israel and the palestinians, it has gone on for generations. I accept and expect how things will end here, but over there, I don't see much light in the near future, without some major leadership and attitude changes. I can be flexible to some extent for the sake of peace, for Israel they risk more attacks and more death if they give in too much.

I prefer my chair at this point in my life, I've already been through the war, I've done my time and then some. I can observe, express my view, state the facts, share my experience, but I can't make the two (three, four, five,....) sides come together and make peace if some refuse. Trying to make them see reason is not a certainty they are will to even consider it.

Sorry, my magic wand is in the repair shop

 

[Coyote]

There is nothing that says a people must be "unique" to be deserving of a nation. Nothing. I can point out multiple examples of nations where there is little unique difference between inhabitants. I think that is a distraction.

The reason it should be, as you like to put it "carved out of Israel" is that that is there native land.

Your solution is mass expulsions. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

How will you accomplish that?


Actually, the Palestinians do have their own unique cultural aspects that differentiate them from other Arabicized cultures (I posted that earlier).

What do you propose to do with Gaza? No way to hook it up to any of the West Bank while meeting Israel's needs for security and both their needs for continuity.

I wouldn't "do" anything with Gaza, Israel already relinquished that part of its land to the Arab Muslim colonists and I can't imagine they'd want ti back. Particularly after building such a nice fence around it ;--)

As for the Arab Muslim colonists in Judea and Samaria I'd expel only those that weren't legitimate refugees.

Let's get this part straight first. You would expel Muslim inhabitents of West Bank even though they'd lived there for generations - hundreds if not thousands of years?

There are migrants, workers and illegals living in the US, but that does not make them american citizens or mean they have he right to be here permanently.
People might have lived and worked land but if they did not own the land, they have no rights after the and is sold. Some were offered a chance to register land and pay taxes for the land, many did not want want to or have the money to.
You can have a home for generation but if don't pay taxes or have a valid deed, you will loose the home. If you sell it and years later for "sentimental reason" want to have the sale nullified because it was your grandfathers, you will be laughed out of court. If for some reason it is offered back if you return the money and you don't have it, no one is going to give it back.

Your family might have lived for generation in an apartment, but if you don't pay rent or the building goes condo and you can't buy it, you have to leave.

Palestinians did not have to leave, the arab told them to and it was there choice to close their doors and hit the road so the land could be bathed in jewish blood. If they did not want to be Israelis, why should they be allowed back just because their grandmother was born there. When people migrate to the US and become citizens, just because your great great grandmother came from italy, does not mean you go the front of the line for italian citizenship.

Many countries require you to pick your country by age 18 if you are born in one country but one or both of your parents are born elsewhere. Some allow duel citizenship, it is not the same everywhere.

Parents, grandparents, great grandparents left, why should the children of today be allowed to claim land they have no deed or tax payment for? Why should they return as palestinians if the country is now Israel? Do they have money to buy land? Do they want to become citizens, learn the language, do army or community service, find a job and pay taxes as an Israeli?

Israel bought land in the WB and G in the 19th to mid 20th C. that they were forced to leave and tried to reclaim, with great hostility. Why were palestinians, arabs, churches willing to take their money and then think they will just give up and walk away?

Ottomans (before the young turks), LoN, Mandate and UN offered the jews a return to their historic and religious homeland. The land was greatly under populated, under developed, swamp and desert, but jews were willing to pay for and build.

Why should palestinians who were not born in Israel, perhaps not even their grandparents, have the gates of Israel swung open for them, when they still seek to wipe Israel off the global maps and out of history? Why?

Thousands have been allowed to reunite families and to get legal cases and land claims heard so they can return.

Why should all the others be allowed to enter, just "because"? Palestinians can't live in peace side by side with the Israeli state, why should they be let in?

Why?

PA and G did not want them. Even refugees being killed were not welcome in the WB or G. UN can't afford to support them any longer and limited funds are needed for those in even greater need, they are limited in even funding the very minimal needs for them. It is unfortunate but refugees have become a threat for nations that tried to open the door for them, why should Israel endanger it's people more than they are now?

The whole middle east and most of the world became "created" states. Populations, were brutally oppressed, moved, were forced to leave, were killed off, were renamed. Is india going to allow all the pakistanis back? Is China going to allow all the tibet buddhists to reestablish their government, give them back all their land? Are all the sikhs going to be allowed to their land without persecution by muslims? Are the armeneans and kurds going to be given back all their historic land and be allowed to live in peace?

Jews were offered a homeland in the early to mid 19th C. They were offered a homeland in the early 20th C. Israel has been forced to fight for their very existence ever since, why should they allow an enemy in if thee is no peace or disarmament? No willingness to become Israelis instead of palestinians?

If the palestinians wanted a homeland, why have they refused it so many times?

We've been back and forth on this before...


You know, don't you - that Israel is one of those created states? So, now that they have their state they can sit back and deny another?

But I think your missing the point. No one is talking about the "right of return" - Israel accepting them all. There IS contested territory - Occupied Territories. That is what we're talking about. That and allowing a state for a STATELESS people. Give it to them and if they F it up, they suffer the international consequences. There is NO OTHER people I can think of who's existence is defined by the propoganda of another state, who's ability to have a state is contingent upon upteen requirements of that other state. Israel was won in blood and terrorism. They have their state. Now, their opponents, wanting the same thing and using the same methods are held to a higher standard. Why? So Israel can claim the entire enchilada?

What would you do with the Palestinians Aris? You seem to think the Israeli's are angels who do no wrong. So would you expel them from the West Bank and Gaza? Where would you send over 4 million people that the pro-Israeli's want to pretend aren't "a people"?

Why must Jews leave all the square acres of land they lost when jordan occupied he land? Jews gave up their land in Gaza for the sake of peace, which became a launching ground for more attacks. Without some assurances of peace and cooperation, why should Israel force jews off the high ground? If the PA did not full comply, why should they relinquish more land that would endanger Israel? Is the PA going to compensate the jews for the land? Why if arab muslims already live in Israel, shouldn't jews be allowed to live in a PA state if and when one does come about?

Refugees should be incorporated in other arab/muslim land or sent to the WB were there is land yet unused for them to build, farm or develop. Why if Israel is not a muslim/arab free country should the PA be jew free and forced yet again off land?

If the PA and Israel are willing to cooperate on security patrols and prisoner bargains for young teens that brutally attack Israelis, can't they accept to live side by side with Israel and jews?

Hardliners want Israeli blood, others just want to get on with life. How do you bring them together and let Israel exist? I tried for years to reason and help palestinians, thank you but I also have the scars of thanks as well for my years of efforts. What I would suggest or have tried in the past is not so different now, and there will still be an impasse because of the extremists.

Hate is far too indoctrinated in the people for should be and best compromises to even be tried. The worst make it impossible for the best and moderates to work out what is best for them and Israel. Too many want nothing less than absolutely no Israel or jews, they don't want to work out a compromise at all, ever.

How do you separate the good from the bad and give half a state and turn the other half into a death camp/prison, legally or morally, rather than let them kill you?

Blockades, sanctions, restriction, war, easing of restrictions, trying to take through intermediators.................., the answer to Israel is die from the hardliners. PA is about to fall apart an the hardliners don't care and don't want to compromise with the PA, Israel or Egypt for the sake of the people.

What is reasonable, what is logical, what I think is best, what I would like to see, is just not at all within the realm of possibility where the hardliners are concerned.

I'll speak to the ration, but I don't have the will to fight against the absolute irrational and immovable. Eventually I'll just put them on ignore after trying to get through them them. I'll let the younger more energetic and ideological ones take the hard path and tilt with windmills and stone walls. I have my own battles at home with a, sometimes violent, Alzheimer to try convince to work with me so I can care for. It can be just as hard, and it just gets worse not better.

Same problems in a different package. There is life span limit eventually for me, unforgettably for Israel and the palestinians, it has gone on for generations. I accept and expect how things will end here, but over there, I don't see much light in the near future, without some major leadership and attitude changes. I can be flexible to some extent for the sake of peace, for Israel they risk more attacks and more death if they give in too much.

I prefer my chair at this point in my life, I've already been through the war, I've done my time and then some. I can observe, express my view, state the facts, share my experience, but I can't make the two (three, four, five,....) sides come together and make peace if some refuse. Trying to make them see reason is not a certainty they are will to even consider it.

Sorry, my magic wand is in the repair shop

I know we often (vehemently) disagree but I do think your viewpoint is worth more than most because of your real life experiences. This is off topic but I'll say it anyway...I was listening to NPR "The World" talking about the Syrian conflict, and in this case about volunteer doctors going to the refugee camps. It made me think of you - because of the things you had said you had done and experienced.

At any rate, I am sorry for the fact you are now having to deal with someone with alzhiemers, that is not a battle I would wish on anyone. Peace.

 

[Boston1]

Coyote, could you please note what posts support your view that the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side of the Jordan are somehow different from those on the east bank. Less than 100' away.

 

[aris2chat]

I wouldn't "do" anything with Gaza, Israel already relinquished that part of its land to the Arab Muslim colonists and I can't imagine they'd want ti back. Particularly after building such a nice fence around it ;--)

As for the Arab Muslim colonists in Judea and Samaria I'd expel only those that weren't legitimate refugees.

Let's get this part straight first. You would expel Muslim inhabitents of West Bank even though they'd lived there for generations - hundreds if not thousands of years?

There are migrants, workers and illegals living in the US, but that does not make them american citizens or mean they have he right to be here permanently.
People might have lived and worked land but if they did not own the land, they have no rights after the and is sold. Some were offered a chance to register land and pay taxes for the land, many did not want want to or have the money to.
You can have a home for generation but if don't pay taxes or have a valid deed, you will loose the home. If you sell it and years later for "sentimental reason" want to have the sale nullified because it was your grandfathers, you will be laughed out of court. If for some reason it is offered back if you return the money and you don't have it, no one is going to give it back.

Your family might have lived for generation in an apartment, but if you don't pay rent or the building goes condo and you can't buy it, you have to leave.

Palestinians did not have to leave, the arab told them to and it was there choice to close their doors and hit the road so the land could be bathed in jewish blood. If they did not want to be Israelis, why should they be allowed back just because their grandmother was born there. When people migrate to the US and become citizens, just because your great great grandmother came from italy, does not mean you go the front of the line for italian citizenship.

Many countries require you to pick your country by age 18 if you are born in one country but one or both of your parents are born elsewhere. Some allow duel citizenship, it is not the same everywhere.

Parents, grandparents, great grandparents left, why should the children of today be allowed to claim land they have no deed or tax payment for? Why should they return as palestinians if the country is now Israel? Do they have money to buy land? Do they want to become citizens, learn the language, do army or community service, find a job and pay taxes as an Israeli?

Israel bought land in the WB and G in the 19th to mid 20th C. that they were forced to leave and tried to reclaim, with great hostility. Why were palestinians, arabs, churches willing to take their money and then think they will just give up and walk away?

Ottomans (before the young turks), LoN, Mandate and UN offered the jews a return to their historic and religious homeland. The land was greatly under populated, under developed, swamp and desert, but jews were willing to pay for and build.

Why should palestinians who were not born in Israel, perhaps not even their grandparents, have the gates of Israel swung open for them, when they still seek to wipe Israel off the global maps and out of history? Why?

Thousands have been allowed to reunite families and to get legal cases and land claims heard so they can return.

Why should all the others be allowed to enter, just "because"? Palestinians can't live in peace side by side with the Israeli state, why should they be let in?

Why?

PA and G did not want them. Even refugees being killed were not welcome in the WB or G. UN can't afford to support them any longer and limited funds are needed for those in even greater need, they are limited in even funding the very minimal needs for them. It is unfortunate but refugees have become a threat for nations that tried to open the door for them, why should Israel endanger it's people more than they are now?

The whole middle east and most of the world became "created" states. Populations, were brutally oppressed, moved, were forced to leave, were killed off, were renamed. Is india going to allow all the pakistanis back? Is China going to allow all the tibet buddhists to reestablish their government, give them back all their land? Are all the sikhs going to be allowed to their land without persecution by muslims? Are the armeneans and kurds going to be given back all their historic land and be allowed to live in peace?

Jews were offered a homeland in the early to mid 19th C. They were offered a homeland in the early 20th C. Israel has been forced to fight for their very existence ever since, why should they allow an enemy in if thee is no peace or disarmament? No willingness to become Israelis instead of palestinians?

If the palestinians wanted a homeland, why have they refused it so many times?

We've been back and forth on this before...


You know, don't you - that Israel is one of those created states? So, now that they have their state they can sit back and deny another?

But I think your missing the point. No one is talking about the "right of return" - Israel accepting them all. There IS contested territory - Occupied Territories. That is what we're talking about. That and allowing a state for a STATELESS people. Give it to them and if they F it up, they suffer the international consequences. There is NO OTHER people I can think of who's existence is defined by the propoganda of another state, who's ability to have a state is contingent upon upteen requirements of that other state. Israel was won in blood and terrorism. They have their state. Now, their opponents, wanting the same thing and using the same methods are held to a higher standard. Why? So Israel can claim the entire enchilada?

What would you do with the Palestinians Aris? You seem to think the Israeli's are angels who do no wrong. So would you expel them from the West Bank and Gaza? Where would you send over 4 million people that the pro-Israeli's want to pretend aren't "a people"?

Why must Jews leave all the square acres of land they lost when jordan occupied he land? Jews gave up their land in Gaza for the sake of peace, which became a launching ground for more attacks. Without some assurances of peace and cooperation, why should Israel force jews off the high ground? If the PA did not full comply, why should they relinquish more land that would endanger Israel? Is the PA going to compensate the jews for the land? Why if arab muslims already live in Israel, shouldn't jews be allowed to live in a PA state if and when one does come about?

Refugees should be incorporated in other arab/muslim land or sent to the WB were there is land yet unused for them to build, farm or develop. Why if Israel is not a muslim/arab free country should the PA be jew free and forced yet again off land?

If the PA and Israel are willing to cooperate on security patrols and prisoner bargains for young teens that brutally attack Israelis, can't they accept to live side by side with Israel and jews?

Hardliners want Israeli blood, others just want to get on with life. How do you bring them together and let Israel exist? I tried for years to reason and help palestinians, thank you but I also have the scars of thanks as well for my years of efforts. What I would suggest or have tried in the past is not so different now, and there will still be an impasse because of the extremists.

Hate is far too indoctrinated in the people for should be and best compromises to even be tried. The worst make it impossible for the best and moderates to work out what is best for them and Israel. Too many want nothing less than absolutely no Israel or jews, they don't want to work out a compromise at all, ever.

How do you separate the good from the bad and give half a state and turn the other half into a death camp/prison, legally or morally, rather than let them kill you?

Blockades, sanctions, restriction, war, easing of restrictions, trying to take through intermediators.................., the answer to Israel is die from the hardliners. PA is about to fall apart an the hardliners don't care and don't want to compromise with the PA, Israel or Egypt for the sake of the people.

What is reasonable, what is logical, what I think is best, what I would like to see, is just not at all within the realm of possibility where the hardliners are concerned.

I'll speak to the ration, but I don't have the will to fight against the absolute irrational and immovable. Eventually I'll just put them on ignore after trying to get through them them. I'll let the younger more energetic and ideological ones take the hard path and tilt with windmills and stone walls. I have my own battles at home with a, sometimes violent, Alzheimer to try convince to work with me so I can care for. It can be just as hard, and it just gets worse not better.

Same problems in a different package. There is life span limit eventually for me, unforgettably for Israel and the palestinians, it has gone on for generations. I accept and expect how things will end here, but over there, I don't see much light in the near future, without some major leadership and attitude changes. I can be flexible to some extent for the sake of peace, for Israel they risk more attacks and more death if they give in too much.

I prefer my chair at this point in my life, I've already been through the war, I've done my time and then some. I can observe, express my view, state the facts, share my experience, but I can't make the two (three, four, five,....) sides come together and make peace if some refuse. Trying to make them see reason is not a certainty they are will to even consider it.

Sorry, my magic wand is in the repair shop

I know we often (vehemently) disagree but I do think your viewpoint is worth more than most because of your real life experiences. This is off topic but I'll say it anyway...I was listening to NPR "The World" talking about the Syrian conflict, and in this case about volunteer doctors going to the refugee camps. It made me think of you - because of the things you had said you had done and experienced.

At any rate, I am sorry for the fact you are now having to deal with someone with alzhiemers, that is not a battle I would wish on anyone. Peace.

Of all the people I have cared for and seen die, this is the hardest and least cooperative or appreciative. Emotionally hospice takes a toll, but this is mentally and physically crushing. All the love and care can at time been seen as imprisonment and attack. It can be very complicated. I've dealt with children and grandchildren and even a spouse with differing illnesses, disabilities and emotional problem. Now it is totally different.

There is only so far you can reason and give into for the sake of peace. You can't let others harm you, others or themselves.

Trying to reason with Israel and the PA is much the same, neither should aggressively seek to harm, but there is point when response requires force when your life or country is at stake.

We have seen long periods of calm and then a series of violent attack by rocks, mortars, rockets, knives or cars. When Israel responds, the world gets upset.

Palestinians, especially groups like hamas, need to be held accountable for the damage they do to their own, to Israeli and to the hope of peace and a PA statehood. It is not all to be laid at Israel's feet. More often than not is stems from some dispute between G and the WB, but they take their anger out on Israel for world publicity.

Israel is not the villain, not the devil, not an animal, not the aggressor, not the cause of every thing from a splinter to a natural disaster around the world. First certain groups need to see them as people. Short of slicing their own neck, Israel has at times bent over backwards and gotten nothing of grief and more bloodshed. There has to be a give and take. Small step and then bigger steps. You don't start and the finish line and work backward for peace.

When you find people that can be leaders and guild their own people to face compromises that will benefit both sides, you have hit the jack pot. They are a rare breed in the region and rarely live long lives. Not a great prospect for a long and health future for a two state, two people peace agreement. I've seen too many come and go over the decades. I've seen bad people try to wiggle and bend eventually, but never quite bend enough. I've seen good people break.

There are no easy answer, ever. Even strategy gamesmanship works when there are irrational and unreasonable people in power, often to the point of fanatical.

It is not the west or even the east. Gordian knots are easier to understand. If you don't understand them, you will never get them to listen to you. Time is more of an infinite concept where centuries are like minutes to the rest of the world. Life and death have different values and meaning.

You can't find a western solution to a middle east problem. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You might find a few areas of cooperation or advantage, but mostly it is just a wrong fit.

I'm not sure I even know how to really explain. It is like thinking in french, not just knowing french words or phrases. It is not a one for one translation process.

Maybe tomorrow I'll find a better way to explain.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, could you please note what posts support your view that the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side of the Jordan are somehow different from those on the east bank. Less than 100' away.

Why would they need to be different?

 

[Boston1]

They aren't,

thats the whole point. Without there being one single shred of discernable differences there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan, less than 100' from the Arab Muslim colonists on the east, deserve their own state separate from the 75% of the mandated area they already received.

Even if the Arab Muslim colonists on the west bank of the Jordan less than 100' from those on the east bank. for some reason are deserving of their own nation, why should it be carved out of Israel instead of Jordan ?

Either way there really is no effective argument for slicing a fourth state out of the land intended for an national Jewish homeland

 

[Shusha]

Boston1 , post #95

 

[MJB12741]

I'm a lousy speller.

Is that a problem for you?

No worries, English is a difficult language.

The deal is you have yet to substantiate your claim that there is some difference between the Arab Mulsim colonists existing ( according to you ) within 100 feet or so of each other for all of known history, are somehow a distinctive cultural group deserving of some homeland, particularly carved out of Israel rather than Jordan.

My contention is there is absolutely not a shred of science to support your view.

The Arab Muslim colonists on the east bank of the Jordan in no way different from the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side ( about 100' away ).

Ergo the Arab Muslim colonists within the mandated area already have a state. A 75% stake actually within the mandated area, the Judaic peope, 25%. The two state solution

So how is a third or actually a fourth ( if you include Gaza ) state solution going to help ?

And why should any additional states be carved out of the 25% of the mandate awarded to Israel rather than the 75% awarded to the Arab Muslim colonists.

Unless & until Palestinian leadership accepts the fact that Israel is there to stay, threre will no peace & no reason for peace negotiations.

I agree. And I would add to that that unless the Israeli leadership accepts the Palestinians are there to stay, there will be no peace nor reason for negotiations. As Netanyahu said: no Palestinian state ever.

That is true. Both sides must accept the fact that both sides have people who are there to stay, barring some total genocide which cannot possibly happen as the people on both sides are too intermingled. As for your comment on Netanyahu, that was not his original position. It changed through necessity in that all previous attemps for peace offered by Israel have been thanked with jihads & intifadas killing Israeli's.

I disagree. Looking at his record in the "peace process" and the flaunting of any attempts to halt settlements - I think that statement reflected his REAL intent.

Do you think electing Hamas was a good move by the Palestinians to show their desire for peace?

 

[P F Tinmore]

They aren't,

thats the whole point. Without there being one single shred of discernable differences there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan, less than 100' from the Arab Muslim colonists on the east, deserve their own state separate from the 75% of the mandated area they already received.

Even if the Arab Muslim colonists on the west bank of the Jordan less than 100' from those on the east bank. for some reason are deserving of their own nation, why should it be carved out of Israel instead of Jordan ?

Either way there really is no effective argument for slicing a fourth state out of the land intended for an national Jewish homeland

there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims, blah, blah, blah​

What about the Arab Christians? You never mention them.

 

[MJB12741]

They aren't,

thats the whole point. Without there being one single shred of discernable differences there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan, less than 100' from the Arab Muslim colonists on the east, deserve their own state separate from the 75% of the mandated area they already received.

Even if the Arab Muslim colonists on the west bank of the Jordan less than 100' from those on the east bank. for some reason are deserving of their own nation, why should it be carved out of Israel instead of Jordan ?

Either way there really is no effective argument for slicing a fourth state out of the land intended for an national Jewish homeland

there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims, blah, blah, blah​

What about the Arab Christians? You never mention them.

Aw, bless you for asking. Isn't it wonderfUL? Arab Christians fighting for Israel by joining the Israeli army. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

 

[Boston1]

i-n-d-i-g-e-n-o-u-s

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

Because when your culture is overtaken by an imported, colonial, invading culture and your culture is lost or forgotten -- you are no longer indigenous. When you adopt the culture of the imported, colonial, invaders there is no culture to preserve and keep intact. There is no meaning to being "indigenous" if all it means is those people who currently live there. Are all Americans "indigenous" to the US? Are they all the original inhabitants whose culture developed in that place? Of course not. They are products of a mixture of the original inhabitants and the imported, colonial, invading cultures. This does not confer indigenousness to them. If it did -- the prevailing, surviving culture of ANY place becomes the indigenous culture.

If you want to argue that being "indigenous" confers no special rights to self-determination or sovereignty -- go ahead. I'd even agree with you. I'd even be able to come up with some pretty solid and tight legal arguments to back it up. But the argument that Palestinians with an Arabic Muslim culture are indigenous strips all meaning from the word.

Actually - that's exactly what I feel. Whether or not they are "indiginous" doesn't necessarily line up with rights and self-determination. But I disagree on your final statement. The Palestinian culture prior to Israel's recreation, was arabicized - and that would have included Mizrahim Jews, as well as Christians. Outside of religion - how did their cultures differ from one another prior to outside immigration?

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.

A MIXED culture is not (necessarily) a problem. There is still evidence of the indigenous culture. A culture INDISTINGUISHABLE from the imported, invading, colonist culture is a problem.

Further, again, one of the RIGHTS of being indigenous is the RIGHT to self-identify. YOU don't get to decide who is Jewish enough and who is not. The Jewish people do.

It would seem to me that the Palestinians have those same rights given their descent from indiginous peoples. It seems to me it is THEIR right to determine whether or not they are a people, not anyone elses.

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

First of all, religion is a valid marker of culture. Aside from that: language, laws, holidays, life celebrations, history, myths, stories, foods, names. Pretty much any criteria you want to throw at the problem, Jews have.

Now, what distinct culture is unique to Palestinians. Good luck with that.

Language is not unique to all Jews. Holidays and laws are religiously based. What foods - outside of sacred rites - do they have in common worldwide? What language? If religion is the primary marker than can we say that Christians are a culture, despite the huge differences outside of religion?

What is culture?

Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.

Language? They all speak different languages. Hebrew is a common language used only in religious rites. There is no common spoken language.

Cuisine? What common cuisine is there amongst the many different Jewish cultures?

Social habits?

Music and arts?

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.

You fail to see my point. One wonders if it is intentional. I will try again. Once upon a time there was a big piece of land called the Mandate for Palestine. In it lived two culturally distinct groups of people. (Not three -- two). One was culturally Jewish people (the indigenous ones who had experienced thousands of years of expulsion and invasion and genocide) and one was the culturally Arab Muslim people. Two distinct cultures, yes? The powers that decide such things, under all the legal instruments of the time, decided that each of these two distinct cultures should have their own sovereign nation. So they divided the land in four equal parts and gave three to the Arab Muslims and one to the Jewish people. (Perhaps, not so unfairly as would seem given the relative populations of both.) Thus came about the nations of Jordan and Israel.

No, I do not fail to see your point. I disagree with the value of the mandate, from over 100 years ago, in resolving today's conflict.

Suddenly! another people appeared. Seems there were not two populations of Arab Muslims -- but three. And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the other the "Palestinians" were born from the womb of Jordan. "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time. Why shouldn't we have our own country?" And so, in our fictitious little world, they too are given their own country.

Suddenly! another people appear. Seems that there were not two populations of Arab Muslims, or even three -- but four! And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the others the "Nazarethis" are born from the womb of Palestine. "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time. Why shouldn't we have our own country?"

Do you see my point now? The continuous invention of "new" cultures (cultures which are, in fact, indistinguishable from their parent cultures) serves the purpose (intentional, I believe) to continually chip away and reject the idea of the Jewish State.

No, they did not suddenly appear. They were always there. Israel just doesn't want them, but it wants the land (without the inhabitents) - to summarize. So what do you do with the people that had been living there but are of the wrong ethnic flavor? You do your best to delegitimize them and make them a non-people. Since I don't see any other groups clamoring for a state - I think that claim is bogus and a distraction.

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?

You misunderstand Boston, I think. The insistence that a people must have a culture to be indigenous is very strong. The insistence that a people are not a people or have no rights as a people, even without being indigenous is weaker, but not weak

I would challenge you to provide examples of indistinguishable cultures which no one questions so I can address them individually. I can't think of any off the top of my head except those in the ME area we are discussing.

I look at it from a very humanistic perspective when people have been occupying an area for generations - whether you consider them indiginous or "a people" is irrelevant. They have rights to that space. The Palestinians are unique (well, not totally - the Rohinga face the same issue) in that the conflict has rendered them a stateless people. It makes no difference whether they are a people or not (and the pro-Israeli camp is doing it's utmost to make them non-people) - they were inhabitants of the area. Now, as a result of various conflicts which they lost - there is a state that exerts a great deal of control over the regions they once occupied so the question is - what to do. People like Boston want to send them all to Jordan because "there is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians" (kind of like saying there is no difference between Americans and Canadians). Ultimately every "people" starts new at some point - or are, as some are fond of putting it - "invented". Does that make them any less a "people"? 200 some years ago, Americans were invented after all - a result of conflict.

As far as Palestinians having a unique culture - I hadn't looked at it. So I used my friend Google (he's a very handy guy ):

Culture and Customs of the Palestinians

They share traditional dress with other Arab cultures, but have their own unique decorations and and features which distinguish their clothing, headgear and veils from other Arab states. This has been preserved even in the diaspora.

They have their unique dialect: Palestinian Arabic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have their own folk songs: Palestine-Israel Journal: <b>Land, Heritage and Identity of the Palestinian People</b>

Stories, fables and legends, passed down through generations, are now playing a role in raising morale, expressing the harsh realities of the present, and maintaining hope by showing that justice will prevail. Popular songs and stories were passed down not only by the hakawati (popular story teller) but also by mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers. It is true that the land was occupied, but memories of the land are alive through stories told to children and grandchildren. These stories play the role of fairy tales, yet the situation is now concrete.
Folklore songs have been adapted to suit the new Palestinian situation. Some songs are based on poetry. These songs express feelings of sorrow, dignity, and hope for return to the land. They are sung by almost all the Palestinians in Palestine and the Diaspora, and are even popular in Arab countries. Palestinian poets, among them Mahmoud Darwish and Ahmad Dahbour, depend on popular culture as a source, and many of their poems have become songs of resistance:
​

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.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that ethnic cleansing removes indigenousness. And if you subscribe to the notion that one can "marry out" of a culture -- you have just defeated your own argument about the Palestinians.

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.

Because it does. It usurps it. It replaces it. It denies the origins of the stories. It erases us.

Aren't you erasing the Palestinians just as surely by denying they are a people?

I guess I don't see it as "destroying" a heritage" - to me, all religions are built on others and in fact, many modern "demons" were demotions of prior deities. I'm a firm believer in the commonality of many religions.

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.

The Canaanites are the cultural forefathers of the Jewish people. Not the Palestinians.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe they are...maybe they aren't

Your entire argument seems to boil down to the above statement​

OK Coyote, I reread the post in which you spell out why you believe the Arab Muslims who colonized Southern Syria’s provincial ( hows that for being neutral ;--) area are somehow a distinct people but really, its not making much sense. First the real question isn't if the palestinians are a distinct people, thats kinda a red herring, its if the people you are calling palestinians are any different than the people called Jordanians, less than 100' across a shallow river. And remember, the Jordanians already received 75% of the mandated area. Since its such a long post and relies on wiki so heavily lets just stick to the basics.

The premise of the entire post is that there is a distinct palestinian culture other than Judaic prior to the recreation of Israel. Which fails to address the issue of if there is any real difference between Jordanians and the people you refer to as palestinians. However Israel never existed prior to 1948 just like Jordan never existed, just like palestine never existed, ever, even today.

What there was were cultural groups, palestine doesn't appear anywhere in history, ever, as a culture, the term itself was a Roman insult, a joke designed to delegitimize the Judaic people, just as it is today. So for accuracy the only way to really identify these cultures up until the creation of the areas states is through some rather generalized terms. Judaic or Arab for instance. But its hard to argue that Israeli’s existed prior to 48 just like its hard to argue that Jordanians existed prior to 46. Whats even harder to argue is that there is any such people called palestinians when there has never been a palestine and when there is no discernible difference between them and the Jordanians.

Your next assertion is that Arab Muslim colonists were actually descendants from indigenous Judaic people. Who we know developed in this area from as far back as can be reasonably identified in the mid to early bronze age. However you provide no evidence to support this view.

Next we have a request to provide a list of unique foods, and language which make Judaic culture cohesive. Foods is easy, how about matza ball soup ;—) love that stuff, or baklava. Not my favorite. In terms of language thats also easy. Hebrew dates back to something like the 10th century BCE and developed in this exact area.

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwimqdior7vKAhVosoMKHWLdALIQFggcMAA&url=http://www.ethnologue.com/language/heb&usg=AFQjCNEja_Tcf1JXMv0Zm4ttqGfqEAgULA&sig2=g2GBDCFof8H5gamoZhF-Mw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

And while there are various dialects of Hebrew there are even more of English spoken within the US. So while you can say there are regional differences in any language you can’t say how long it takes to pick up the local accents/dialects. How long does it take to pick up a local accent ? Is a regional accent a defining characteristic of culture when regional accents exist within just about every culture ? When does an accent become a dialect, grammar ? My grammars sucks ;--) does that mean I am owed a country to be carved out of Meca ?

The fact is that Hebrew is a distinct langage and not just a dialect. Arabic is a distinct language and not just a dialect. The language argument actually works against you as language migration is easily traced. Hebrew originated in the exact area where Israel is now, Arabic originated on the Arabian peninsula and didn’t come into common usage in Judea until after the Arab conquest and colonization period of roughly the 9th century CE.

Your assertions from Wiki are weak at best. Wiki is a highly questionable source anyway but lets just take a look at a few of these claims.

Dialect, means nothing. People in Boston have an accent different than people in Rhode Island who have a different accent than people in Florida or Vermont. Regional accents and vernacular aren't dialects in which case having an accent doesn’t mean you also have a unique culture. The dialect argument simply doesn’t wash. Unless you can denote specific grammatical differences then your referring to an accent and not a dialect. Even then the distinction is weak as inner city kids in the US also tend to spell things wrong just as I do yet that doesn't mean there is a distinct culture.

Folks songs, again a very weak argument. Just because an artist plays a folk instrument and comes from a particular place that doesn’t mean there is suddenly a unique historical significance to a given piece of music. Again trying to build an argument based on where a given song is written is really weak.

You ask if we are erasing the palestinians by denying they are a people. Yes I suppose we are. The term palestinians was invented in about 1950 and it would appear by Arafat himself in an effort to destabilize Israel. The invention of a wronged ethnic group really was a stroke of genius, but its not fooling anyone who actually studies history. There was never a palestine ergo there was never a people called palestinians. Its an invention for political gain. These very same people were content to be Jordanians and before that, Southern Syrians. So whats the problem that they refuse to be Israeli’s ?

Your last assertion is that its not possible to prove a historical link to the original inhabitants. This is demonstrably false

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwifqMqitbvKAhWGmIMKHSm5D8MQFggrMAI&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Israel-Finkelstein/dp/B001VDSSCW&usg=AFQjCNEgA9xh4mqk7TpjLGiW8yBHTdiUGQ&sig2=YeCGvZOflW_hRzdPqZ4-RA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

In the end I don't see anything within your post that addresses the question of what makes the people you are referring to as palestinians any different from the the people known as the Jordanians who already recieved the lions share of the mandated area.

 

[aris2chat]

No worries, English is a difficult language.

The deal is you have yet to substantiate your claim that there is some difference between the Arab Mulsim colonists existing ( according to you ) within 100 feet or so of each other for all of known history, are somehow a distinctive cultural group deserving of some homeland, particularly carved out of Israel rather than Jordan.

My contention is there is absolutely not a shred of science to support your view.

The Arab Muslim colonists on the east bank of the Jordan in no way different from the Arab Muslim colonists on the west side ( about 100' away ).

Ergo the Arab Muslim colonists within the mandated area already have a state. A 75% stake actually within the mandated area, the Judaic peope, 25%. The two state solution

So how is a third or actually a fourth ( if you include Gaza ) state solution going to help ?

And why should any additional states be carved out of the 25% of the mandate awarded to Israel rather than the 75% awarded to the Arab Muslim colonists.

Unless & until Palestinian leadership accepts the fact that Israel is there to stay, threre will no peace & no reason for peace negotiations.

I agree. And I would add to that that unless the Israeli leadership accepts the Palestinians are there to stay, there will be no peace nor reason for negotiations. As Netanyahu said: no Palestinian state ever.

That is true. Both sides must accept the fact that both sides have people who are there to stay, barring some total genocide which cannot possibly happen as the people on both sides are too intermingled. As for your comment on Netanyahu, that was not his original position. It changed through necessity in that all previous attemps for peace offered by Israel have been thanked with jihads & intifadas killing Israeli's.

I disagree. Looking at his record in the "peace process" and the flaunting of any attempts to halt settlements - I think that statement reflected his REAL intent.

Do you think electing Hamas was a good move by the Palestinians to show their desire for peace?

It was not a popular election. Hamas won by default because so many fatah spit the vote. If it was a popular vote of the party, fatah won.
It was not a contest of hamas vs fatah, it was five fatah and one hamas running for the one seat. Thee were a few seat where hamas was running uncontested but as a party, hamas did not "win". Then they took Gaza by force and kicked out of kill fatah leaders.

No election since

 

[Coyote]

They aren't,

thats the whole point. Without there being one single shred of discernable differences there is no reason in the world the Arab Muslims on the west bank of the Jordan, less than 100' from the Arab Muslim colonists on the east, deserve their own state separate from the 75% of the mandated area they already received.

Even if the Arab Muslim colonists on the west bank of the Jordan less than 100' from those on the east bank. for some reason are deserving of their own nation, why should it be carved out of Israel instead of Jordan ?

Either way there really is no effective argument for slicing a fourth state out of the land intended for an national Jewish homeland

Actually, the most effective argument, and in my opinion the only argument - is that there is a substantial group of people who have lived on that land, since prior to the reinvention of Israel and who currently still live on that land. The land in question is contested. It doesn't matter in the least whether they are a unique people, or "different enough" (those damn goal posts) from those of neighboring - they have lived on that land for generations, centuries, millinia. If Israel doesn't want to incorporate them into Israel (a one state solution with Israel annexing WB and Gaza) then the only remaining "solutions" are some sort of 2-state (or 3-state) solution or a mass expulsion of more than 4 million men, women, and children from lands they have held in their families for generations.

Let's explore that.

The reality of the inhabitants in that region is they are a mix of ancient peoples, the residue of multiple conquests, and a mix of more recent immigrations from other Arab states and from Europe. I think that is historically and archaeologically well supported what ever "terminology" you choose to label it with.

In that region you have a what can only be called a humanitarian nightmare with no visible solution in sight. You have Arab states in varying degrees of stability with varying degrees of control over extremists and some who empower extremists. You have what currently look like two failing states: Libya and Iraq, and you have Syria - currently entering it's 6th year of civil war, and infested with ISIS. You have huge numbers of people in refugee camps, both Palestinians from an earlier conflict and refugees fleeing the wars in Syria and Iraq. I'm not sure what the total numbers are, but I read somewhere that currently there are more displaced people in the world than ever before and world resources are severely strained. That's the overall playing field.

Now, add into that the conflict between the Palestinians and Israeli's that has been going on for 50 years. Like I said before - there are no angels in the conflict. Both sides have acted in ways that perpetuate the conflict and prevent a peaceful resolution. That is my opinion and we clearly disagree on it.

Jordan absorbed a huge number of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel. Jordan currently has over 1 million refugees and assylum seekers from Syria and Iraq and has been one of the most generous countries in that regard both in the services and treatment provided and the numbers taken in despite a substantial strain on it's infrastructure. Jordan has also taken in 2 million Palestinian refugees, most of whom have been given full citizenship.

So...within this context, you propose to expel 4.4 million Palestinian men, women and children to add to the crisis simply so Israel can appropriate their land without the population. That is your "solution" for Israel.

What will you do if Jordan says no to your expulsion?

 

[Coyote]

i-n-d-i-g-e-n-o-u-s

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

Because when your culture is overtaken by an imported, colonial, invading culture and your culture is lost or forgotten -- you are no longer indigenous. When you adopt the culture of the imported, colonial, invaders there is no culture to preserve and keep intact. There is no meaning to being "indigenous" if all it means is those people who currently live there. Are all Americans "indigenous" to the US? Are they all the original inhabitants whose culture developed in that place? Of course not. They are products of a mixture of the original inhabitants and the imported, colonial, invading cultures. This does not confer indigenousness to them. If it did -- the prevailing, surviving culture of ANY place becomes the indigenous culture.

If you want to argue that being "indigenous" confers no special rights to self-determination or sovereignty -- go ahead. I'd even agree with you. I'd even be able to come up with some pretty solid and tight legal arguments to back it up. But the argument that Palestinians with an Arabic Muslim culture are indigenous strips all meaning from the word.

Actually - that's exactly what I feel. Whether or not they are "indiginous" doesn't necessarily line up with rights and self-determination. But I disagree on your final statement. The Palestinian culture prior to Israel's recreation, was arabicized - and that would have included Mizrahim Jews, as well as Christians. Outside of religion - how did their cultures differ from one another prior to outside immigration?

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.

A MIXED culture is not (necessarily) a problem. There is still evidence of the indigenous culture. A culture INDISTINGUISHABLE from the imported, invading, colonist culture is a problem.

Further, again, one of the RIGHTS of being indigenous is the RIGHT to self-identify. YOU don't get to decide who is Jewish enough and who is not. The Jewish people do.

It would seem to me that the Palestinians have those same rights given their descent from indiginous peoples. It seems to me it is THEIR right to determine whether or not they are a people, not anyone elses.

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

First of all, religion is a valid marker of culture. Aside from that: language, laws, holidays, life celebrations, history, myths, stories, foods, names. Pretty much any criteria you want to throw at the problem, Jews have.

Now, what distinct culture is unique to Palestinians. Good luck with that.

Language is not unique to all Jews. Holidays and laws are religiously based. What foods - outside of sacred rites - do they have in common worldwide? What language? If religion is the primary marker than can we say that Christians are a culture, despite the huge differences outside of religion?

What is culture?

Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.

Language? They all speak different languages. Hebrew is a common language used only in religious rites. There is no common spoken language.

Cuisine? What common cuisine is there amongst the many different Jewish cultures?

Social habits?

Music and arts?

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.

You fail to see my point. One wonders if it is intentional. I will try again. Once upon a time there was a big piece of land called the Mandate for Palestine. In it lived two culturally distinct groups of people. (Not three -- two). One was culturally Jewish people (the indigenous ones who had experienced thousands of years of expulsion and invasion and genocide) and one was the culturally Arab Muslim people. Two distinct cultures, yes? The powers that decide such things, under all the legal instruments of the time, decided that each of these two distinct cultures should have their own sovereign nation. So they divided the land in four equal parts and gave three to the Arab Muslims and one to the Jewish people. (Perhaps, not so unfairly as would seem given the relative populations of both.) Thus came about the nations of Jordan and Israel.

No, I do not fail to see your point. I disagree with the value of the mandate, from over 100 years ago, in resolving today's conflict.

Suddenly! another people appeared. Seems there were not two populations of Arab Muslims -- but three. And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the other the "Palestinians" were born from the womb of Jordan. "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time. Why shouldn't we have our own country?" And so, in our fictitious little world, they too are given their own country.

Suddenly! another people appear. Seems that there were not two populations of Arab Muslims, or even three -- but four! And even though there is nothing at all to culturally distinguish one from the others the "Nazarethis" are born from the womb of Palestine. "What?" they say, "we have been living here the whole time. Why shouldn't we have our own country?"

Do you see my point now? The continuous invention of "new" cultures (cultures which are, in fact, indistinguishable from their parent cultures) serves the purpose (intentional, I believe) to continually chip away and reject the idea of the Jewish State.

No, they did not suddenly appear. They were always there. Israel just doesn't want them, but it wants the land (without the inhabitents) - to summarize. So what do you do with the people that had been living there but are of the wrong ethnic flavor? You do your best to delegitimize them and make them a non-people. Since I don't see any other groups clamoring for a state - I think that claim is bogus and a distraction.

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?

You misunderstand Boston, I think. The insistence that a people must have a culture to be indigenous is very strong. The insistence that a people are not a people or have no rights as a people, even without being indigenous is weaker, but not weak

I would challenge you to provide examples of indistinguishable cultures which no one questions so I can address them individually. I can't think of any off the top of my head except those in the ME area we are discussing.

I look at it from a very humanistic perspective when people have been occupying an area for generations - whether you consider them indiginous or "a people" is irrelevant. They have rights to that space. The Palestinians are unique (well, not totally - the Rohinga face the same issue) in that the conflict has rendered them a stateless people. It makes no difference whether they are a people or not (and the pro-Israeli camp is doing it's utmost to make them non-people) - they were inhabitants of the area. Now, as a result of various conflicts which they lost - there is a state that exerts a great deal of control over the regions they once occupied so the question is - what to do. People like Boston want to send them all to Jordan because "there is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians" (kind of like saying there is no difference between Americans and Canadians). Ultimately every "people" starts new at some point - or are, as some are fond of putting it - "invented". Does that make them any less a "people"? 200 some years ago, Americans were invented after all - a result of conflict.

As far as Palestinians having a unique culture - I hadn't looked at it. So I used my friend Google (he's a very handy guy ):

Culture and Customs of the Palestinians

They share traditional dress with other Arab cultures, but have their own unique decorations and and features which distinguish their clothing, headgear and veils from other Arab states. This has been preserved even in the diaspora.

They have their unique dialect: Palestinian Arabic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have their own folk songs: Palestine-Israel Journal: <b>Land, Heritage and Identity of the Palestinian People</b>

Stories, fables and legends, passed down through generations, are now playing a role in raising morale, expressing the harsh realities of the present, and maintaining hope by showing that justice will prevail. Popular songs and stories were passed down not only by the hakawati (popular story teller) but also by mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers. It is true that the land was occupied, but memories of the land are alive through stories told to children and grandchildren. These stories play the role of fairy tales, yet the situation is now concrete.
Folklore songs have been adapted to suit the new Palestinian situation. Some songs are based on poetry. These songs express feelings of sorrow, dignity, and hope for return to the land. They are sung by almost all the Palestinians in Palestine and the Diaspora, and are even popular in Arab countries. Palestinian poets, among them Mahmoud Darwish and Ahmad Dahbour, depend on popular culture as a source, and many of their poems have become songs of resistance:
​

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.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that ethnic cleansing removes indigenousness. And if you subscribe to the notion that one can "marry out" of a culture -- you have just defeated your own argument about the Palestinians.

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.

Because it does. It usurps it. It replaces it. It denies the origins of the stories. It erases us.

Aren't you erasing the Palestinians just as surely by denying they are a people?

I guess I don't see it as "destroying" a heritage" - to me, all religions are built on others and in fact, many modern "demons" were demotions of prior deities. I'm a firm believer in the commonality of many religions.

The Canaanites are part of the Palistinian heritage.

The Canaanites are the cultural forefathers of the Jewish people. Not the Palestinians.

Maybe they are...maybe they aren't

Your entire argument seems to boil down to the above statement​

OK Coyote, I reread the post in which you spell out why you believe the Arab Muslims who colonized Southern Syria’s provincial ( hows that for being neutral ;--) area are somehow a distinct people but really, its not making much sense. First the real question isn't if the palestinians are a distinct people, thats kinda a red herring, its if the people you are calling palestinians are any different than the people called Jordanians, less than 100' across a shallow river. And remember, the Jordanians already received 75% of the mandated area. Since its such a long post and relies on wiki so heavily lets just stick to the basics.

The premise of the entire post is that there is a distinct palestinian culture other than Judaic prior to the recreation of Israel. Which fails to address the issue of if there is any real difference between Jordanians and the people you refer to as palestinians. However Israel never existed prior to 1948 just like Jordan never existed, just like palestine never existed, ever, even today.

What there was were cultural groups, palestine doesn't appear anywhere in history, ever, as a culture, the term itself was a Roman insult, a joke designed to delegitimize the Judaic people, just as it is today. So for accuracy the only way to really identify these cultures up until the creation of the areas states is through some rather generalized terms. Judaic or Arab for instance. But its hard to argue that Israeli’s existed prior to 48 just like its hard to argue that Jordanians existed prior to 46. Whats even harder to argue is that there is any such people called palestinians when there has never been a palestine and when there is no discernible difference between them and the Jordanians.

Your next assertion is that Arab Muslim colonists were actually descendants from indigenous Judaic people. Who we know developed in this area from as far back as can be reasonably identified in the mid to early bronze age. However you provide no evidence to support this view.

Next we have a request to provide a list of unique foods, and language which make Judaic culture cohesive. Foods is easy, how about matza ball soup ;—) love that stuff, or baklava. Not my favorite. In terms of language thats also easy. Hebrew dates back to something like the 10th century BCE and developed in this exact area.

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwimqdior7vKAhVosoMKHWLdALIQFggcMAA&url=http://www.ethnologue.com/language/heb&usg=AFQjCNEja_Tcf1JXMv0Zm4ttqGfqEAgULA&sig2=g2GBDCFof8H5gamoZhF-Mw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

And while there are various dialects of Hebrew there are even more of English spoken within the US. So while you can say there are regional differences in any language you can’t say how long it takes to pick up the local accents/dialects. How long does it take to pick up a local accent ? Is a regional accent a defining characteristic of culture when regional accents exist within just about every culture ? When does an accent become a dialect, grammar ? My grammars sucks ;--) does that mean I am owed a country to be carved out of Meca ?

The fact is that Hebrew is a distinct langage and not just a dialect. Arabic is a distinct language and not just a dialect. The language argument actually works against you as language migration is easily traced. Hebrew originated in the exact area where Israel is now, Arabic originated on the Arabian peninsula and didn’t come into common usage in Judea until after the Arab conquest and colonization period of roughly the 9th century CE.

Your assertions from Wiki are weak at best. Wiki is a highly questionable source anyway but lets just take a look at a few of these claims.

Dialect, means nothing. People in Boston have an accent different than people in Rhode Island who have a different accent than people in Florida or Vermont. Regional accents and vernacular aren't dialects in which case having an accent doesn’t mean you also have a unique culture. The dialect argument simply doesn’t wash. Unless you can denote specific grammatical differences then your referring to an accent and not a dialect. Even then the distinction is weak as inner city kids in the US also tend to spell things wrong just as I do yet that doesn't mean there is a distinct culture.

Folks songs, again a very weak argument. Just because an artist plays a folk instrument and comes from a particular place that doesn’t mean there is suddenly a unique historical significance to a given piece of music. Again trying to build an argument based on where a given song is written is really weak.

You ask if we are erasing the palestinians by denying they are a people. Yes I suppose we are. The term palestinians was invented in about 1950 and it would appear by Arafat himself in an effort to destabilize Israel. The invention of a wronged ethnic group really was a stroke of genius, but its not fooling anyone who actually studies history. There was never a palestine ergo there was never a people called palestinians. Its an invention for political gain. These very same people were content to be Jordanians and before that, Southern Syrians. So whats the problem that they refuse to be Israeli’s ?

Your last assertion is that its not possible to prove a historical link to the original inhabitants. This is demonstrably false

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwifqMqitbvKAhWGmIMKHSm5D8MQFggrMAI&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Israel-Finkelstein/dp/B001VDSSCW&usg=AFQjCNEgA9xh4mqk7TpjLGiW8yBHTdiUGQ&sig2=YeCGvZOflW_hRzdPqZ4-RA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

In the end I don't see anything within your post that addresses the question of what makes the people you are referring to as palestinians any different from the the people known as the Jordanians who already recieved the lions share of the mandated area.[/QUOTE]

Just addressing one point at the moment - in terms of a common language, Hebrew is not spoken by all Jews. It was reinvented as a spoken language when Israel became a state. Saying it is part of the culture is like saying Latin is because it's the church language of Christians even though it's not a spoken language and many don't even know it beyond a few memorized phrases.