Consider The Facts

[Shusha]

.

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.

Of course, the fact that it could be resurrected as a spoken language demonstrates that it was not lost, but maintained through thousands of years. Many of the First Nations languages here in Canada are also being resurrected and learned by younger generations. Its altogether a wonderful thing to preserve a culture. That none of the youngest generations of First Nations peoples could speak the language in no way means it is not part of the culture.

Oh and the resurrection of the spoken language of Hebrew was begun some time before Israel became a state.

 

[Boston1]

Actually I'd agree with you on this one

Quote

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.

End Quote

So lets not get our nickers in a twist ;--) LOL ( sense of humor required ) The way I see it is both sides have been at war and war's ugly. We haven't really dug into war crimes yet but that ones a mess of bias and over emotional diatribe that I do my best to avoid. So I just stick to history.

There's no doubt the middle east is a disaster of waring factions and there is no doubt that Jordan is actually doing better than most. So no I'd rather not add to the chances of it breaking down into armed revolt like most of the rest.

The issue is if Israel should award the people you call palestinians with something like 35% of the country and allow an obviously hostile force to have autonomous rule with no restrictions on arms or military activity. Pure suicide for Israel is what we are really talking about. If you want to try and stabilize the middle east, dropping a bunch of fanatical muslims into the middle of Israel isn't the way to go about it.

IMHO Jordan should be responsible for accepting any Arab who refused to live peacefully within Israel. The area was divided into two countries, one Arab and the other Judaic. Even if you don't want to recognize the distinctions between the two peoples.

If Jordan wants to offer 35% of its land area to the palestinians thats their business but I don't see why Israel is responsible for freeing what amounts to prisoners of war to continue the war unfettered.

The thing to remember is that the restrictions, the walls, the embargo has been very effective in slowing down the violence. Without them it would be pure chaos.

Its also important to remember the timeline of events. Israel had permission to set up its national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan. Israel did, the Arab League declared war and its been a war ever since.

IMHO the Arab league should be required to take back its armed forces as well as their descendants. How they divide them up is their business but no matter how you slice it the real argument ( although it is entertaining ) isn't about ethnicity its about combatants.

Something tells me we would have another interesting conversation about that subject and I did start a thread concerning the issue that unfortunately has received little attention. IMHO because its kinda no brainer and it really throws a wrench into the whole argument.

see
The Geneva convention vs palestinian refugee status.


But yeah, the heritage argument is entertaining but the deciding factor within the law is combatant status. Israel is in no way required to maintain a hostile combatant force within a refugee population and has every right to expel them regardless of who has agreed to accept them.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwigr43A1bvKAhWpkoMKHWM4BcEQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/375?OpenDocument&usg=AFQjCNGCBLSgqHU-pHGiDVqv1RF2szB_9w&sig2=D-UxQAdpKwTcflnjv1CfSw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

 

[MJB12741]

Actually I'd agree with you on this one

Quote

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.

End Quote

So lets not get our nickers in a twist ;--) LOL ( sense of humor required ) The way I see it is both sides have been at war and war's ugly. We haven't really dug into war crimes yet but that ones a mess of bias and over emotional diatribe that I do my best to avoid. So I just stick to history.

There's no doubt the middle east is a disaster of waring factions and there is no doubt that Jordan is actually doing better than most. So no I'd rather not add to the chances of it breaking down into armed revolt like most of the rest.

The issue is if Israel should award the people you call palestinians with something like 35% of the country and allow an obviously hostile force to have autonomous rule with no restrictions on arms or military activity. Pure suicide for Israel is what we are really talking about. If you want to try and stabilize the middle east, dropping a bunch of fanatical muslims into the middle of Israel isn't the way to go about it.

IMHO Jordan should be responsible for accepting any Arab who refused to live peacefully within Israel. The area was divided into two countries, one Arab and the other Judaic. Even if you don't want to recognize the distinctions between the two peoples.

If Jordan wants to offer 35% of its land area to the palestinians thats their business but I don't see why Israel is responsible for freeing what amounts to prisoners of war to continue the war unfettered.

The thing to remember is that the restrictions, the walls, the embargo has been very effective in slowing down the violence. Without them it would be pure chaos.

Its also important to remember the timeline of events. Israel had permission to set up its national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan. Israel did, the Arab League declared war and its been a war ever since.

IMHO the Arab league should be required to take back its armed forces as well as their descendants. How they divide them up is their business but no matter how you slice it the real argument ( although it is entertaining ) isn't about ethnicity its about combatants.

Something tells me we would have another interesting conversation about that subject and I did start a thread concerning the issue that unfortunately has received little attention. IMHO because its kinda no brainer and it really throws a wrench into the whole argument.

see
The Geneva convention vs palestinian refugee status.


But yeah, the heritage argument is entertaining but the deciding factor within the law is combatant status. Israel is in no way required to maintain a hostile combatant force within a refugee population and has every right to expel them regardless of who has agreed to accept them.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwigr43A1bvKAhWpkoMKHWM4BcEQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/375?OpenDocument&usg=AFQjCNGCBLSgqHU-pHGiDVqv1RF2szB_9w&sig2=D-UxQAdpKwTcflnjv1CfSw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

Talk about no mention of war crimes, Netanyahu should be tried & convicted for war crimes againast his own Israeli citizens. Want peace? Israel needs a leader who know the Palestinians well like king Hussein did. LET THERE BE PEACE LAREADY!

 

[Boston1]

The war crimes issue is just petty bickering, I'l never engage that conversation as its just a shit fight.

The facts are pretty basic.

Ethnicity is an interesting topic but really isn't the main issue.

What is preventing peace is the UN support of combatants within the refugee population. That and deporting the combatants.

Minus the violently inclined I don't see to many obstructions to the peace process other than the Israeli's helping the pals to set up an actually functional government. So far the pals government has been mostly terrorist figure heads who in the end are legitimate targets.

 

[Coyote]

The war crimes issue is just petty bickering, I'l never engage that conversation as its just a shit fight.

The facts are pretty basic.

Ethnicity is an interesting topic but really isn't the main issue.

What is preventing peace is the UN support of combatants within the refugee population. That and deporting the combatants.

Minus the violently inclined I don't see to many obstructions to the peace process other than the Israeli's helping the pals to set up an actually functional government. So far the pals government has been mostly terrorist figure heads who in the end are legitimate targets.

I don't think Abbas is...but "peace" is a hard sell to his people with Netanyahu's actions and policies. Hamas is another matter.

 

[Boston1]

The only relevance Hamas has is that its the terrorist arm of the refugee population. The PA is basically a puppet regime with zero authority over the Arab Muslim colonists. But a great source of welfare dollars.

The facts are that the only road to peace lays in removing the intransigent and negotiating with whoever's left.

The fact is that until and unless the UNWRA is removed from influence within this sphere of the world there will be no peace. The Arab block controls the UN and virtually 100% of UNWRA employees are Arab Muslim colonists. Its an endless source of welfare dollars and terrorist infrastructure construction materials.

The UNWRA lends aid to combatants. Shelter, medical treatment, education, construction supplies, food and essentials. AND ARMS. This internationally funded incitement must end BEFORE a rational solution can be found. The UN should be expelled and tried as an illegal combatant from the middle east conflict.

The Israeli's are not the only people to gain a foothold in the mandated area. 75+% of the land area was awarded to the Arab Muslims. And today hostile Arab Muslim forces presently OCCUPY areas intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland well beyond the Jordan river boundary.

Why should Israel be expected to give up roughly 35% of its land area and the Jordanians 0% in this false narrative of a wronged indigenous people ?

Wouldn't the reasonable compromise be that we determine just how much more land the Arab Muslim colonists will demand before they are willing to allow Israel to live and let live ? And then divide it equitably 25/75 between Israel and Jordan ? Minus of course any areas critical to the future safety and wellbeing of Israel ;--)

 

[MJB12741]

The war crimes issue is just petty bickering, I'l never engage that conversation as its just a shit fight.

The facts are pretty basic.

Ethnicity is an interesting topic but really isn't the main issue.

What is preventing peace is the UN support of combatants within the refugee population. That and deporting the combatants.

Minus the violently inclined I don't see to many obstructions to the peace process other than the Israeli's helping the pals to set up an actually functional government. So far the pals government has been mostly terrorist figure heads who in the end are legitimate targets.

I don't think Abbas is...but "peace" is a hard sell to his people with Netanyahu's actions and policies. Hamas is another matter.

I agree that peace is hard to sell with Netanyahu's actions & policies. Peace offeringgs, a security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into violence. Want peace? Israel must learn from Jordan how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians.

 

[MJB12741]

Another fact to consider is that every time the Palestinians kill one or more Israeli's, Israel will retalitate. How many more dead Palestinians will it take to save the rest of the Palestinians?

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

The Truth about the Palestinian People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just as you do by refusing to recognise that the original palestinians were the Jews as neither the Christians or muslims had yet been invented. So you are no better than those you accuse of disenfranchising the new arrivals when you disenfranchise those who can show a 4,500 year occupancy of Palestine unbroken till the present day.

What rights do they have under international law, and when did this rights come into force as team Palestine is known to use international laws retrospectively when the evidence starts stacking up against them

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then they cant be arab muslims can they, so they cant claim Palestine as an arab state. See how easy it is to destroy every claim you make using your own words. If they are arabs then they are invaders and immigrants and have no claims to the land. If they are not arabs then they have no claim to the land as they gave up their birthright when they converted to islam.

How about a link that shows the Jews spoke Arabic when arab's as we know them were not around until the 7C. Before this time they were city states each with its own language, and Aramaic as the language of commerce. ( spoken by the Jews who where the merchants of the time )

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

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

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

How far back to you go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

End Quote

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

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

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

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

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

The Palestinians are an international fraud foisted on the world by the arab muslims from the dregs of arab society. They are invaders and colonists as proven by the many accounts over the years, and when invited to colonise by the Ottomans they refused as the work was too hard for them to stomach.


Now how about proof of these fantasy claims of yours from a reliable and trustworthy source that European Jews are the process of religious conversions, marriages outside of Judaism and the diaspora ?

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

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

How far back to you go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

End Quote

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

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

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

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

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

The Palestinians are an international fraud foisted on the world by the arab muslims from the dregs of arab society. They are invaders and colonists as proven by the many accounts over the years, and when invited to colonise by the Ottomans they refused as the work was too hard for them to stomach.


Now how about proof of these fantasy claims of yours from a reliable and trustworthy source that European Jews are the process of religious conversions, marriages outside of Judaism and the diaspora ?

I posted it in another thread but I'll see if I can find it.

Just from a view point of population viability - there is no way they could have survived as a people without that - they would be the most inbred people on earth.

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then they cant be arab muslims can they, so they cant claim Palestine as an arab state. See how easy it is to destroy every claim you make using your own words. If they are arabs then they are invaders and immigrants and have no claims to the land. If they are not arabs then they have no claim to the land as they gave up their birthright when they converted to islam.

How about a link that shows the Jews spoke Arabic when arab's as we know them were not around until the 7C. Before this time they were city states each with its own language, and Aramaic as the language of commerce. ( spoken by the Jews who where the merchants of the time )

I don't think you are "destroying" anything nor do you seem to make a lot of sense.

Arab was broadly used to describe anyone in the Middle East, whether truly Arab or not. You are also confusing historic time spans. I'm talking about a period after the arabization of Palestine (which should have been clear if you read my post). You're jumping to pre-Muslim Palestine and demanding a link for a claim I did not make. Can you get any nuttier Phoenall?

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just as you do by refusing to recognise that the original palestinians were the Jews as neither the Christians or muslims had yet been invented. So you are no better than those you accuse of disenfranchising the new arrivals when you disenfranchise those who can show a 4,500 year occupancy of Palestine unbroken till the present day.

The "original" Palestinians were Greeks when you come right down to it. Who exactly am I "disenfranchising"? I'm not the one calling folks "colonists" or "squatters" or demanding mass expulsions. Try to keep your facts striaight.

 

[Boston1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just as you do by refusing to recognise that the original palestinians were the Jews as neither the Christians or muslims had yet been invented. So you are no better than those you accuse of disenfranchising the new arrivals when you disenfranchise those who can show a 4,500 year occupancy of Palestine unbroken till the present day.

The "original" Palestinians were Greeks when you come right down to it. Who exactly am I "disenfranchising"? I'm not the one calling folks "colonists" or "squatters" or demanding mass expulsions. Try to keep your facts striaight.

Actually the original palestinians would appear to be Jordanian as palestinians as a people only appear from about the 1960s and on with Arafats creation of the PLO.

While the name might have gained in usage between the late zionist period to today its progressively more rare as one goes back into history. Eventually only appearing on a few documents and coins in about the 1st century CE

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Cgd0s6ZAqH5F5QlxD8ueZw&bvm=bv.112454388,d.amc

The first inhabitants of the Canaan area would appear to be the Hyksos or proto judaic people dating back to the stone age.

 

[MJB12741]

Getting back to consider the facts, both Israeli's & Palestinians now reside on the same disputed land at the same time with an ongoing conflict. So how do they put it to an end & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY?

 

[Boston1]

The facts are that the Judaic people are the native inhabitants and that the Arab Muslims invaded the area, killing and slaughtering the indigenous people with each new colonial wave.

What remains of the Arab Muslim colonists is not the indigenous people. Thats simply a fact.

Another fact is that the remaining Arab Muslim colonists are so extremely racist and bigoted they must be held off are gunpoint lest they stab pregnant woman and kill innocent civilians.

Another fact is that the UNWRA is not a neutral organization lending aid to refugees. Its staffed virtually entirely by Arab Muslims who often enough are also members of the various terrorist organizations of the Muslim Arab colonists.

Its also a fact that the Geneva conventions fully support Israel's right to forcibly remove hostile combatants from its area of influence.

We can review facts all day but in the end the only fact that really matters is that the Arab Muslims colonists aren't interested in peace.

There's already one Arab Muslim country taking up 80% of the mandated area. There's another ( Gaza ) that is more interested in acting as a fire base against Israel than establishing itself as a state and now our Arab Muslim terrorist sympathizers are stumping for a third Arab Muslim state.

The fact I'd be damn curious to hear is how many Arab Muslim states within the area intended for a national Jewish homeland are required before the racists and bigots among them will be satisfied ?

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

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

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

How far back to you go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

End Quote

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

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

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

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

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

The Palestinians are an international fraud foisted on the world by the arab muslims from the dregs of arab society. They are invaders and colonists as proven by the many accounts over the years, and when invited to colonise by the Ottomans they refused as the work was too hard for them to stomach.


Now how about proof of these fantasy claims of yours from a reliable and trustworthy source that European Jews are the process of religious conversions, marriages outside of Judaism and the diaspora ?

I posted it in another thread but I'll see if I can find it.

Just from a view point of population viability - there is no way they could have survived as a people without that - they would be the most inbred people on earth.

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News

And try reading the study further where it says that these are just the views of the authors and have no actual basis in reality. It also stated that the lineage was traceable back to just 4 women who gave birth to the Jewish nation of today.

The title of the link alone shows that it is pure conjecture when it states "probably converted to Judaism"

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then they cant be arab muslims can they, so they cant claim Palestine as an arab state. See how easy it is to destroy every claim you make using your own words. If they are arabs then they are invaders and immigrants and have no claims to the land. If they are not arabs then they have no claim to the land as they gave up their birthright when they converted to islam.

How about a link that shows the Jews spoke Arabic when arab's as we know them were not around until the 7C. Before this time they were city states each with its own language, and Aramaic as the language of commerce. ( spoken by the Jews who where the merchants of the time )

I don't think you are "destroying" anything nor do you seem to make a lot of sense.

Arab was broadly used to describe anyone in the Middle East, whether truly Arab or not. You are also confusing historic time spans. I'm talking about a period after the arabization of Palestine (which should have been clear if you read my post). You're jumping to pre-Muslim Palestine and demanding a link for a claim I did not make. Can you get any nuttier Phoenall?

When was this fantasy extant then as I have never seen any mention of all those in the M.E. being called arab.

The Jews spoke Hebrew and Aramaic even after the arabs invaded Jerusalem, and still spoke Hebrew and Aramaic 22 years later when they were themselves invaded and kicked out. There was no universal arab language until much later, and Arabic of the 7C is vastly different to the Arabic of today. In fact it is as close as latin is to Arabic

 

[Boston1]

It becomes blurry in about the mid to late bronze age but archeology has a lot to offer and two of the world foremost authorities on middle east archeology ( Silberman and Finklestein ) have confirmed that the Hyksos did develop into the proto Judaic tribes in the Canaan valley area

Quote

As to a Hyksos "conquest", some archaeologists depict the Hyksos as "northern hordes ... sweeping through Palestine and Egypt in swift chariots". Yet, others refer to a "creeping conquest", that is, a gradual infiltration of migrating nomadic or semi-nomadic people, who either slowly took over control of the country piecemeal, or, by a swift coup d’etat, put themselves at the head of the existing government. Archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes states:
It is no longer thought that the Hyksos rulers ... represent the invasion of a conquering horde of Asiatics ... they were wandering groups of Semites who had long come to Egypt for trade and other peaceful purposes.[13]
It is generally thought that the Hyksos were probably Semites who came from the Levant. Kamose's explicit statement about the Asiatic origins of Apophis is the strongest evidence for a Canaanite background for the majority of the Hyksos. However, other interpretations are possible.

End Quote