Decolonization

[P F Tinmore]

It is all about a change in policy not a change in population.

Please elaborate.

Israel has been a settler colonial project from the beginning and it continues to today. The only just solution is to unwind its policies and decolonize.

 

[Shusha]

It is all about a change in policy not a change in population.

Please elaborate.

Israel has been a settler colonial project from the beginning and it continues to today. The only just solution is to unwind its policies and decolonize.

But you keep skipping out on what that means. Be specific.

 

[Hollie]

It is all about a change in policy not a change in population.

Please elaborate.

Israel has been a settler colonial project from the beginning and it continues to today. The only just solution is to unwind its policies and decolonize.

Actually, you and others are just incensed that Islamist colonization of the Middle East and the purging of competing religions has been met by a much stronger, more determined society that is determined to fulfill the goals of the Mandate.

 

[Phoenall]

It is all about a change in policy not a change in population.

Please elaborate.

Israel has been a settler colonial project from the beginning and it continues to today. The only just solution is to unwind its policies and decolonize.

How do you decolonise your own country ?

 

[teddyearp]

So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

Darn you for responding to this Teddy I was just going to delete it rather than get into a "discussion" with Mr. Foulmouth.

The current inhabitants of the region are a mix of indiginous peoples who converted to other religions over millenia and other people's who migrated. In much the same way - Jews, who immigrated from Europe represent a mixture of Middle Eastern Jewish populations and the different European populations they settled amongst.

To insist that one (or the other) is an "invader" who should be "sent back" to their "countries of origins" is problematic isn't it? Where do you send a Palestinian Muslim family who's people have lived in the WB for hundreds of years?

Your second paragraph is incorrect as there have been Jews living in the region for near three thousand years. Not all of them actually converted. And it also seems to lean heavily on this "European invasion" theory that Tinmore and Monti claims encompasses all the Jews living in Israel today. Which brings me to your third paragraph.

Where do you send a Jewish family who's people have been living in Israel, Samaria, and/or Judea for THOUSANDS of years? Remember, Abraham is buried in Hebron.

 

[montelatici]

There were not thousands of Jews living in the area for three thousand years. Jews were not even permitted to reside in Palestine from 300 AD (when Christianity became the state religion of Rome) to 638 AD. There were only a handful of Jews in all of Palestine before the Zionist invasion. And they were also from outside of Palestine, from Spain and arrived after 1492.


"AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF

PALESTINE,

during the period
1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 192


"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. "

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/349B02280A930813052565E90048ED1C

 

[teddyearp]

So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

The Arabian Muslims conquered Christian Palestine in 638 AD, not Israel. The people of Roman Palaestina (and its capital Aelia Capitolina) had been required to convert to Christianity over 300 years earlier when Christianity became the Roman religion. Your lack of Historical knowledge, possibly exacerbated by your Zionist conditoning, makes you look quite the fool when youmake assertions way out of context.

You have to remember that Palestine had been conquered and briefly occupied by the Persians and Jewish forces from Arabia in 614 AD. The Persians and Jews massacred many of the Christian inhabitants. For a few years the Jewish military forces, under Persian authority, ruled Palestine, but a Christian revolt and general mayhem resulted in the Persians returning Palestine to Christian rule, under their authority and the Jewish forces were evicted.

The Romans, under Heraclius reconquered Palaestina in 628 AD and evicted or killed the Persians.

The Arabian forces, whose forces were made up of mostly Christian converts to Islam and Jews (who had been recently evicted from Palestine), conquered Palestine in 638 AD.

Israel did not exist in 638 AD, thus was not invaded by Muslims. In fact, only Palestine existed and was invaded by Muslims and Jews in 638 AD at the expense of the native people who had converted to Christianity centuries prior.

I did say 700 c.e. or so. but since I did not state the exact date, you take off again on your character assassination as usual. And sure, even though it may not have been called Israel at the time, there is no doubt that there was an actual independent country called Israel previously at one time and again now. There has NEVER been an independent country called Palestine!

So since I just asked the question in a shortcut type of way that any can understand, your anti Israel conditioning forces you to impugn my post with trivial details.

And just for the record, there have been Jews living in Israel for three thousand years. Not all left. Not all actually converted.

alestine never lost all of her Jews. Throughout every period of history there had been some Jews in Palestine. <snip> The scholarly Jewish communities in Galilee continued with varying fortunes under Byzantine rule and dominant Christian influence

Link: 638-1918 - Palestine under the Caliphs

 

[teddyearp]

There were not thousands of Jews living in the area for three thousand years.<snip>

Did I say thousands of Jews? Keep twisting your fucking pretzel.

 

[montelatici]

So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

The Arabian Muslims conquered Christian Palestine in 638 AD, not Israel. The people of Roman Palaestina (and its capital Aelia Capitolina) had been required to convert to Christianity over 300 years earlier when Christianity became the Roman religion. Your lack of Historical knowledge, possibly exacerbated by your Zionist conditoning, makes you look quite the fool when youmake assertions way out of context.

You have to remember that Palestine had been conquered and briefly occupied by the Persians and Jewish forces from Arabia in 614 AD. The Persians and Jews massacred many of the Christian inhabitants. For a few years the Jewish military forces, under Persian authority, ruled Palestine, but a Christian revolt and general mayhem resulted in the Persians returning Palestine to Christian rule, under their authority and the Jewish forces were evicted.

The Romans, under Heraclius reconquered Palaestina in 628 AD and evicted or killed the Persians.

The Arabian forces, whose forces were made up of mostly Christian converts to Islam and Jews (who had been recently evicted from Palestine), conquered Palestine in 638 AD.

Israel did not exist in 638 AD, thus was not invaded by Muslims. In fact, only Palestine existed and was invaded by Muslims and Jews in 638 AD at the expense of the native people who had converted to Christianity centuries prior.

I did say 700 c.e. or so. but since I did not state the exact date, you take off again on your character assassination as usual. And sure, even though it may not have been called Israel at the time, there is no doubt that there was an actual independent country called Israel previously at one time and again now. There has NEVER been an independent country called Palestine!

So since I just asked the question in a shortcut type of way that any can understand, your anti Israel conditioning forces you to impugn my post with trivial details.

And just for the record, there have been Jews living in Israel for three thousand years. Not all left. Not all actually converted.

alestine never lost all of her Jews. Throughout every period of history there had been some Jews in Palestine. <snip> The scholarly Jewish communities in Galilee continued with varying fortunes under Byzantine rule and dominant Christian influence

Link: 638-1918 - Palestine under the Caliphs

Quotes from propaganda sites are not going to change historical fact.

" In the seventh century, as Jerusalem came into Muslim hands, the ban on Jewish residence was lifted. After approximately 500 years of being Judenrein, Jerusalem again included a Jewish community. Jews long banned from living in Jerusalem by Christian rulers, were permitted to return, live, and worship in the city of Solomon and David.(4)"

http://www1.american.edu/TED/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm

 

[montelatici]

There were not thousands of Jews living in the area for three thousand years.<snip>

Did I say thousands of Jews? Keep twisting your fucking pretzel.

You are correct, you did not say thousands of Jews. Sorry about my error.

 

[Coyote]

So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

Darn you for responding to this Teddy I was just going to delete it rather than get into a "discussion" with Mr. Foulmouth.

The current inhabitants of the region are a mix of indiginous peoples who converted to other religions over millenia and other people's who migrated. In much the same way - Jews, who immigrated from Europe represent a mixture of Middle Eastern Jewish populations and the different European populations they settled amongst.

To insist that one (or the other) is an "invader" who should be "sent back" to their "countries of origins" is problematic isn't it? Where do you send a Palestinian Muslim family who's people have lived in the WB for hundreds of years?

Your second paragraph is incorrect as there have been Jews living in the region for near three thousand years. Not all of them actually converted. And it also seems to lean heavily on this "European invasion" theory that Tinmore and Monti claims encompasses all the Jews living in Israel today. Which brings me to your third paragraph.

Where do you send a Jewish family who's people have been living in Israel, Samaria, and/or Judea for THOUSANDS of years? Remember, Abraham is buried in Hebron.

What specifically is incorrect?

There have been Jews and non-Jews living in that area for thousands of years.

I never claimed "all of them" converted - but, reading what I wrote I can see why it reads like that - what I meant was "The current inhabitants of the region are a mix of indiginous peoples who include Jews and those who converted to other religions over millenia and other people's who migrated." I've consistently maintained that Jews have always had a presence there.

Where do you send a Jewish family who's people have been living in Israel, Samaria, and/or Judea for THOUSANDS of years? It's the same problem isn't it? Or how about the Jewish or Palestinian family who's lived there for 30 years? It doesn't make any difference - it's their home and those who advocate forced population transfers of any kind are rephrensible.



I have never subscribed to ANY "invasion" theories - either European or Arab. It seems that you are the one who is claiming that non-Jews (Arab Muslims) invaded the region...a "strange TRUTH".

 

[Shusha]

" In the seventh century, as Jerusalem came into Muslim hands, the ban on Jewish residence was lifted. After approximately 500 years of being Judenrein, Jerusalem again included a Jewish community. Jews long banned from living in Jerusalem by Christian rulers, were permitted to return, live, and worship in the city of Solomon and David.(4)"

Now hold on a minute! You are saying this like it is a good thing. That Muslims were heroes for permitting the Jewish people to return, live and worship in the city of Solomon and David. Its almost like you are admitting that there is a connection between the Jewish people and the city of Solomon and David, and, one would be forced to assume, to all of the ancient homeland of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

But according to your arguments, time and time again -- the Jewish people should not have been permitted to return. They were no longer natives of the land. They didn't belong there. They were foreign invaders, colonists, conquerers with no rights to live there. You even said they should be removed from the territory (ethnically cleansed).

So which is it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

" In the seventh century, as Jerusalem came into Muslim hands, the ban on Jewish residence was lifted. After approximately 500 years of being Judenrein, Jerusalem again included a Jewish community. Jews long banned from living in Jerusalem by Christian rulers, were permitted to return, live, and worship in the city of Solomon and David.(4)"

Now hold on a minute! You are saying this like it is a good thing. That Muslims were heroes for permitting the Jewish people to return, live and worship in the city of Solomon and David. Its almost like you are admitting that there is a connection between the Jewish people and the city of Solomon and David, and, one would be forced to assume, to all of the ancient homeland of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

But according to your arguments, time and time again -- the Jewish people should not have been permitted to return. They were no longer natives of the land. They didn't belong there. They were foreign invaders, colonists, conquerers with no rights to live there. You even said they should be removed from the territory (ethnically cleansed).

So which is it?

You always miss the point. If some Jews moved to Palestine and took up residence, I don't think anybody would have raised any eyebrows. But that is far from what really happened.

 

[montelatici]

" In the seventh century, as Jerusalem came into Muslim hands, the ban on Jewish residence was lifted. After approximately 500 years of being Judenrein, Jerusalem again included a Jewish community. Jews long banned from living in Jerusalem by Christian rulers, were permitted to return, live, and worship in the city of Solomon and David.(4)"

Now hold on a minute! You are saying this like it is a good thing. That Muslims were heroes for permitting the Jewish people to return, live and worship in the city of Solomon and David. Its almost like you are admitting that there is a connection between the Jewish people and the city of Solomon and David, and, one would be forced to assume, to all of the ancient homeland of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

But according to your arguments, time and time again -- the Jewish people should not have been permitted to return. They were no longer natives of the land. They didn't belong there. They were foreign invaders, colonists, conquerers with no rights to live there. You even said they should be removed from the territory (ethnically cleansed).

So which is it?

I didn't say it was a good thing that the Muslims conquered Jerusalem. I just presented the facts. The Jews formed part of the Muslim forces that defeated the Romans and the native people (then Christians for more than 3 centuries) fell under Muslim rule.

 

[theliq]

So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

Obviously Teddy,you have never educated yourself on the Canaanite,Moabites etc., who were the original peoples of Palestine/Holy Land.....Shame on you for your slant eyed view of Factual History.....Your trip to Israel (although wonderfully prosed by you)..did not teach you,the reality of the Real History of this Land...steve

 

[theliq]

On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

Absolutely agree, get the arab muslims to go back to the countries of origin: egypt, syria and jordan, destroy and liquidate hamas completely, destroy and liquidate the diseased regime of iran, and peace is an attainable goal.

It sounds like you are saying that only Jews occupied that area and all the Arab muslims are invaders. What a strange belief.

You cant convert your race, so if you are an arab you do not come from palestine. A distinctive difference in DNA structure, ethnicity and culture.

And most Jewish DNA in Israel would show there is little Semitic Blood in the Synthetic(converts only) in Israel.....but Plenty of Semitic Palestinians because that is who they are.....Pheo it would be very interesting to do a DNA of all Jews and Palestinians,you would find the Jews would fail on the Semitic Test.because like you the majority now are all SYNTHETICS. in this area...steve,moreover STOP calling yourselves Semitic and Weeping ANTI-SEMITISM because you are not thus

 

[theliq]

On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

I don't know about that FY436, BUT we do need to Decolonize the Occupied Palestinian Territories..........steven

I don't know about that FY436,BUT we do need to Decolonize the Occupied Palestinian Territories....steven

To remove all the illegal arab muslim immigrants. Then we can de-colonise Australia of all the dregs of English society

So you know nothing about Australia then,surprise,surprise.

 

[teddyearp]

http://www1.american.edu/TED/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm

So since your link comes from a university, that insures that it is not also a piece of propaganda? You a funny guy. But that's what we like about you here, always good for a few laughs.

Regardless, both of our links provide very similar information.

 

[Shusha]

You always miss the point. If some Jews moved to Palestine and took up residence, I don't think anybody would have raised any eyebrows. But that is far from what really happened.

Right back at you. You always miss my point. Which is: it actually won't kill or even hurt Muslims to live next to Jews. And its okay for Jews to have self-determination too.

 

[José]

Let's threaten to reduce drastically teddy's daily food intake to no more than:

8 pizzas

12 hamburgers

and

16 hot dogs

a day.

I guarantee the guy will abandon the zionist ideology in a New York millisecond.