"The stronger more modernized society pushing out the older, outdated society has been the way of Man since time began. Those that we call Native Americans pushed others off the land who were there before them. The Mound People/Anansazi/Karankawa/Coahuiltican all were displced by the relatively modern Native American."
Indeed.. it seems that those with the upper hand ALWAYs discover words like social darwinism and manifest destiny to validate their conquistadors.. Im not so sure id be willing to swallow that same logic when defending Americas right to be here just like we dont use the same reason to justify muslim domination of the land Israel was created with even though relevant validation seems to be that the jews were kicked off of the land thousands of years ago... Would not the same rules apply to Atzlan then? Are we willing to give up our Southwest? Would WE react violently to an invasion that usurped our SW states? I would argue that, indeed, yes we would with as much rabid fervor as we find in Palestine. Do you remember the movie Red Dawn? A movie that, I think, symbolizes where we were at in the 80s in regards to our then immediate threat.. I would arguethat we would fight just as dirty, vilently, etc if WE were playing that role just as we see the same pattern in each case where social darwinism seems to be at work. I would never rationalize Atzlan or a russian commie nebraska much like we see natives and pals refusing to rationalize too.
Do me a favor. I'm not 20 anymore. If you could differentiate between my post and yours with color, bold or something, it'd help.
I'm not much of a proponent of manifest destiny nor Social Darwinism. I do however accept both as real. I don't subscribe to giving anything back to anybody.
I have no problem with a people fighting to hold on to what they perceive to be theirs, and I would do the same as either Native Americans or Pali Arabs with one exeption ... I would not wage war against noncombatants. If they get killed as collateral damage that's one thing. Waging war against them with no strategic or tactical goal other than to murder as man as possible is beneath contempt.
Palestine was partitioned as a result of Transjordan being on the wrong side of a war. That isn't the same as giving Israel the land because they had some historical right to it. To the victors goes the spoils. Taking countries and giving them back to its inhabitants is uniquely post WWII, and uniquely Anglo-European.
However, offering a shithole on the Red Sea has to have some appeal, so the salesmen sold it as "historical homeland."
The fact is, while everyone was feeling sorry for the Jews, no one wanted them in their country. The jews are where they are as much for antisemitic handwashing as anything perceived as deserved.
"My ancestors would not have come here from Scotland had they not been pushed off their land, nor would their ancestors have left what is currently Norway, Sweden had they not been pushed for one reason or another."
....and did the Scotts fight back even if they were, ultimatly, removed from their land? same stuff, different day. Would a Scottish defender willing to slaughter an English town be any less than a pal willing to do the same to the same percieved threat? Native American?
It is historical fact that they would. And we call such actions "barbaric" nowadays.
"True Palestinians have not existed for centuries, and they were Southern Mediterranean, not Arabs. They disappeared long ago. Those now calling themselves Palestinians are Transjordan Arabs or descendent thereof. Transjordan, as part of the Ottoman Empire ended up on the wrong side of WWI."
labels and rational excuses aside... were there muslims on that land who have been robbed of, WHAT THEY PERCIEVE OF, their land in order to create israel?
There were some nomadic Arabs occupying a land that mostly was used as a means to get from one place to another, who lost theri right to self-determination under the right of conquest rules that applied during that day.
Are We as Americans unable to REALLY claim our land because we were not actually the original tennants but rather mostly europeans? of course not.
"The Balfour Agreement ceded land to Israel from what was then a British mandate, even though it was not acted upon until after WWII. Basically, the European nations figured out a way to make a home for the Jews FAR away from Europe so they wouldn't have the problem to deal with, never envisioning an ever-shrinking world."
Oh I agree... We still pay the price for their short sightedness.. However, isnt the Balfour Agreement to the Pals what the Louisianna Purchase was to Natives living in the mid west? Why would muslims living on the land or natives in Missouri give weight to documents created for, and benefitting, Europeans? Would you give a damn about the validity of a Russian Treaty that sold Florida to China?
I am not arguing that Native Americans were dealt out of their own land without so much as being asked. Eurpoean custom at the time was anything not European and white was a lesser form of life and consultation/negotiation not required. Byt today's standards, they were wrong. By the standards fo their day, they were not.
"I don't see anyone attempting to commit genocide; which, in and of itself is a misnomer since, as stated before, current Palestinians are Arabs, and "Palestinian" is not a race."
I see that as aplitting hairs, Gunny.. They are still humans and qualify for as much consideration despite rationalized labels. The FACT remains that they have been marginalized since the creation of Israel by the west. I can't think of a single group of marginalize people, common race or not, that reacts pleasently to being swept under the rug in favour or some other group of people. Again, I am not proud of the trail of tears.... and would rather brainstorm and apply the golden rule on this side of the same type of travesty in Israel. Sure.. we CAN just gather em all up and put em in camps and gas em and solve the violence against israel.... This would fall inline with the premise of social darwinism AND mimick our own solution to OUR natives.. I guess I'd rather risk being labeled an antisemite than shrug my shoulders and not give a damn about considering the perspective of the pals and natives...
They are humans. I never said otherwise. A place was made for them as far back as the Balfour Agreement. They have screwed themselves from 1949 to date for refusing to accept what they have for want of what they do not.
I will also point out that while you may see it as splitting hairs," nomadic Transjordan arabs means that anywhere in what was once Transjordan -- Jordan, Israel, Palestine & Lebanon -- is home except Israel. But a strange phenomenon occured when Transjordan was partitioned -- it seems an overwhelming majority of them lived only where Israel now exists.
"In fact, the opposite is true since it is the stated goal of several Arab states and/or their terrorist organization surrogates to wipe Israel from the Earth."
Did the Natives not desire the very same thing about encroaching white men expanding into their territory? EVEN during the initial colonialization of the 13 states?
What Native Americans wanted way-back-when, and what Pali Arabs want now is irrelevant to the point. The point is, you stated words to the effect that genocide is being practiced against the Pali Arabs when it is not, and in fact the opposite is true. Pali Arabs are waging a genocidal war against Israel.
So if "practicing genocide" is an accusation of condemnation, you have misplaced the accusation.
"Israel had all the cards. They didn't have to give the Pali's squat. They did anyway."
Those with bigger guns rarely HAVE to give anyone anything.. is that the standard by which we want to live? Do we have the stomach to consider the same applied to us with the same amount of casual acceptance? Again, Ill ask why a Pal or a native would give a damn about paperwork from Europe since, Im betting, you wouldnt at all validate Russia selling Florida to China...
Again, I don't see the relevance to your question and my statement. The same rule of he who has the bigger gun/sword/army applies today as it did since the beginning of time for Man. We just try to hide it behind a veneer of so-called civilized behavior.
"IMO this is BS fabricated and sold by those who make money off of fomenting hatred and war, and otherwise wouldn't have a job, or would have to get a real one."
Withg all due respect I assure you that I do not recieve money from anyone to consider the human element involved and am gainfully employed. I believe that there are relevant patterns that emmerge from similar situation whether we want to acknowledge such or not when it chaffes our team jersey.
Hell, ultimatly, id love to brainstorm a viable solution rather than point fingers anyway... Unfortunatly, it seems that it is easier to call someone an anti semite and ignore rooted opinions of those cast off as mere Enemies or Injuns than search for an amicable solution... After all, yes cultures evolve.. which is why I am confident that there are alternatives to the Trail of Tears strategy that seems to be at play today. pals are not inherently demonic just because they fight for what they see as their land as hrd as we would our own. It's all about a change of motivation... Hell, I read a story yesterday about a protest in pakistan to voice against sharia law.. Motivation, sir. Positive reinforcement works better than punishment all day long.
. I still love ya, sorry im so dissmissive right now, im just tired, forgive me ?
and sometimes, I am a bit reactionary, and lazy 
of the idea, you posed earlier, Thank you for the nice compliments, you are one of the true gentlemen and great thinkers on here, which is why you're one of my best friends on here 
You should count your blessings.
this is better than Laurel and Hardy.
