Palestine Today

[Hollie]

 

[Hollie]

Making the world safe from Islamic terrorists.

 

[José]

Originally posted by ForeverYoung436
Btw, what do you think of Ahed's blonde hair? She doesn't look like a Semite now, does she? And she's not the only one. I've see others like her.

My answer has not changed since the last time you asked me a few weeks/months ago : )

Racial traits are an infallible way to distinguish natives from settlers in many ethnocratic conflicts around the world such as the ones that ocurred in the Americas, from Canada to Argentina and Chile, in Australia, South Africa, India, New Zealand etc, etc...

In Palestine, racial characteristics are not a foolproof way to distinguish between both groups due to the fact that you have a considerable overlap between the settler population, ie, eastern europeans of jewish faith and the native population, the arabs (including the pre-zionist jewish population).

Anyone who say race is an infallible way to separate settlers from natives in Palestine is out of his/her mind.

But guess what...

You don't need any racial differences between settlers and natives to have a racial/ethnic dictatorship like the israeli state.

Let's take, for example, the case of your ancestral homeland.... not your mythological homeland... your REAL homeland... Poland, eastern Europe in general...

Hitler's original plans was to expell the entire jewish population to Madagascar and impose a german ethnocratic state on the rest of the slavic population.

You'd have a few thousand germans lording over Poland as a social, economic elite, as a master race, as they say...

They'd be the owners of Poland's farms, industries, banks and the polish people would provide the workforce.

Even though the racial differences between Germans and Poles are almost nonexistent (if they exist at all), Germany would have created and imposed an ethnocratic, apartheid state on the polish people.

The differences between the exploited native polish population, inhabiting Poland for thousands of years, and the settler german population who arrived in Poland only after Hitler's victory would have continued to exist indefinitely, for centuries to come.

Translating the analogy to Palestine:

There are no racial differences between Ahed Tamimi and the grandson of a jewish settler from Poland who arrived in Palestine in, let's say, 1928.

But just like the german vs. poles scenario, there is a world of historical difference between them.

Even though they are racially indistinguishable, Ahed is part of the native population that inhabited Palestine for thousand of years while the jewish young man is the grandson of polish settlers who arrived in 28.

To make a long story short:

In Poland or in Palestine, you don't need any racial differences between natives and settlers to have a settler society and, later, a supremacist state.

If Hitler could have created a german ethnocracy in Poland where there wouldn't be any racial differences between settlers and natives, europeans of jewish faith could create a jewish ethnocracy in Palestine as well... where there are considerable more racial differences between natives and settlers (and they did).

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
The native people DO live in Haifa, Askhelon and Jaffa. The native people live all over the territory. (The only people RESTRICTED from being present in parts of the territory are the Jewish people.)

The conflict is not about where people live.

This is a mockery of the word native.

The moment you accept europeans of jewish faith as natives of Palestine the word native loses any meaning.

From that moment on, you might just as well include Mao Tse Tung, Sitting Bull and Idi Amin as natives of Palestine.

 

[fanger]

uploaded by IsraeliPM ?
He will be in jail soon

 

[Hollie]

uploaded by IsraeliPM ?
He will be in jail soon

Is that what your Mullah told you or did you steal that Juan Cole?

 

[fanger]

uploaded by IsraeliPM ?
He will be in jail soon

Is that what your Mullah told you or did you steal that Juan Cole?

I dont have a mullah, i just clicked on your link and pointed out who had uploaded the video IsraeliPM a Mr Netanyahu, and left a link to a site showing that the same Mr netanyahu may be facing jail time for corruption

 

[P F Tinmore]

5th Year Running: Al-Shabaka Ranks High Amongst 2017’s Best Think Tank Networks

Al-Shabaka ranks among the world’s best think tank networks for the fifth consecutive year, according to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index report.\

Placing 36th out of 85 think tanks in the “Best Think Tank Network” category, Al-Shabaka surpasses such reputable institutions as the International Relations and Security Network (ISN) (Switzerland), CIDOB, Barcelona (Spain), and Transparency International (TI) (Germany).

This year’s placement is particularly notable as nearly 1,000 new think tanks were included in the Global Think Tank Database in 2017.

5th Year Running: Al-Shabaka Ranks High Amongst 2017’s Best Think Tank Networks - Al-Shabaka

 

[Hollie]

I don’t know, I guess Islamics just enjoy getting a beat-down.

 

[Shusha]

This is a mockery of the word native.

The moment you accept europeans of jewish faith as natives of Palestine the word native loses any meaning.

From that moment on, you might just as well include Mao Tse Tung, Sitting Bull and Idi Amin as natives of Palestine.

I disagree with your definition of "native". You seem to imply that those living on the territory are "native" by the fact of their residence. I disagree. In the Americas, for example, those residing on the territory are not natives, but colonists, immigrants and descendants of colonists and immigrants.

Clearly immigrants and descendants of immigrants are not (and should not be) prohibited from investing in their new territory. But the question then becomes when, exactly, these new immigrants or their descendants become "natives". Immediately? After a certain passage of time? In the next generation? After two generations? Ten? What is the criteria, in your opinion?

Just as clearly, natives invaded, conquered and forcibly removed from their territory are not (and should not be) prohibited from considering themselves "native" to their territory of origin. But the question becomes when, exactly, these removed people cease to be natives. Immediately? After a certain passage of time? In the next generation? After two generations? Ten? What is the criteria, in your opinion?

And then we get to the litmus test. By what criteria are a peoples with a home of native origin considered to no longer exist and therefore without claim to a territory of origin? Immediately? After a certain passage of time? In the next generation? After two generations? Ten? By what criteria do a new peoples arise with a home of native origin?

The bottom line is this: If a peoples exist and are clearly, without question, native to a specific territory, by what criteria can they be denied their collective rights to self-determination on that territory? Spell it out for me. Give me rules. Make sure they apply universally. What is the objective criteria?

Here's my answer: If a peoples exist and they clearly are native to a specific territory (originated there), their collective rights can never be abrogated. Colonists and immigrants, over time, gain rights by long residence on a territory. Both peoples must be considered.

So. That leaves us with a fundamental, fair, easily understood avenue to solving conflicts of territory between competing peoples. It is, in fact, the solution applied almost universally in the past 100 years. The territory in question is partitioned. Both (all) peoples receive some portion of land where they may exercise their own self-determination.

So why can't we apply this to "Palestine"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

 

[fanger]

I don’t know, I guess Islamics just enjoy getting a beat-down.

What, you mean like the Juden enjoyed their beat down in WW2

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

I watched Ahed Tamimi grow up and I know why she defended her home

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Innocent" Israeli civilian.