The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Shusha]

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

I did not.

Of course you did. You are fragmenting them by making a distinction between the "natives" and the "foreigners".

 

[Shusha]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

But you are erasing the fact that there are TWO distinct peoples and trying to make them into one common entity. That is the fallacy. There was not one cohesive group of people "Palestinians" with common goals for self-determination. There was no "Palestinian" in the sense that there was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural collective which saw themselves as the same under the umbrella of "Palestinian". There were TWO distinct groups of "Palestinian" competing for self-determination from limited resources.

 

[rylah]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy with the distinctive features whereby the Arab Palestinian whining is a tool on the manipulation in the projection of cries that invoke emotions in order to win an argument. The purpose of action (used for the last half-century) is the application of "pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies). In fact, one can hardly draw a name to any "successful" action by the Arab Palestinians that did not use this strategy. This application ["pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies)] is so successful that it has been effective in legitimizing the hijacking of aircraft, the Olympic Massacre, the suicide bombing, the machinegunning of innocent, unarmed men, women and children, the use of indiscriminate fire of rocket and mortars on to civilian targets, the intentional Location of launch sites from Densely Populated Areas, the intentional failure from removing civilians the Vicinity of legitimate military targets, and utilizing the presence of a civilian to provoke confrontation render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli counter-fire.

THIS territorial argument uses this very same strategy, augmented by misinformation, to achieve similar results.

(CORRECTING THE ALLEGATION)

✪ "Palestine" was NOT defined or named for the "existing people" (the indigenous people); but rather to identify the Civil Administration under which the Mandate would be executed.

✪ "Palestine" was not created by post-war treaties.

✪ "Palestine" (The Administration of Palestine) enacted a nationality law; wherein the "habitual residence" and the Jews (residents and immigrants) acquired citizenship. Everyone on an equal footing. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples; the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" would not be spelled-out until 2007 (nearly a century later).

✪ On the argument that "that creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it." This is what is called the frozen "Snapshot in Time." Common Sense tells us that attitudes change over time.

(COMMENT)

It goes without saying that the Jewish did not have a hive mentality at the turn of the Twentieth Century, at the time of the Mandate termination, at the turn of the 21st Century and even today. Whether or not Jewish Statehood was a foreign concept or not, it happened.

For the development of civilization, all progressive and successful cultures look forward in time; and not to the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy

What did I say that was incorrect?

In the part where You say that Palestinian Jews opposed the reconstitution of Israel, where in fact they were those who called for their liberation in the first place. The plight of Jews in Syria-Palestine was the cause that created the first Zionist political organized tools.

Palestinian Jews were giving whole plots of land to the Zionist organization for free, just at the sound of Israel revival, and wrote songs of redemption when they saw the 2000 years old promise of Israel in-gathering in front of their eyes.

This is Your weak spot - because without this apparent bold lie, Your racist argument holds no water.

Link to the local Jews supporting a Jewish state?

I've already presented this when You claimed that the declaration of independence was signed by immigrants.

In the 70 years of modern Israel, there were more Palestinian Jews in the Israeli govt, than Indians in the US govt for all of its' 500 years of history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Rabbi Uziel for example, he was the 1st Rishon LeZion of Israel, a native Jerusalemite Jew who was more Zionist than Ben Gurion himself.

During the War of Independence in 1948, a number of yeshiva
students came to Rabbi Uziel to obtain exemptions from military service.
He rejected their requests and said that if he were not already an
old man himself, he would be holding a gun and hand grenade, fighting
to defend the Old City of Jerusalem where he was born and raised.
This was a battle of life and death for the people of Israel. How could
anyone want to be exempted from fighting this great battle? On the
contrary, each person should rise to the occasion and give strength to
his fellow soldiers. He told the yeshiva students that it was a mitsvah for
them to join in the defense of their people, to risk their lives alongside
their brothers, to defend the Jewish people and the Jewish land. [11]

The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel | jewishideas.org

OK, that's one.

The only ones who opposed the creation of Israel were a small sect who immigrated from Europe, but even this small sect later divided, with the majority taking a role in the new forming govt.

Your argument holds no water, because it was the plight of the native Jews that initiated the creation of first international Zionist organizations. It were specifically the native Jews who coordinated the efforts on the ground.

Rabbi Uziel was the leader of the native Jewish community.
This elderly man, a sage of his generation, who was chosen unanimously to lead the Jewish community, picked up a shovel and dug barricades on Shabat to help defend Israel.

How much more proof does one need?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

I did not.

Of course you did. You are fragmenting them by making a distinction between the "natives" and the "foreigners".

OK, but I didn't say all that other stuff.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

But you are erasing the fact that there are TWO distinct peoples and trying to make them into one common entity. That is the fallacy. There was not one cohesive group of people "Palestinians" with common goals for self-determination. There was no "Palestinian" in the sense that there was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural collective which saw themselves as the same under the umbrella of "Palestinian". There were TWO distinct groups of "Palestinian" competing for self-determination from limited resources.

You keep saying that foreign colonial settlers are natives even though there is no evidence that any of them have ancestors from there.

 

[rylah]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

But you are erasing the fact that there are TWO distinct peoples and trying to make them into one common entity. That is the fallacy. There was not one cohesive group of people "Palestinians" with common goals for self-determination. There was no "Palestinian" in the sense that there was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural collective which saw themselves as the same under the umbrella of "Palestinian". There were TWO distinct groups of "Palestinian" competing for self-determination from limited resources.

You keep saying that foreign colonial settlers are natives even though there is no evidence that any of them have ancestors from there.

They weren't viewed so by the indigenous people of the land, they were viewed as blood brothers and liberators from the Arab yoke. That's all the proof one needs.

There's a difference between ancestry and nativity, of which You understand neither.

 

[rylah]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

But you are erasing the fact that there are TWO distinct peoples and trying to make them into one common entity. That is the fallacy. There was not one cohesive group of people "Palestinians" with common goals for self-determination. There was no "Palestinian" in the sense that there was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural collective which saw themselves as the same under the umbrella of "Palestinian". There were TWO distinct groups of "Palestinian" competing for self-determination from limited resources.

You keep saying that foreign colonial settlers are natives even though there is no evidence that any of them have ancestors from there.

Here's another thing: if people who've moved in just yesterday know more about the land, it's names, its' nature and seasons, its' language and indigenous culture...while You don't even know what's the meaning of the name You call the country - then You're the poster boy of a foreign invader with no much claims beyond simply occupying the place by force.

Just ask an average US citizen what does 'Milwaukee' mean, then ask an Arab what does 'Palestine' mean, You'll get the same results - neither have a clue, neither are indigenous.

 

[Shusha]

You keep saying that foreign colonial settlers are natives even though there is no evidence that any of them have ancestors from there.

You keep missing the point that peoples are a collective and membership in that collective is measured by self-identification and group acceptance and not subject to individual, externally adjudicated ancestry tests. The connection is one of being culturally part of the collective. All Jewish people who are part of that collective, due to the evidence of their belonging to the cultural collective, are "natives".

Seriously, how ELSE are you going to measure it? If someone says they are "Palestinian", for example and therefore part of the collective of "Palestine" -- how are you going to measure that? Go ahead. Give it your best shot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You keep saying that foreign colonial settlers are natives even though there is no evidence that any of them have ancestors from there.

You keep missing the point that peoples are a collective and membership in that collective is measured by self-identification and group acceptance and not subject to individual, externally adjudicated ancestry tests. The connection is one of being culturally part of the collective. All Jewish people who are part of that collective, due to the evidence of their belonging to the cultural collective, are "natives".

Seriously, how ELSE are you going to measure it? If someone says they are "Palestinian", for example and therefore part of the collective of "Palestine" -- how are you going to measure that? Go ahead. Give it your best shot.

That is an easy one. All of the people who were Turkish citizens who normally lived in the territory that became Palestine became Palestinian citizens. They were the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

 

[Shusha]

That is an easy one. All of the people who were Turkish citizens who normally lived in the territory that became Palestine became Palestinian citizens. They were the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

Sure. So you base rights to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity on residency within a territory at a specific point in time when a legal document is created. Not the first time you have said this.

But there are a number of problems with this.

1. Residency can be changed (both forcibly and voluntarily).
2. People can possess or grow a desire for self-determination WITHIN a place of residency.
3. Other legal documents can come into force.
4. Migration, into and out of a territory happens.
5. Political boundaries and sovereigns can change.

I don't so much have a problem with your premise that all formerly Ottoman citizens became citizens of "Palestine". What I dispute is your assumption that this is a fixed and immutable reality which can not be abrogated or changed through mutual agreement. And that it is the only fixed and immutable reality and that all others, either before or after, have no weight and must not be considered. Its a serious flaw in your game.

And it puts a serious dent in your desire to see Palestinians as a collective. See, there are Palestinians who are no longer Palestinians, because they are Israeli. And there are Palestinians who are no longer Palestinians because they are foreigners (no longer residents). And there are Palestinians who are no longer part of Palestine.

And, you are going to want to argue that Palestinians and ALL their descendants will always and forever be immutably Palestinian and their rights can never be removed from them. And THAT is where you ultimately lose the game -- because IF THAT IS TRUE then the same applies to the Jewish people. It doesn't matter where they are resident -- if they are descendants of those people then they are of those people.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Q: In the opening decades of the 20th Century, did your distinction make a real difference?

... [T]he following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens: →

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

A: No, → not at all. The citizenship laws and procedures in 1922 were not substantially changed by any subsequent law until 1948. During the effective period of the Mandate, the law facilitated the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who toke up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Remembering that: "PALESTINE" was to be defined as the territory to which the Order in Council applied; subject to the British Civil Administration. It was an "entity" and not a self-governing institution.​

That is an easy one. All of the people who were Turkish citizens who normally lived in the territory that became Palestine became Palestinian citizens. They were the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

(COMMENT)

The "b" type citizens included "the people from someplace else;" and granted the same rights and benefits as the "a" type citizens.

Even when it came to the 21st Century A/RES/61/295 (2007) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (nearly a century later), it was made clear that the indigenous population and the non-indigenous population are treated the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[watchingfromafar]

it was made clear that the indigenous population and the non-indigenous population are treated the same.

Thank you "R" for posting this

 

[rylah]

During the liberation of Jerusalem, Rabbi Goren ran unarmed with a Torah scroll in front of the soldiers...

(Western Wall, Jerusalem)

(Naamush, Syrian heights)

(Rabbi Goren waving the flag of Israel at the Cave of Patriarchs, Hebron)

 

[Sixties Fan]

Sheikh gets schooled by a Jew on Arabic TV in ARABIC!

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Peel Commission Report

He uses the quite lengthy Peel Commission report of 1937 to support some of his ideas.This gave me the impetus I had not yet had to actually examine the document. It is a fascinating read. It begins with giving a brief but comprehensive history of Jews and Arabs then residing in the area entrusted to Britain in the form of the British Mandate of Palestine.

Let us look at what Hammond pulls out of this report. Here is one example from page 16 of Exposing A Zionist Hoax:

The truth is that, naturally, during the Mandate period, when the British controlled the formerly Ottoman territory of Palestine, both Arab and Jewish inhabitants were called “Palestinians”.

His footnote shows this is supported by the Peel Commission Report. The real truth is that, in the entire document neither Arabs nor Jews are called “Palestinians”. There is not even one instance in which the term “Palestinian” appears in the text. Jews and Arabs are simply referred to as Jews or Arabs living in Palestine. What do you conclude when someone prefaces a statement with ”the truth is” and then writes something that anyone who wants to make the effort to check up on it can see it is not true at all?

Interestingly, on page 7 of the same Peel Commission report, while describing the history of the Arabs in the region, they refer to “Arab Spain” when talking about, of all things, the flourishing of Jewish culture under the Muslim occupation of Spain.

When Arab Spain led the world, they [the Jews] were leaders in Arab Spain — secretaries or viziers of the Caliph, diplomatists, financiers, scientists, physicians, scholars.

Funny . . . nobody refers to this to suggest that Spain is actually an Arab country that the indigenous Spaniards stole from the invading Muslims. (And to which the invading Muslims are now requesting the right to return just as invading Arabs now calling themselves Palestinians are requesting the right to return to the land they colonized.)

(full article online)

Exposing A Zionist Hoax: Exposing an Anti-Zionist Hoax | Israel Diaries

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When is Turkey returning Constantinople to the Christians? Islam is a religion started by a warlord.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When is Turkey returning Constantinople to the Christians? Islam is a religion started by a warlord.

And Christianity is a religion that turned people into warlords. Different methods, same outcome. Only Islam got the sand.

 

[Sixties Fan]

When is Turkey returning Constantinople to the Christians? Islam is a religion started by a warlord.

Thank you for your participation in the thread, but you are off topic and I am asking you to not simply attack Islam on every thread.
There are set up threads for exactly that, possibly under another community.

Thank you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When is Turkey returning Constantinople to the Christians? Islam is a religion started by a warlord.

And Christianity is a religion that turned people into warlords. Different methods, same outcome. Only Islam got the sand.

Expansionists for sure, not necessarily warlords. My point is in war the victors write history. I believe because Israel won the wars of 1948 and 1967 they get to do so.

 

[Hossfly]

When is Turkey returning Constantinople to the Christians? Islam is a religion started by a warlord.

And Christianity is a religion that turned people into warlords. Different methods, same outcome. Only Islam got the sand.

Expansionists for sure, not necessarily warlords. My point is in war the victors write history. I believe because Israel won the wars of 1948 and 1967 they get to do so.

From what I've read and from what's taking place currently, Israel is due to get all their land back in the near future. Them bleeping Magogs better be steppin' lightly.