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

[montelatici]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?

Where have I attacked Israel's legitimacy? I've always stated I support it's right to exist as a state. What I don't support is it's "right" to claim the entire Palestine as it's own. My "championing" of the rights of the Palestinians is limited to their right to a state so I'm not clear on what you mean by "championing the agenda of the Arabs"? I'm firm supporter of a two state solution (maybe three, if Gaza can't be connected).

This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

I couldn't agree more. The indiginous argument is serves only one purpose and that is for one side or the other to disenfranchise the rights of the other or to derail threads (the main reason for the creation of this thread). That also I have said multiple times. I've also said, multiple times, that the indiginous people's consist of a variety of religious and ethnic groups who have roots there for centuries if not millenia.

One person's propaganda can be another person's realpolitic - it's in the eye of the beholder.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

And how many pro-Israeli's here are willing to ever criticize Israel?

You have indulged in at least three fallacies right here.

First of all, the "they do it too" argument is no excuse for your own. I have no problem criticizing the attitudes of the minority of the Jewish population as represented by the militant Settlers. I have yet to see you criticize the great majority of this new people called Palestinian for their incredible degree of ethnic hatred. Even when they vote into power those committed to genocide, you find ways to make excuses or else side-step the issue. At no point have I seen you criticize anything about the truly awful belief systems the large majority of Palestinians hold.

The second fallacy lies in your "eye of the beholder" comment, which represents such an extreme moral relativism as to be nihilistic. You might as well offer that putrid "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" nonsense so common to those who promote the same agenda as you.

The third error lies in your statement about Israel wanting it all. As you can see so clearly from the map I provided and which Abu Afak keeps mentioning is that they DON'T have it all. They have just a tiny piece. Perhaps this is more a matter of dishonesty on your part than fallacious reasoning, but keeping it real would go a long way towards making your positions more credible.

In any case, should you desire to raise the level of your discourse, here is a little run down on some logical fallacies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learning some of these might help you avoid the "well, they do it too" sorts of excuses as well as various others.

1. It is understandable to any neutral observer, that people that have undergone oppression, ethnic cleansing, periodic massacres and 24/7 discrimination would have a deep hate for the oppressor. Israelis, on the other hand, oppress as well as hate the Christians and Muslims they have under their control. Israel are also constantly calling for the genocide and/or ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews. Government ministers like Naftali Bennet casually state that it is no big deal killing Arabs: "(I)personally killed "lots of Arabs" and "there is no problem in that"".
'I've Killed lots of Arabs' says Israeli Minister Bennett as Washington Peace Talks Begin

or the Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked with the Gaza children being "little snakes" and her call for genocide as reported in even U.S. newspapers

2. Terrorist or Freedom Fighter is based on one's point of view.

a. The Contras were labelled murderous terrorists by the Europeans (and most of the world) while the U.S. armed them and labelled them Freedom Fighters.

b. The Muhajedin in Afghanistan, that burned Russian built girls schools to the ground with the students in them (and committed many other atrocities) were labelled Freedom Fighters by the U.S. when they were fighting the Russians. Their children, re-named Taliban, became terrorists overnight when they didn't follow the U.S. line.

c. Until 2008, the ANC and Nelson Mandela, Freedom Fighters to part of the world were labelled terrorists by the U.S. and the UK.

d. Israel which hopes to change the Palestinian's support for Hamas in Gaza through brutal bombings and the massacre of thousands, mostly women and children, is considered an ally by the U.S. and "defending itself". While terrorizing a population to achieve a political objective is the most common definition of terrorism.

3. Your map is a made up piece of Zionist propaganda, garbage, that has no basis in historical fact or reality. It is one of the Playbook tactics that Zionists know is bullshit, but is used to muddy the waters. Trans-Jordan was never part of Palestine as a territory. Before falling to the British it was a province of the Arab Kingdom of Syria and was never intended for any other people but the indigenous Bedouins to be ruled by a Hashemite (Bedouin) ruler. A leader Britain had promised to reward for his family's help against the Turks.

 

[Coyote]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?

Where have I attacked Israel's legitimacy? I've always stated I support it's right to exist as a state. What I don't support is it's "right" to claim the entire Palestine as it's own. My "championing" of the rights of the Palestinians is limited to their right to a state so I'm not clear on what you mean by "championing the agenda of the Arabs"? I'm firm supporter of a two state solution (maybe three, if Gaza can't be connected).

This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

I couldn't agree more. The indiginous argument is serves only one purpose and that is for one side or the other to disenfranchise the rights of the other or to derail threads (the main reason for the creation of this thread). That also I have said multiple times. I've also said, multiple times, that the indiginous people's consist of a variety of religious and ethnic groups who have roots there for centuries if not millenia.

One person's propaganda can be another person's realpolitic - it's in the eye of the beholder.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

And how many pro-Israeli's here are willing to ever criticize Israel?

You have indulged in at least three fallacies right here.

I am familiar with logical fallacies and their use and abuse.

First of all, the "they do it too" argument is no excuse for your own. I have no problem criticizing the attitudes of the minority of the Jewish population as represented by the militant Settlers. I have yet to see you criticize the great majority of this new people called Palestinian for their incredible degree of ethnic hatred. Even when they vote into power those committed to genocide, you find ways to make excuses or else side-step the issue. At no point have I seen you criticize anything about the truly awful belief systems the large majority of Palestinians hold.

I have yet to see you even once - criticize anything Israel has done. A brief search of your posts and "militant" or "settlers" produces only this post. I have on multiple occassions criticized Palestinian attacks on civilians. If you wish, I'll provide links.

Something about glass houses, stones and a smoke screen of "fallacies" to obscure that comes to mind. If you're demanding it of others, I suggest you get your own house in order first.

The second fallacy lies in your "eye of the beholder" comment, which represents such an extreme moral relativism as to be nihilistic. You might as well offer that putrid "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" nonsense so common to those who promote the same agenda as you.

What is considered propaganda is most certainly "in the eyes of the beholder" and that is not a logical fallacy. As a matter of fact - what specific fallacy are you identifying here?

Propoganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

What is considered "biased" and "misleading" depends on the listener. I think that should at least be obvious to you when reading posts here.

The third error lies in your statement about Israel wanting it all. As you can see so clearly from the map I provided and which Abu Afak keeps mentioning is that they DON'T have it all. They have just a tiny piece. Perhaps this is more a matter of dishonesty on your part than fallacious reasoning, but keeping it real would go a long way towards making your positions more credible.

There is a difference between "wanting it all" and "having it all" - you do realize that don't you? There are plenty Israeli's who believe God intended all of Palestine to be theirs.

In any case, should you desire to raise the level of your discourse, here is a little run down on some logical fallacies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learning some of these might help you avoid the "well, they do it too" sorts of excuses as well as various others.

I suggest you review them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?

Where have I attacked Israel's legitimacy? I've always stated I support it's right to exist as a state. What I don't support is it's "right" to claim the entire Palestine as it's own. My "championing" of the rights of the Palestinians is limited to their right to a state so I'm not clear on what you mean by "championing the agenda of the Arabs"? I'm firm supporter of a two state solution (maybe three, if Gaza can't be connected).

This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

I couldn't agree more. The indiginous argument is serves only one purpose and that is for one side or the other to disenfranchise the rights of the other or to derail threads (the main reason for the creation of this thread). That also I have said multiple times. I've also said, multiple times, that the indiginous people's consist of a variety of religious and ethnic groups who have roots there for centuries if not millenia.

One person's propaganda can be another person's realpolitic - it's in the eye of the beholder.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

And how many pro-Israeli's here are willing to ever criticize Israel?

You have indulged in at least three fallacies right here.

I am familiar with logical fallacies and their use and abuse.

First of all, the "they do it too" argument is no excuse for your own. I have no problem criticizing the attitudes of the minority of the Jewish population as represented by the militant Settlers. I have yet to see you criticize the great majority of this new people called Palestinian for their incredible degree of ethnic hatred. Even when they vote into power those committed to genocide, you find ways to make excuses or else side-step the issue. At no point have I seen you criticize anything about the truly awful belief systems the large majority of Palestinians hold.

I have yet to see you even once - criticize anything Israel has done. A brief search of your posts and "militant" or "settlers" produces only this post. I have on multiple occassions criticized Palestinian attacks on civilians. If you wish, I'll provide links.

Something about glass houses, stones and a smoke screen of "fallacies" to obscure that comes to mind. If you're demanding it of others, I suggest you get your own house in order first.

The second fallacy lies in your "eye of the beholder" comment, which represents such an extreme moral relativism as to be nihilistic. You might as well offer that putrid "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" nonsense so common to those who promote the same agenda as you.

What is considered propaganda is most certainly "in the eyes of the beholder" and that is not a logical fallacy. As a matter of fact - what specific fallacy are you identifying here?

Propoganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

What is considered "biased" and "misleading" depends on the listener. I think that should at least be obvious to you when reading posts here.

The third error lies in your statement about Israel wanting it all. As you can see so clearly from the map I provided and which Abu Afak keeps mentioning is that they DON'T have it all. They have just a tiny piece. Perhaps this is more a matter of dishonesty on your part than fallacious reasoning, but keeping it real would go a long way towards making your positions more credible.

There is a difference between "wanting it all" and "having it all" - you do realize that don't you? There are plenty Israeli's who believe God intended all of Palestine to be theirs.

In any case, should you desire to raise the level of your discourse, here is a little run down on some logical fallacies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learning some of these might help you avoid the "well, they do it too" sorts of excuses as well as various others.

I suggest you review them.

There is a difference between "wanting it all" and "having it all" - you do realize that don't you? There are plenty Israeli's who believe God intended all of Palestine to be theirs.​

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Shocking!

How dare they?

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Shocking!

How dare they?

Yeah, but here's the thing. The Palestinians want all of "Palestine" and the Jewish people want all of "Israel". It can't happen. We have to share. Can we not just solve the problem by doing that?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Shocking!

How dare they?

Yeah, but here's the thing. The Palestinians want all of "Palestine" and the Jewish people want all of "Israel". It can't happen. We have to share. Can we not just solve the problem by doing that?

From his armchair in America, Tinmore will fight to the last Palestinian.

 

[José]

From his armchair in America, ForeverYoung will continue the honorable jewish american tradition of supporting mass non-white immigration to the US to provide a safer environment for Jews in America while sounding like a Grand Dragon of the KKK in Palestine.

 

[Challenger]

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Shocking!

How dare they?

Yeah, but here's the thing. The Palestinians want all of "Palestine" and the Jewish people want all of "Israel". It can't happen. We have to share. Can we not just solve the problem by doing that?

Yeah but here's the thing, the Palestinians were ready and willing to share in the 1920's-30's, but the Zionists wanted it all; they still do. Are the Zionists prepared to return to the 181 borders in exchange for a binding peace?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

From his armchair in America, ForeverYoung will continue the honorable jewish american tradition of supporting mass non-white immigration to the US to provide a safer environment for Jews in America while sounding like a Grand Dragon of the KKK in Palestine.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If I'm deciphering correctly, are you saying that I'm anti-immigration? I have no problem with Hispanics coming to America, if they apply legally. I don't know what that has to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict, though. And if I'm not deciphering correctly, then please speak in English.

 

[montelatici]

It's probably time to start looking at alternatives.


"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Wednesday evening derided opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog's admission that the two-state solution isn't currently viable, mockingly "congratulating" the Labor party leader for finally "waking up" to the reality of the Middle East.

"A year ago I said that the current circumstances do not seem to allow the realization of a two states for two peoples solution. You certainly would be surprised to know or remember that even then you attacked me furiously."

 

[José]

Origianally posted by ForeverYoung
I have no problem with Hispanics coming to America, if they apply legally.

This is what I'm talking about. You have no problem with hispanics, blacks and asians with no historical right to live in the US destroying America's non supremacist white majority and at the same time suport a jewish supremacist state keeping the native arab population herded in enclaves.

And your opinion is representative of most american Jews.

Jews are historically afraid of countries with large white population and you recently provided the best explanation for this fear:

ForeverYoung said:
Thousands of Jews were killed during 2000 years in the name of your savior (and I'm not even talking about the Holocaust now.) They were burnt at the stake, killed in pogroms, squeezed into ghettos, expelled from their homes, lynched after blood libels, etc.--and you have the nerve to say the name of Jesus!! I and my co-religionists will not continue to pay for what my ancestors may or may not have done to someone 2 millenia ago.

I fully understand the historic reasons behind jewish fear of white majority countries, FY, I even empathize with you for the cruelties commited against your people, but lobbying for the destruction of the racial composition of a non supremacist country like America as jewish americans did last century was OVER THE TOP, totally OUT OF LINE.

Please notice that I'm in no way letting America's white leadership off the hook...

If anything they should bear the lion's share of the blame for having failed to oppose the jewish american efforts to change the country's immigration laws in the 60's.

 

[Boston1]

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Shocking!

How dare they?

Yeah, but here's the thing. The Palestinians want all of "Palestine" and the Jewish people want all of "Israel". It can't happen. We have to share. Can we not just solve the problem by doing that?

Yeah but here's the thing, the Palestinians were ready and willing to share in the 1920's-30's, but the Zionists wanted it all; they still do. Are the Zionists prepared to return to the 181 borders in exchange for a binding peace?

A blatant lie.

The Israeli's accepted each of the UN proposals and the Arab League refused each.

It wasn't the Zionists which wanted it all.

The indigenous people are the original people of this area, or the Hyksos or protojudaic peoples, existing from at least the mid to early bronze age in this area. The Arabs on the other hand came from the Arabian peninsula in several colonial waves. The earliest of which was about 900 CE.

So how this issue of who is indigenous even came up I'm not sure but its a no brainer. The ancestors of all modern Jews, Judaic people, developed from the earliest known times of antiquity, right smack where Israel is now.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Shocking!

How dare they?

Yeah, but here's the thing. The Palestinians want all of "Palestine" and the Jewish people want all of "Israel". It can't happen. We have to share. Can we not just solve the problem by doing that?

Yeah but here's the thing, the Palestinians were ready and willing to share in the 1920's-30's, but the Zionists wanted it all; they still do. Are the Zionists prepared to return to the 181 borders in exchange for a binding peace?

A blatant lie.

The Israeli's accepted each of the UN proposals and the Arab League refused each.

It wasn't the Zionists which wanted it all.

The indigenous people are the original people of this area, or the Hyksos or protojudaic peoples, existing from at least the mid to early bronze age in this area. The Arabs on the other hand came from the Arabian peninsula in several colonial waves. The earliest of which was about 900 CE.

So how this issue of who is indigenous even came up I'm not sure but its a no brainer. The ancestors of all modern Jews, Judaic people, developed from the earliest known times of antiquity, right smack where Israel is now.

Didn't the Hebrews come from Egypt?

 

[abu afak]

...
Didn't the Hebrews come from Egypt?

There is No proof of that. That is Biblical.
However, there IS Evidence (Merneptah Stele, etc) that the Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC.
And that's one of the things that counts, if not as important as more Recent settlement/last 2 centuries. (and other returns throughout the period)
+

 

[ForeverYoung436]

...
Didn't the Hebrews come from Egypt?

There is No proof of that. That is Biblical.
However, there IS Evidence (Merneptah Stele, etc) that the Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC.
And that's one of the things that counts, if not as important as more Recent settlement/last 2 centuries. (and other returns throughout the period)
+

Besides, the Hebrews were in Israel/Canaan before they went down to Egypt because of a famine. Some scholars believe that not all of the Hebrews went to Egypt, but that some remained in Canaan. When the other Hebrews returned, according to this theory, there was never complete harmony between these 2 groups. That's why the kingdom split into 2 after Solomon's death.

 

[Boston1]

I can't imagine the "scholars" you are referring to are anything but nonsecular scholars.

I've yet to read a single actual scholar not involved in the dogma of religion suggest that the biblical story is in any way accurate.

There is not a shred of archeological evidence to support the exodus myth.

 

[Challenger]

"The agricultural community that the Arabs found in Eretz Israel in the 7th century was none other than the Hebrew farmers that remained on their land despite all the persecution and oppression of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. Some of them accepted Christianity, at least on the surface, but many held on to their ancestral faith and occasionally revolted against their Christian oppressors. After the Arab conquest, the Arabic language and Muslim religion spread gradually among the countrymen. In his essay "Ancient Names in Palestine and Syria in Our Times," Dr. George Kampmeyer proves, based on historico-linguistic analysis, that for a certain period of time, both Aramaic and Arabic were in use and only slowly did the former give way to the latter.
The greater majority and main structures of the Muslim falahin in western Eretz Israel present to us one racial strand and a whole ethnic unit, and there is no doubt that much Jewish blood flows in their veins—the blood of those Jewish farmers, "lay persons," who chose in the travesty of times to abandon their faith in order to remain on their land."--- David Ben Gurion

Seems the founder of the Zionist paradise, Ben Gurion, agreed with what I've been saying all along; modern Palestinians are the "Arabised" indigenous population of Palestine; they never went away, they never died off; they were never disposessed by Arab invaders, only by a bunch of European colonisers.

 

[Challenger]

However, there IS Evidence (Merneptah Stele, etc) that the Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC.

Wrong!

The Merneptah stele merely mentions the existence of a foreign people called "Israel", it doesn't say anything else about them other than at best, if they were sedentary, their grain stores/fields had been razed/devastated; or at worst if they were nomadic, they had been exterminated/dispersed. Their is no mention of their religion other than the suggestion that they may have been "followers" (Isr) of "El" one of several deities in the area. For that matter, it is unclear what "area" they lived in. All of this is currently under dispute by historians and archaeologists, so to state that "Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC" is inaccurate.

 

[abu afak]

However, there IS Evidence (Merneptah Stele, etc) that the Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC.

Wrong!

The Merneptah stele merely mentions the existence of a foreign people called "Israel", it doesn't say anything else about them other than at best, if they were sedentary, their grain stores/fields had been razed/devastated; or at worst if they were nomadic, they had been exterminated/dispersed. Their is no mention of their religion other than the suggestion that they may have been "followers" (Isr) of "El" one of several deities in the area. For that matter, it is unclear what "area" they lived in. All of this is currently under dispute by historians and archaeologists, so to state that "Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC" is inaccurate.

No, You're wrong Goebbels boy. It is "evidence" as Israel was the land of the Jews, and Not coincidentally, roughly correlates with the Biblical timing of the Jews arrival there. Is it 1000% "Proof", No, but it is "Evidence."
Other Archaelogical Evidence Follows this first extra-biblical mention.
You're such a predictable anti-semitic asshole, and always wrong.
+

 

[Challenger]

However, there IS Evidence (Merneptah Stele, etc) that the Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC.

Wrong!

The Merneptah stele merely mentions the existence of a foreign people called "Israel", it doesn't say anything else about them other than at best, if they were sedentary, their grain stores/fields had been razed/devastated; or at worst if they were nomadic, they had been exterminated/dispersed. Their is no mention of their religion other than the suggestion that they may have been "followers" (Isr) of "El" one of several deities in the area. For that matter, it is unclear what "area" they lived in. All of this is currently under dispute by historians and archaeologists, so to state that "Jews were/were in "Israel" by the 13th Century BC" is inaccurate.

No, You're wrong Goebbels boy. It is "evidence" as Israel was the land of the Jews, and Not coincidentally, roughly correlates with the Biblical timing of the Jews arrival there. Is it 1000% "Proof", No, but it is "Evidence."
Other Archaelogical Evidence Follows this first extra-biblical mention.
You're such a predictable anti-semitic asshole, and always wrong.
+

...and that, is conclusive evidence of the difference between objective information and Zionist wet-dream fantasy hasbara.

 

[abu afak]

AGAIN Challenger: You Dishonest Word-twisting antisemite..

"No, You're wrong Goebbels boy. It is "evidence" as Israel was the land of the Jews, and Not coincidentally, roughly correlates with the Biblical timing of the Jews arrival there. Is it 1000% "Proof", No, but it is "Evidence."
Other Archaelogical Evidence Follows this first extra-biblical mention.
You're such a predictable anti-semitic asshole, and always wrong."​

+