Who are the Israelis?

[Sherlock Holmes]

You can interpret the evidence any way that suits your narrative -- that's a common tactic among desperate people arguing against Israel's legitimacy.

I'm not surprised. Why did you put the word Jews in quotes?

Because the definition of the term is far from definitive, it can refer to racial descent, it can refer to religious beliefs, it can refer to historic communities in the diaspora where some people have no genetic evidence of being Jews.

There were Jews there before the mass migration of Arabs from the Arabian peninsula and the Greek islands.

All I've been arguing is there's no evidential support for the Zionist claim that the Jews were the first occupants of the region.

So your argument is that the land belongs to Arabs because they are descended from Canaanites (which is not a clear cut and provable claim) but it doesn't belong to Jews who are also "descended" from Canaanites. For some reason, the lineage of one group trumps the other even though they are the same. You have spent a while making up all sorts of things, speaking out of ignorance and making unsupported claims. Why should your approach here be any different?

I never made that argument, its a strawman. I am arguing that Canaanites were the occupants at the time Abraham emigrated from Ur and they were still there when the first Jew was born 600 years later. This is straight from the historic record, the Jewish historic record, it's not even remotely controversial.

Great -- so let's take out any claim to "being there first". The UN accepts that Israel exists and that it has land. International law establishes that Israel is there and no other sovereign nation lays claim to the land. Thus endeth the lesson.

I accept that a state now exists named "Israel", I haven't disputed that. But it's incorrect to imply there are no disputes about that land, occupation thereof and annexation thereof and the borders thereof. There are disputes and the majority are cases where Israel is deemed to be acting illegally, there are many UN resolutions because of this.

 

[rosends]

Because the definition of the term is far from definitive, it can refer to racial descent, it can refer to religious beliefs, it can refer to historic communities in the diaspora where some people have no genetic evidence of being Jews.

So you are making up definitions for the word Jew. How unexpected. I mean, I did link to both religious law and a dictionary, but, hey, your unfounded statements are nice, too.

All I've been arguing is there's no evidential support for the Zionist claim that the Jews were the first occupants of the region.

Show me a Zionist claim that Jews were the first occupants of the region.

I never made that argument, its a strawman. I am arguing that Canaanites were the occupants at the time Abraham emigrated from Ur and they were still there when the first Jew was born 600 years later. This is straight from the historic record, the Jewish historic record, it's not even remotely controversial.

But since there are no Canaanites any longer, it is a useless piece of information. You said, when bringing up Canaanite DNA, that the DNA record destroys any claim that ""This land belongs to the Jews"". Note how "belongs" is in present tense? So what exactly was your point by bringing it up?

I accept that a state now exists named "Israel", I haven't disputed that. But it's false to imply there are no disputes about that land, occupation thereof and annexation thereof and the borders thereof.

Actually, there is a dispute. This is why the land is legally considered disputed. There is no occupation under the law, though.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you are making up definitions for the word Jew. How unexpected. I mean, I did link to both religious law and a dictionary, but, hey, your unfounded statements are nice, too.

Show me a Zionist claim that Jews were the first occupants of the region.

Israel's War Against Hamas - Updates

www.usmessageboard.com

There are many more too, this is typical and uses the term "ancestral homeland" well since Abraham migrated from Ur and he's the ancestor of Jews then Ur is surely the ancestral homeland based on the written historic record?

I've been arguing the Jews arrived after the Canaanites and so the Canaanites and therefore the modern Palestinians have a stronger argument as to it being an ancestral homeland.

But since there are no Canaanites any longer, it is a useless piece of information. You said, when bringing up Canaanite DNA, that the DNA record destroys any claim that ""This land belongs to the Jews"". Note how "belongs" is in present tense? So what exactly was your point by bringing it up?

It was a response to earlier posts.

Actually, there is a dispute. This is why the land is legally considered disputed. There is no occupation under the law, though.

The law in these cases is defined by the United Nations, Israel is a signatory to that promising to abide by international law. The UN is the legitimate body to decide what is legal and illegal.

 

[rosends]

Israel's War Against Hamas - Updates

www.usmessageboard.com

Nothing in that post says that Jews were the first occupants.

There are many more too, this is typical and uses the term "ancestral homeland" well since Abraham migrated from Ur and he's the ancestor of Jews then Ur is surely the ancestral homeland based on the written historic record?

So if Abraham is the progenitor of the jewish people and he lived and had his family in the land, then the land is the ancestral homeland of those people. Since he is commanded to go to the land and settle there, and his descendants lived there, the people established a national identity in terms of the land, not Ur, where he lived before he established his lineage. Nothing in there about "first occupants."

Did you have anything which actually supports your claim?

I've been arguing the Jews arrived after the Canaanites and so the Canaanites and therefore the modern Palestinians have a stronger argument as to it being an ancestral homeland.

But that argument fails as the modern Arab population has the same genetic connection as modern Jews according to the study, so the claim would have to be at least equal by your logic.

It was a response to earlier posts.

then it was a response that didn't follow what came before it. Maybe because you keep inventing strawmen to respond to (like the idea that Jews were the first occupants).

The law in these cases is defined by the United Nations, Israel is a signatory to that promising to abide by international law. The UN is the legitimate body to decide what is legal and illegal.

And the UN accepts that Israel is a country. Done and done.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nothing in that post says that Jews were the first occupants.

That's true, I accept that. My argument is that there's no historic basis that justifies Jews claiming a homeland above Palestinians who might make the same claim over the same land. There's nothing special about Jews in this respect, that group has no justification or right to the land any more than Palestinians.

So if Abraham is the progenitor of the jewish people and he lived and had his family in the land, then the land is the ancestral homeland of those people. Since he is commanded to go to the land and settle there, and his descendants lived there, the people established a national identity in terms of the land, not Ur, where he lived before he established his lineage. Nothing in there about "first occupants."

One could argue that, but in so doing most Jews in Israel today must then regard Europe as their ancestral homeland, I mean why look back in time and pick out a specific ancestor? Many if not most Israeli Jews are offspring of European Jews going back hundreds of generations. Many Jews after WW2 did not want to go to Israel at all, they regarded it as an alien place, totally unlike the Europe thaty had lived in for many centuries.

The point I am arguing is that Jews have no more rights or entitlement to the territory we call "Israel" than any other ethnic or religious group based on history.

Did you have anything which actually supports your claim?

Which claim?

But that argument fails as the modern Arab population has the same genetic connection as modern Jews according to the study, so the claim would have to be at least equal by your logic.

Yes, I agree any argument made by Zionists that Jews have some special right to dwell there over and above non-Jews is not an argument based on any historic record. What Zionists call "homeland" is not exclusively a Jewish homeland. But the "Basic Laws" (as I showed you yesterday) make that claim, they single out Jew, the exclude non-Jews.

then it was a response that didn't follow what came before it. Maybe because you keep inventing strawmen to respond to (like the idea that Jews were the first occupants).

And the UN accepts that Israel is a country. Done and done.

Who here said Israel was not a country?

 

[rosends]

That's true, I accept that. My argument is that there's no historic basis that justifies Jews claiming a homeland above Palestinians who might make the same claim over the same land. There's nothing special about Jews in this respect, that group has no justification or right to the land any more than Palestinians.

Well, Arabs, not Palestinians. But then you get into all sorts of other problems -- a genetic link does not mean a national linkage. How many people have DNA markers from areas to which they have no heritage based connection? Judaism demonstrates the continuity of identity and connection to the land. Plus, the modern legal status indicates that Israel is teh anscestral homeland of the Jews.

One could argue that, but in so doing most Jews in Israel today must then regard Europe as their ancestral homeland,

Why? The article reads "Most of today’s Jewish and Arabic-speaking populations share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites". This makes no distinction between Jews. It makes a claim about the entiretey of the group. And why would someone consider a land to which he is exiled as his ancestral homeland.

I mean why look back in time and pick out a specific ancestor?

Why look back in time and cite the tenuous DNA connection to the Canaanites?

Many if not most Israeli Jews are offspring of European Jews going back hundreds of generations.

And most "Palestinians" in the region come from other areas

The only indigenous Palestinian Arab families, it seems, are descended from Jews

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Which claim?

That any Zionist claimed that jews were the first occupants. You made the claim and only supported it with a post that said nothing of the sort. So do you intend to substantiate your claim, or should I just add it to the list of empty rhetoric you throw around hoping no one will notice that it is baseless?

Yes, I agree any argument made by Zionists that Jews have some special right to dwell there over and above non-Jews is not an argument based on any historic record. What Zionists call "homeland" is not exclusively a Jewish homeland. But the "Basic Laws" (as I showed you yesterday) make that claim, they single out Jew, the exclude non-Jews.

The basic laws talk about the nature of the country and its history. Are you denying the history of the Jewish people in the region for the last 3000 years?

Who here said Israel was not a country?

So if you acept that, then the grounds of the UN's recognition of Israel should be persuasive.

"This right was acknowledged by the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, and re-affirmed by the Mandate of the League of Nations, which gave explicit international recognition to the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home."

"On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.

This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked. It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State."

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, Arabs, not Palestinians. But then you get into all sorts of other problems -- a genetic link does not mean a national linkage. How many people have DNA markers from areas to which they have no heritage based connection? Judaism demonstrates the continuity of identity and connection to the land. Plus, the modern legal status indicates that Israel is teh anscestral homeland of the Jews.

Palestinians or Arabs, no group has any claim for an exclusive homeland any more than any other group.

Why? The article reads "Most of today’s Jewish and Arabic-speaking populations share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites". This makes no distinction between Jews. It makes a claim about the entiretey of the group. And why would someone consider a land to which he is exiled as his ancestral homeland.

Yes that's (genetic link) not contested. My position is "ancestral homeland" is a fluid term means different things to different people, if a Jew said his ancestral homeland was Ur would you argue with him?

Why look back in time and cite the tenuous DNA connection to the Canaanites?

And most "Palestinians" in the region come from other areas

The only indigenous Palestinian Arab families, it seems, are descended from Jews

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

So do many Jews, but what of it? Palestinians are genetically descendants of Canaanites, share some 80% DNA.

That any Zionist claimed that jews were the first occupants. You made the claim and only supported it with a post that said nothing of the sort. So do you intend to substantiate your claim, or should I just add it to the list of empty rhetoric you throw around hoping no one will notice that it is baseless?

It's a common claim, I encounter it regularly but if you must see an example here's one:

The basic laws talk about the nature of the country and its history. Are you denying the history of the Jewish people in the region for the last 3000 years?

The Basic Law claims Jewish exclusivity - on what grounds are they making that claim other than one of racial entitlement?

So if you acept that, then the grounds of the UN's recognition of Israel should be persuasive.

"This right was acknowledged by the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, and re-affirmed by the Mandate of the League of Nations, which gave explicit international recognition to the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home."

"On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.

This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked. It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State."

Well that "self-evident right" then must extend to the Palestinian people too, yet Israel disregards the UN's many resolutions in this regard. You can't seriously cite the UN when arguing for Jewish sovereignty yet sweep it under the carpet when the UN speaks out on Palestinian sovereignty.

But the Zionists refuse to acknowledge any such right, they decry those who say Israel should be allowed to exist yet they themselves claim that a Palestinian state should never be allowed to exist and their actions regionally are consistent with that aim, they actively undermine (I'm being kind when I use that word) efforts to do that, they thwart it at every turn, they wany more land, they want more Jews, they want less Palestinians.

Zionism is a curse and perhaps one of the worst systems of indoctrination to befall a people since the Third Reich.

 

[rosends]

Palestinians or Arabs, no group has any claim for an exclusive homeland any more than any other group.

Though I don't know what you mean by "exclusive homeland" I'm happy to let you believe what you want. Therefore, you should tell the UN and the LON that they are wrong.

Yes that's (genetic link) not contested. My position is "ancestral homeland" is a fluid term means different things to different people, if a Jew said his ancestral homeland was Ur would you argue with him?

Why would I argue? Arguing gets me nowhere. I would simply point out that if he is looking for an ancestral homeland based on his identity as a Jew, he should look to where the Jewish people have their origin.

So do many Jews, but what of it? Palestinians are genetically descendants of Canaanites, share some 80% DNA.

Jews are similarly "genetically descendants". If the response is "what of it" for Jews, then the same response holds for Arabs.

It's a common claim, I encounter it regularly but if you must see an example here's one:

View attachment 970976

You really don't understand what is being argued there because you are drawing a completely erroneous conclusion. The argument is that there was no people called "Palestinians" until the term's first use in 1906 so the claim that there were "Palestinians" ever before in history is fallacious. Therefore, there was a group called "Jews" a full 3,000 years before there were anyone called "Palestinians."

And there is still nothing in there that says anything about being "first occupants" so that claim remains unsupported.

The Basic Law claims Jewish exclusivity - on what grounds are they making that claim other than one of racial entitlement?

What "race"? Judaism isn't a race. The Basic law claims exclusivity in heritage, not in rights or citizenship. Have you complained about the Basic Laws in Saudi Arabia yet?

Well that "self-evident right" then must extend to the Palestinian people too,

Somehow, the UN never said that. Nor did the LON.

yet Israel disregards the UN's many resolutions in this regard.

Can you show me a UN resolution that says that Arabs have a claim to the land as an ancestral homeland?

You can't seriously cite the UN when arguing for Jewish sovereignty yet sweep it under the carpet when the UN speaks out on Palestinian sovereignty.

I can cite the UN when I am looking for external corroboration to the accepted idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland of the Jews. You had said "No international body like the UN for example, ever uses such claims as the basis for settling territorial disputes, it just doesn't happen." But you seem to want to ignore that the UN DID settle the dispute by acknowledging that Israel exists as the ancestral homeland of the Jews.

But the Zionists refuse to acknowledge any such right, they decry those who say Israel should be allowed to exist yet they themselves claim that a Palestinian state should never be allowed to exist.

Really? The "Zionists" do that? So I guess the Zionists weren't the ones who accepted the partition and the Arab state it would have created. The Zionists must not have been on board with the various offers of a 2 state solution ("They HAD a state given to them in 1937 (Peel Commission), 1947 (The UN Partition Plan), 1967 (The Khartoum Summit), 1991 (The Madrid Conference), 2000 (The Camp David Summit), 2001 (The Arabs Summit), 2005 (The Disengagement from Gaza), 2007 (The Annapolis Conference), 2008 (The Realignment Plan), 2010 (The Joint Peace Talks), 2013 (The Joint Peace Talks), 2019 (The Bahrain Workshop), and 2020 (Trump Peace Plan). ").

And the people that Zionists decry aren't "those who say Israel should be allowed". Why would Zionists have a problem with someone who agrees with Israel's existence. You are making even less sense than usual.

 

[gipper]

Arab imperialists have that to spare, why not a gazillion...

Doesn't come even close to Francesa Albenis' lies a year ago,
so how will you extort sympathy from people fighting an existential war?

Since the founding of the Zionist apartheid regime, please tell me the number of killed and wounded committed by Palestinians vs Israelis? What does this tell you?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Though I don't know what you mean by "exclusive homeland" I'm happy to let you believe what you want. Therefore, you should tell the UN and the LON that they are wrong.

Here is the basic law, see "exclusive"

The realization of the right to national self determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People.

Why would I argue? Arguing gets me nowhere. I would simply point out that if he is looking for an ancestral homeland based on his identity as a Jew, he should look to where the Jewish people have their origin.

Jews are similarly "genetically descendants". If the response is "what of it" for Jews, then the same response holds for Arabs.

You really don't understand what is being argued there because you are drawing a completely erroneous conclusion. The argument is that there was no people called "Palestinians" until the term's first use in 1906 so the claim that there were "Palestinians" ever before in history is fallacious. Therefore, there was a group called "Jews" a full 3,000 years before there were anyone called "Palestinians."

Yes I'm aware of what he said, but as I've already shown you Palestinians today share over 80% of their DNA with Canaanites, the people inhabiting the region at least 600 years before the first Jew was born, therefore his conclusion is wrong.

And there is still nothing in there that says anything about being "first occupants" so that claim remains unsupported.

Relatively, between Jews and Canaanites, Jews were the second occupants and Canaanites were the first, so far as we can discern from the written record, clearly given this context that post is wrong to say that Jews were there first in relation to Canaanites (Palestinians).

If I said to two kids Jane and John "OK who went into the garage first?" would you understand it better that way?

What "race"? Judaism isn't a race. The Basic law claims exclusivity in heritage, not in rights or citizenship. Have you complained about the Basic Laws in Saudi Arabia yet?

The Jews (I never said "Judaism"), whether it be based on genetics or culture, it distinguishes between that group and other groups, non-members of "Jews".

Somehow, the UN never said that. Nor did the LON.

No they did not, it was you used the term "self evident" that's why I used it in my reply, you said:

This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked. It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State."

Can you show me a UN resolution that says that Arabs have a claim to the land as an ancestral homeland?

No because there isn't one, nor is there one in the case of Israel, it was a term you used.

I can cite the UN when I am looking for external corroboration to the accepted idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland of the Jews. You had said "No international body like the UN for example, ever uses such claims as the basis for settling territorial disputes, it just doesn't happen." But you seem to want to ignore that the UN DID settle the dispute by acknowledging that Israel exists as the ancestral homeland of the Jews.

Which resolution(s) are you citing here?

Really? The "Zionists" do that? So I guess the Zionists weren't the ones who accepted the partition and the Arab state it would have created. The Zionists must not have been on board with the various offers of a 2 state solution ("They HAD a state given to them in 1937 (Peel Commission), 1947 (The UN Partition Plan), 1967 (The Khartoum Summit), 1991 (The Madrid Conference), 2000 (The Camp David Summit), 2001 (The Arabs Summit), 2005 (The Disengagement from Gaza), 2007 (The Annapolis Conference), 2008 (The Realignment Plan), 2010 (The Joint Peace Talks), 2013 (The Joint Peace Talks), 2019 (The Bahrain Workshop), and 2020 (Trump Peace Plan). ").

Yes they do that, here this is Smotrich:

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said in a written statement on Thursday that former US president and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump showed “courage and integrity” by “changing his opinion” and opposing a Palestinian state.

Here's Nazinyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday rejected calls for Palestinian sovereignty following talks with US President Joe Biden about Gaza’s future, suggesting Israel’s security needs would be incompatible with Palestinian statehood.

“I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over all the territory west of Jordan - and this is contrary to a Palestinian state,” Netanyahu said in a post on X

See? The Israelis need terrorism, need Palestinian violence because that's what they use to justify their refusal for a Palestinian state, this has been strategy for decades, even before 1947 Zionists openly said they needed antisemitism to help make their case for their Jew supremacist project.

The other points you mention (that you're using to imply Israel was bending over backwards to help create a Palestinian state in the face of persistent Arab intransigence) are each worthy of their own discussion. Part of the issue here is that Israel has already acted atrociously with the Nakba and later with the 6 day war.

Many still feel (I do) that carving out an "Israel" and a "Palestine" was never a wise thing, it suited the colonial powers though because they seek a divide and conquer approach to their geopolitical domination and the Zionists wanted that, the Arabs did not.

So I am prepared to say Israel, the Zionist state based on Jew supremacy and Jew exclusivity should not exist, in the same way that the Third Reich should not exist. Instead a single state of "Palestine" (or some other generic name) with a democratic government, an egalitarian constitution, would be far better. A single territory in which Jews, Arabs, and umpteen other peoples live together in peace.

The Zionists never wanted that and refuse to do that and in taking that stand they doomed everyone.

And the people that Zionists decry aren't "those who say Israel should be allowed". Why would Zionists have a problem with someone who agrees with Israel's existence. You are making even less sense than usual.

That was a typo I should have written "shouldn't"

 

[rosends]

Here is the basic law, see "exclusive"

Show me how that relates to "exclusive homeland." In the sentence you quoted it has to do with self-determination.

Yes I'm aware of what he said, but as I've already shown you Palestinians today share over 80% of their DNA with Canaanites, the people inhabiting the region at least 600 years before the first Jew was born, therefore his conclusion is wrong.

No one said there weren't people there. Remember, that's the fake claim that you are trying to go against. His conclusion wasn't about "people." Read it again. Do you really not understand what he said? How can his conclusion be wrong? If you think it is wrong then you really have no idea what he is writing about.

Relatively, between Jews and Canaanites, Jews were the second occupants and Canaanites were the first, so far as we can discern from the written record, clearly given this context that post is wrong to say that Jews were there first in relation to Canaanites (Palestinians).

There's that sneaky intellectual dishonesty of yours poking his head up again. The post was about "Palestinians" and you are trying to replace that term with "Canaanite" but they aren't the same. Canaanites existed. Palestinians didn't. And remember, since the same genetic statistic holds true for Jews, the Jews were therefore there at the same time.

The Jews (I never said "Judaism"),

and you have already proven that you don't know the meaning of the word "Jews"

whether it be based on genetics or culture, it distinguishes between that group and other groups, non-members of "Jews".

In terms of self-determination. So?

No they did not, it was you used the term "self evident" that's why I used it in my reply, you said:

I quoted from the documents that referred to the LON and the UN. Are you saying the primary source I used was wrong? I'd like to hear you say that. Do you not know where that quote is from? Claiming that I said it? Hilarious.

No because there isn't one, nor is there one in the case of Israel, it was a term you used.

So at first you said "Israel disregards the UN's many resolutions in this regard" and now when I ask for an example of such a UN resolution, you say there isn't one. This is why no one takes you seriously. You say things without thinking and then get shown, publicly, to be ignorant at best and a deceitful liar more likely.

Which resolution(s) are you citing here?

You can start with 181.

Yes they do that, here this is Smotrich:

Here's Nazinyahu

So you have 2 quotes. One about Donald Trump and the other about how the Arabs should not be given a state now that they have demonstrated their intent to invade Israel. Such a recognition of another Arab state would be a reward for murder and kidnapping. But I guess you want the guarantee of a state so that it can continue to invade (as has been promised by Arab leaders). And you figure that "From water to water, Palestine will will be Muslim" means that Jews will be welcome. Brilliant. Meanwhile, this has to be cited as a recent statement because, historically it doesn't represent the position of Zionists, and remember what you wrote, "But the Zionists refuse to acknowledge any such right". But they do, or at least did until the Gazans invaded.

See? The Israelis need terrorism

How you come to that conclusion is a mystery.

, need Palestinian violence

What a bizarre contention, that Israel NEEDS violence. Maybe you didn't go through all the offers for a second state made by Israel and rejected by the ARABS. Israel doesn't want violence. The Arabs are the ones who send in suicide bombers and fire rockets into civilian neighborhoods and who promise thousands more invasions.

The other points you mention (that you're using to imply Israel was bending over backwards to help create a Palestinian state in the face of persistent Arab intransigence) are each worthy of their own discussion. Part of the issue here is that Israel has already acted atrociously with the Nakba and later with the 6 day war.

Yes, how dare Israel defend itself!

So I am prepared to say Israel, the Zionist state based on Jew supremacy and Jew exclusivity should not exist

It is a good thing that Israel embraces neither the idea of "Jew exclusivity" nor "Jew supremacy."

, in the same way that the Third Reich should not exist.

Have you started that thread about Saudi Arabia and its basic laws? What about England with its state religion, or any Muslim country which requires that all non-Muslims pay a tax, or are limited in their jobs. I can make you a nifty list of these if you want so you can lodge all the appropriate protests.

Instead a single state of "Palestine" (or some other generic name) with a democratic government, an egalitarian constitution, would be far better. A single territory in which Jews, Arabs, and umpteen other peoples live together in peace.

You mean like in all the other Arab countries which drove out their Jews? Meanwhile, Israel has a democratic government, 20% of its population is Arab and, as citizens, they have the same rights, can run for government positions etc. One area of difference is that they are not required to be drafted by the army. Beyond that, they are equal citizens. and they live in peace with Jews.

The Zionists never wanted that and refuse to do that and in taking that stand they doomed everyone.

You mean by accepting the idea of a another Arab state all those times? Yeah, that's sneaky -- lulling the Arabs into a false sense of security by giving in to them.

 

[rylah]

Since the founding of the Zionist apartheid regime, please tell me the number of killed and wounded committed by Palestinians vs Israelis? What does this tell you?

It tells me greedy Arab imperialists value life less than Israelis.
It also tells me there's justice, that the aggressors always lose more.

The only apartheid regime is waging wars for exclusive Arab domination -
over the entire Middle East and North Africa - at the expense of all involved.

​

 

[gipper]

It tells me greedy Arab imperialists value life less than Israelis.
It also tells me there's justice, that the aggressors always lose more.

The only apartheid regime is waging wars for exclusive Arab domination -
over the entire Middle East and North Africa - at the expense of all involved.

​

Only someone completely uninformed and bigoted would think as you do. How are you any different from the Nazis?

 

[rylah]

Only someone completely uninformed and bigoted would think as you do. How are you any different from the Nazis?

Which is why you can't refute or address my post?

Grow up.

 

[gipper]

Which is why you can't refute or address my post?

Grow up.

You are the hateful ignorant bigot, not me.

 

[rylah]

You are the hateful ignorant bigot, not me.

Going to turn this into a dirt slinging contest?

Arab imperialism drives on ignorance.

 

[gipper]

Going to turn this into a dirt slinging contest?

Apparently there's no point to this exchange.

Merely exposing your hateful ignorance.

 

[rylah]

Merely exposing your hateful ignorance.

Arab imperialism runs on mass ignorance,

is that what you want for the world?

Greece annually translates five times more books from English than the entire Arab world, and currently, 65 million Arab adults are illiterate. These sobering statistics are thanks to the U.N.’s first Arab Human Development Report​

A Note on Arabic Literacy and Translation​

​

 

[gipper]

Arab imperialism runs on ignorance -

​

Yet it’s Israeli imperialism that is killing women and babies.

 

[rylah]

Yet it’s Israeli imperialism that is killing women and babies.

Name one war in the Middle East which doesn't involve an Arab state.

How many Arab states are currently at war with each other?