Yikes... There's an idiot in the Knesset... Surprised? Nah!

[Boston1]

So you can't answer any of the questions?

Why should I answer questions you pose in order to escape the truth?

When are you going to even acknowledge the truth at all? I have explained exactly why these "Palestinians" were created, yet you ignore this to advance you dogma.

You won't answer the questions because you cant. If you did your entire "truth" would show to be a house of cards.

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500? What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now and regardless of what name they have carried, they have been there for while.

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

So you can't answer any of the questions?

Why should I answer questions you pose in order to escape the truth?

When are you going to even acknowledge the truth at all? I have explained exactly why these "Palestinians" were created, yet you ignore this to advance you dogma.

You won't answer the questions because you cant. If you did your entire "truth" would show to be a house of cards.

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500? What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now and regardless of what name they have carried, they have been there for while.

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

Well, there is only one language--Arabic. Perhaps the accents are different in different lands, but there are 22 lands that have Arabic as their official language. Only one has Hebrew. Then there's the food--falafel, shwarma, hummus, tahini. Perhaps a different lamb delicacy here and there, but it's basically the same. Only Israel has gefilte fish and potato kugel. The flags are the same colors (red and green), with many having a crescent moon. In fact, the Jordanian and Palestinian flags are barely distinguishable from each other. Only Israel has blue and white, with the Star of David. The same dress (keffiyah, hijab); the same wailing music with the steady drums, only with different nuances here and there. Only one country has the yarmulka for clothing, and the hora dance. Yet the Arabs MUST have their 23rd state, to the exclusion of the one and only Jewish one. At the very least, let them share that tiny speck of land.

 

[Shusha]

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500?

What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now ...

I'll try to take a stab at these.

A people becomes a people when they develop a sufficiently distinct culture which sets them apart from other cultures. Its a fluid and ill-defined process and is far from black-and-white. It is also approached from at least three different points of view and might appear different depending on one's perspective. Thus outsiders might look at a people and see no distinction at all between Palestinians and Jordanians while Palestinians see the difference very clearly and Jordanians are somewhere in between. So who is "right"? One could argue that if the distinction is not obvious to outsiders then, it is not enough of a distinction. One could also argue that outsiders are notorious for lumping people together with only vague similarities. And there are complicating factors, such as cultures which have adopted and internalized foreign invading cultures into their own.

Is the Canadian culture sufficiently distinct from the American culture? Is Columbian culture sufficiently distinct from Argentine culture? Which factors or criteria do we use to determine this?

The issue with the Palestinian identity is that it is almost entirely based on territory. The difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian is not culture, but place of origin. The question is whether or not this is sufficient to consider them a distinct people. The Palestinian identity is also based on hostility towards or conflict with Israel/the Jewish people

It seems apparent to me that neither of these things are enough to consider this people a distinct culture.

. . . .

But...who gets to decide? Should there be an objective criteria? Or is it sufficient for the culture and people to view themselves as distinct and act as though they are? Is self-identification the correct measure? It seems to me that it is the only practical measure. Since people who see themselves as distinct will act accordingly.

. . . .

It makes no difference whatsoever when a culture comes into its identity, as far as I am concerned. 50 years, a thousand years, ten thousand years. No difference.

. . . .

Once a people has started to act as though they are a distinct people there is nothing to be done but to approach and work with them from that understanding. It just is. Its a practical point of view.

. . . .

That said, the concern, and it is big one, with the "invention" or development of the Palestinian people, being based on claiming territory and on opposition to the Jewish people rather than a true identity, is that these two things become the focus of the people, rather than on developing their own identity and raison d'etre. This changes the dynamics significantly. I'm not convinced that it is enough. I'm not convinced that it is not ultimately detrimental.

This is one of the reasons why I suggest that Palestinians come under Jordanian sovereignty for now. To see if they would persist in gaining independence and self-rule from the Jordanians. It would be a test to see if they had an identity other than one of opposition to Israel. Does that makes sense?

 

[Boston1]

The subject is some fool in the Knesset going on about pronunciation; in regards to the myth of a palestinian people.

We all know there is no such thing as a palestinian people, because we all know there is no difference between the Arab Muslims on one side of the Jordan 100' away from those on the other side. Its extremely simple.

We also know that Arab Muslim immigration in the early 20th century exceeded Judaic immigration by about 3~4 time. See previous graph and note previous link.

So yeah

Case closed. While the pronunciation argument might fall short, many others don't.

There is no such thing as a palestinian people

 

[Coyote]

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500?

What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now ...

I'll try to take a stab at these.

A people becomes a people when they develop a sufficiently distinct culture which sets them apart from other cultures. Its a fluid and ill-defined process and is far from black-and-white. It is also approached from at least three different points of view and might appear different depending on one's perspective. Thus outsiders might look at a people and see no distinction at all between Palestinians and Jordanians while Palestinians see the difference very clearly and Jordanians are somewhere in between. So who is "right"? One could argue that if the distinction is not obvious to outsiders then, it is not enough of a distinction. One could also argue that outsiders are notorious for lumping people together with only vague similarities. And there are complicating factors, such as cultures which have adopted and internalized foreign invading cultures into their own.

Is the Canadian culture sufficiently distinct from the American culture? Is Columbian culture sufficiently distinct from Argentine culture? Which factors or criteria do we use to determine this?

The issue with the Palestinian identity is that it is almost entirely based on territory. The difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian is not culture, but place of origin. The question is whether or not this is sufficient to consider them a distinct people. The Palestinian identity is also based on hostility towards or conflict with Israel/the Jewish people

It seems apparent to me that neither of these things are enough to consider this people a distinct culture.

. . . .

I totally agree with your first two paragraphs - it's what I've been trying to say also. I disagree though, that the fact that the Palestinian identity is based almost entirely on territory somehow makes it less viable. Many identities are geographic in origin. The Palestinians have cultural differences from surrounding Arab peoples - whether they are distinct enough to "count" is up to argument. What is not up to argument is that they are people who (in many cases) have been there a long time - whatever you choose to call them. As you pointed out - how different is the Canadian culture from the American culture (and is there even one cohesive identifiable culture each)?

But...who gets to decide? Should there be an objective criteria? Or is it sufficient for the culture and people to view themselves as distinct and act as though they are? Is self-identification the correct measure? It seems to me that it is the only practical measure. Since people who see themselves as distinct will act accordingly.

In another conversation somewhere, this came up in regards to race and identification - how much is enough to make one black or native american? I feel it's up to the people of that group and the individual. It's not up to me, a white person, to decide who is or is not "black enough" for example.

. . . .

It makes no difference whatsoever when a culture comes into its identity, as far as I am concerned. 50 years, a thousand years, ten thousand years. No difference.

. . . .

Once a people has started to act as though they are a distinct people there is nothing to be done but to approach and work with them from that understanding. It just is. Its a practical point of view.

. . . .

I fully agree

That said, the concern, and it is big one, with the "invention" or development of the Palestinian people, being based on claiming territory and on opposition to the Jewish people rather than a true identity, is that these two things become the focus of the people, rather than on developing their own identity and raison d'etre. This changes the dynamics significantly. I'm not convinced that it is enough. I'm not convinced that it is not ultimately detrimental.

This is one of the reasons why I suggest that Palestinians come under Jordanian sovereignty for now. To see if they would persist in gaining independence and self-rule from the Jordanians. It would be a test to see if they had an identity other than one of opposition to Israel. Does that makes sense?

I don't think it changes the dynamics of whether or not they are a people - many people have determined their identify through opposition - for example some seccessionist movements. I do see what you are saying but...I think, by now, their identify has solidified, it's not going to disappear.

 

[Coyote]

So you can't answer any of the questions?

Why should I answer questions you pose in order to escape the truth?

When are you going to even acknowledge the truth at all? I have explained exactly why these "Palestinians" were created, yet you ignore this to advance you dogma.

You won't answer the questions because you cant. If you did your entire "truth" would show to be a house of cards.

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500? What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now and regardless of what name they have carried, they have been there for while.

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

Actually, I think your answer is itself a red herring. Or maybe it's a blue one.... because you don't actually answer the questions and like Dogma, you dodge them by throwing out the color of the sky. It doesn't matter what color the sky is and it has no effect on people what you decide it is.

So can you actually answer the questions I put to Dogma?

My statement is that the Palestinians are a people. I don't care if they are "distinct" or not - there are many "peoples" who are only marginally distinct from neighboring peoples (if at all) yet I have never seen an argument made trying to claim they don't exist.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

YOU might feel they have no discernible characteristics - but THEY don't. So who determines whether or not they are a people? You? Or them?

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

Are you trying to claim that the Saudi's, Egyptions, Syrians, Libyans, Kurds, Iraqi's, Lebonese, Palestinians are all the the same culture?

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

So...can you actually answer my questions? Dogma won't.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So you can't answer any of the questions?

Why should I answer questions you pose in order to escape the truth?

When are you going to even acknowledge the truth at all? I have explained exactly why these "Palestinians" were created, yet you ignore this to advance you dogma.

You won't answer the questions because you cant. If you did your entire "truth" would show to be a house of cards.

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500? What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now and regardless of what name they have carried, they have been there for while.

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

Actually, I think your answer is itself a red herring. Or maybe it's a blue one.... because you don't actually answer the questions and like Dogma, you dodge them by throwing out the color of the sky. It doesn't matter what color the sky is and it has no effect on people what you decide it is.

So can you actually answer the questions I put to Dogma?

My statement is that the Palestinians are a people. I don't care if they are "distinct" or not - there are many "peoples" who are only marginally distinct from neighboring peoples (if at all) yet I have never seen an argument made trying to claim they don't exist.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

YOU might feel they have no discernible characteristics - but THEY don't. So who determines whether or not they are a people? You? Or them?

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

Are you trying to claim that the Saudi's, Egyptions, Syrians, Libyans, Kurds, Iraqi's, Lebonese, Palestinians are all the the same culture?

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

So...can you actually answer my questions? Dogma won't.

How cute -- you demand people answer your straw man and then turn around and accuse them of offering a red herring.

 

[Coyote]

So you can't answer any of the questions?

Why should I answer questions you pose in order to escape the truth?

When are you going to even acknowledge the truth at all? I have explained exactly why these "Palestinians" were created, yet you ignore this to advance you dogma.

You won't answer the questions because you cant. If you did your entire "truth" would show to be a house of cards.

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500? What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now and regardless of what name they have carried, they have been there for while.

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

Actually, I think your answer is itself a red herring. Or maybe it's a blue one.... because you don't actually answer the questions and like Dogma, you dodge them by throwing out the color of the sky. It doesn't matter what color the sky is and it has no effect on people what you decide it is.

So can you actually answer the questions I put to Dogma?

My statement is that the Palestinians are a people. I don't care if they are "distinct" or not - there are many "peoples" who are only marginally distinct from neighboring peoples (if at all) yet I have never seen an argument made trying to claim they don't exist.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

YOU might feel they have no discernible characteristics - but THEY don't. So who determines whether or not they are a people? You? Or them?

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

Are you trying to claim that the Saudi's, Egyptions, Syrians, Libyans, Kurds, Iraqi's, Lebonese, Palestinians are all the the same culture?

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

So...can you actually answer my questions? Dogma won't.

How cute -- you demand people answer your straw man and then turn around and accuse them of offering a red herring.

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them though Susha did. You might want to look up the meaning of strawman while you are at it.

 

[Indeependent]

Why should I answer questions you pose in order to escape the truth?

When are you going to even acknowledge the truth at all? I have explained exactly why these "Palestinians" were created, yet you ignore this to advance you dogma.

You won't answer the questions because you cant. If you did your entire "truth" would show to be a house of cards.

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500? What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now and regardless of what name they have carried, they have been there for while.

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

Actually, I think your answer is itself a red herring. Or maybe it's a blue one.... because you don't actually answer the questions and like Dogma, you dodge them by throwing out the color of the sky. It doesn't matter what color the sky is and it has no effect on people what you decide it is.

So can you actually answer the questions I put to Dogma?

My statement is that the Palestinians are a people. I don't care if they are "distinct" or not - there are many "peoples" who are only marginally distinct from neighboring peoples (if at all) yet I have never seen an argument made trying to claim they don't exist.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

YOU might feel they have no discernible characteristics - but THEY don't. So who determines whether or not they are a people? You? Or them?

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

Are you trying to claim that the Saudi's, Egyptions, Syrians, Libyans, Kurds, Iraqi's, Lebonese, Palestinians are all the the same culture?

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

So...can you actually answer my questions? Dogma won't.

How cute -- you demand people answer your straw man and then turn around and accuse them of offering a red herring.

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them.

Did they have a central government recognized by other governments?

 

[Coyote]

You won't answer the questions because you cant. If you did your entire "truth" would show to be a house of cards.

When does a people become a people?
Who had the right to determine whether they are a people or not?

What difference does it make whether they formed an identity 50 years ago or 500? What difference does it make how they came to be since they are here, now and regardless of what name they have carried, they have been there for while.

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

Actually, I think your answer is itself a red herring. Or maybe it's a blue one.... because you don't actually answer the questions and like Dogma, you dodge them by throwing out the color of the sky. It doesn't matter what color the sky is and it has no effect on people what you decide it is.

So can you actually answer the questions I put to Dogma?

My statement is that the Palestinians are a people. I don't care if they are "distinct" or not - there are many "peoples" who are only marginally distinct from neighboring peoples (if at all) yet I have never seen an argument made trying to claim they don't exist.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

YOU might feel they have no discernible characteristics - but THEY don't. So who determines whether or not they are a people? You? Or them?

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

Are you trying to claim that the Saudi's, Egyptions, Syrians, Libyans, Kurds, Iraqi's, Lebonese, Palestinians are all the the same culture?

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

So...can you actually answer my questions? Dogma won't.

How cute -- you demand people answer your straw man and then turn around and accuse them of offering a red herring.

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them.

Did they have a central government recognized by other governments?

What does that have to do with being a "people"?

Can you answer my questions or are you going to dodge?

 

[Boston1]

LOL, no, the premise of your question is a fallacy and so until we clear that up there really can't be much of an answer.

Your sneaking up on admitting there is no such thing as palestinians just like there is not such thing as Atlantians.

If I asked you to assign rights to Atlantians and grant them a homeland within your capitol how would you respond ?

I could argue that once upon a time there must have been a continent named Atlantis and that people must have lived there known as Atlantians. You yourself have said recently that the time frame is irrelevant. We could pick some people based on location only and say they are the descendants of these Atlantians and they are deserving of rights.

We could build an entire myth based off your criteria for the pali's and apply it to anyone anywhere. And demand answers.

Sorry but you are going to have to find some justification for awarding more Arab Muslims more land and why it should be sliced from Israel. Because so far the only justification seems to be racism and bigotry.

 

[Indeependent]

Who has a right to decide if the sky is green or not, or purple or lemon yellow ?

The question is a red herring as it assumes the sky isn't blue.

Your assumption that the pali's ARE A DISTINCT PEOPLE has yet to EVER be justified. Its a false statement no different than if I claimed the sky was green and demanded to know who had a right to decide what color it was.

Actually, I think your answer is itself a red herring. Or maybe it's a blue one.... because you don't actually answer the questions and like Dogma, you dodge them by throwing out the color of the sky. It doesn't matter what color the sky is and it has no effect on people what you decide it is.

So can you actually answer the questions I put to Dogma?

My statement is that the Palestinians are a people. I don't care if they are "distinct" or not - there are many "peoples" who are only marginally distinct from neighboring peoples (if at all) yet I have never seen an argument made trying to claim they don't exist.

The FACT that the Arab Muslims of the mandated areas, French and British, were Arab Muslims is extremely well established. They have NO DISCERNIBLE CHARACTERISTICS that might define them from one another.

YOU might feel they have no discernible characteristics - but THEY don't. So who determines whether or not they are a people? You? Or them?

No mater how many areas you slice the mandated lands into you still don't have more than one Arab Muslim culture, heritage, history, language, customs, style of dress, religion. NOTHING to distinguish any as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in the area.

Are you trying to claim that the Saudi's, Egyptions, Syrians, Libyans, Kurds, Iraqi's, Lebonese, Palestinians are all the the same culture?

You are constantly saying that a people are being disenfranchised when in fact there are no people to disenfranchise. Instead you are enfranchising a myth.

So no it doesn't matter how you pronounce a given term, if the term itself isn't applicable in the first place.

The goal isn't to disenfranchise anyone, its to stick to the 77% 23% split the Arabs already have. Instead of give them more, and then a little more, and then a little more, until finally the stated goal of the Arabs is achieved, no more Israel.

So...can you actually answer my questions? Dogma won't.

How cute -- you demand people answer your straw man and then turn around and accuse them of offering a red herring.

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them.

Did they have a central government recognized by other governments?

What does that have to do with being a "people"?

Can you answer my questions or are you going to dodge?

Stop it with your Liberal dodge nonsense.
In other words, the answer is that these nomads had no central government recognized by other governments.
Fine, but that doesn't mean anyone SHOULD have the moral right to just uproot them.
But no one did...they uprooted themselves...they DIDN'T STAY to protect their land from their fellow Arabs.
RIGHT?
So now we have to revise history by using a newspaper headline from 100 years before the event that this 1948 event was planned 150 years before it actually happened.
What I REALLY want out of this is next Wednesday's winning Powerball Numbers because apparently Jews are prophets.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, I think your answer is itself a red herring. Or maybe it's a blue one.... because you don't actually answer the questions and like Dogma, you dodge them by throwing out the color of the sky. It doesn't matter what color the sky is and it has no effect on people what you decide it is.

So can you actually answer the questions I put to Dogma?

My statement is that the Palestinians are a people. I don't care if they are "distinct" or not - there are many "peoples" who are only marginally distinct from neighboring peoples (if at all) yet I have never seen an argument made trying to claim they don't exist.

YOU might feel they have no discernible characteristics - but THEY don't. So who determines whether or not they are a people? You? Or them?

Are you trying to claim that the Saudi's, Egyptions, Syrians, Libyans, Kurds, Iraqi's, Lebonese, Palestinians are all the the same culture?

So...can you actually answer my questions? Dogma won't.

How cute -- you demand people answer your straw man and then turn around and accuse them of offering a red herring.

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them.

Did they have a central government recognized by other governments?

What does that have to do with being a "people"?

Can you answer my questions or are you going to dodge?

Stop it with your Liberal dodge nonsense.
In other words, the answer is that these nomads had no central government recognized by other governments.
Fine, but that doesn't mean anyone SHOULD have the moral right to just uproot them.
But no one did...they uprooted themselves...they DIDN'T STAY to protect their land from their fellow Arabs.
RIGHT?
So now we have to revise history by using a newspaper headline from 100 years before the event that this 1948 event was planned 150 years before it actually happened.
What I REALLY want out of this is next Wednesday's winning Powerball Numbers because apparently Jews are prophets.

A people isn't necessarily a nation - you're talking about nations. They didn't all uproot themselves - they were forceably expelled and fled conflict in many cases - like a lot of refugees.

Can you let me know about the powerball....?

 

[Indeependent]

How cute -- you demand people answer your straw man and then turn around and accuse them of offering a red herring.

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them.

Did they have a central government recognized by other governments?

What does that have to do with being a "people"?

Can you answer my questions or are you going to dodge?

Stop it with your Liberal dodge nonsense.
In other words, the answer is that these nomads had no central government recognized by other governments.
Fine, but that doesn't mean anyone SHOULD have the moral right to just uproot them.
But no one did...they uprooted themselves...they DIDN'T STAY to protect their land from their fellow Arabs.
RIGHT?
So now we have to revise history by using a newspaper headline from 100 years before the event that this 1948 event was planned 150 years before it actually happened.
What I REALLY want out of this is next Wednesday's winning Powerball Numbers because apparently Jews are prophets.

A people isn't necessarily a nation - you're talking about nations. They didn't all uproot themselves - they were forceably expelled and fled conflict in many cases - like a lot of refugees.

Can you let me know about the powerball....?

I can't tell if you just tossed me a general statement about nations vs people or a specific statement about the nomads later labeled "Palestinians".
If I win the Powerball this week I will toss you a $1,000.00 for good luck; better pray for me.

 

[Boston1]

I think you meant to say "a person isn't necessarily a nation "

You seem fixated on individual rights. But those individual rights are based on ones individual actions. A criminal might lose their rights in a similar way a combatants will forfeit their status as a protected person.

The UNWRA has refused under any circumstances to segregate combatants from protected persons in the middle east conflict.

So unless you address the issue of assigning wartime status under the Geneva Conventions to the Arab Muslims individually then its not only unreasonable but disingenuous to assign them rights collectively given their propensity towards violence

 

[Coyote]

LOL, no, the premise of your question is a fallacy and so until we clear that up there really can't be much of an answer.

Your sneaking up on admitting there is no such thing as palestinians just like there is not such thing as Atlantians.

If I asked you to assign rights to Atlantians and grant them a homeland within your capitol how would you respond ?

The premise of my question is not a fallacy.

IF the Atlantians had been driven out or expelled from their homeland - in a situation similar to that of the quagmire that is the Mandate/Palestine/Israel - then yes, they would have the same rights as the Palestinians. If they had long standing roots in that region - then yes, again.

I could argue that once upon a time there must have been a continent named Atlantis and that people must have lived there known as Atlantians. You yourself have said recently that the time frame is irrelevant. We could pick some people based on location only and say they are the descendants of these Atlantians and they are deserving of rights.

We could build an entire myth based off your criteria for the pali's and apply it to anyone anywhere. And demand answers.

Accept the two aren't really comparable. Palestine has long been a named region that exists. Real people inhabit it - what ever name you give it and what ever name you give the region. The evidence for the existance of both the region and the people is clear.

There has never been solid evidence for Atlantis, it doesn't exist in today's world. If someone wanted to claim descendency they would have to prove it. They'd have to actually locate Atlantis before they could claim any sort of state, and then make a case for it. I have no problem with that but I doubt it would go very far...in fact...reminds me of Emperor Norton of San Francisco. Anyone can make a case for being a people and having seperatist or nationalist rights, it happens all the time. Some will have stronger claims than others.

Sorry but you are going to have to find some justification for awarding more Arab Muslims more land and why it should be sliced from Israel. Because so far the only justification seems to be racism and bigotry.

The grouping you call "Arab Muslims" is a comglomerate of many different cultures. The Palestinians are one of those and, frankly, they've lived on the land for centuries, regardless of what you call them.

Who decides what is a people?
What makes a culture distinct enough?

 

[Coyote]

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them.

Did they have a central government recognized by other governments?

What does that have to do with being a "people"?

Can you answer my questions or are you going to dodge?

Stop it with your Liberal dodge nonsense.
In other words, the answer is that these nomads had no central government recognized by other governments.
Fine, but that doesn't mean anyone SHOULD have the moral right to just uproot them.
But no one did...they uprooted themselves...they DIDN'T STAY to protect their land from their fellow Arabs.
RIGHT?
So now we have to revise history by using a newspaper headline from 100 years before the event that this 1948 event was planned 150 years before it actually happened.
What I REALLY want out of this is next Wednesday's winning Powerball Numbers because apparently Jews are prophets.

A people isn't necessarily a nation - you're talking about nations. They didn't all uproot themselves - they were forceably expelled and fled conflict in many cases - like a lot of refugees.

Can you let me know about the powerball....?

I can't tell if you just tossed me a general statement about nations vs people or a specific statement about the nomads later labeled "Palestinians".
If I win the Powerball this week I will toss you a $1,000.00 for good luck; better pray for me.

You have my prayers dude...I'm broke and eating Taco Hell

Somewhere you mentioned did they have a recognized government or something - that was what I was thinking of.

 

[Indeependent]

Did they have a central government recognized by other governments?

What does that have to do with being a "people"?

Can you answer my questions or are you going to dodge?

Stop it with your Liberal dodge nonsense.
In other words, the answer is that these nomads had no central government recognized by other governments.
Fine, but that doesn't mean anyone SHOULD have the moral right to just uproot them.
But no one did...they uprooted themselves...they DIDN'T STAY to protect their land from their fellow Arabs.
RIGHT?
So now we have to revise history by using a newspaper headline from 100 years before the event that this 1948 event was planned 150 years before it actually happened.
What I REALLY want out of this is next Wednesday's winning Powerball Numbers because apparently Jews are prophets.

A people isn't necessarily a nation - you're talking about nations. They didn't all uproot themselves - they were forceably expelled and fled conflict in many cases - like a lot of refugees.

Can you let me know about the powerball....?

I can't tell if you just tossed me a general statement about nations vs people or a specific statement about the nomads later labeled "Palestinians".
If I win the Powerball this week I will toss you a $1,000.00 for good luck; better pray for me.

You have my prayers dude...I'm broke and eating Taco Hell

Somewhere you mentioned did they have a recognized government or something - that was what I was thinking of.

Yep, that's what I mentioned.
They were never cared for or protected by their fellow Arabs because no Arab nation wanted non-Arabs to settle in the area.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them though Susha did. You might want to look up the meaning of strawman while you are at it.

I have said they weren't a people when you claim they were a people, and I also state they were a people made up in order to serve the needs of propaganda aimed at low functioning leftists.

I have never said they aren't a people.

There is less difference in their customs compared to other Arabs as there are differences between Texans and Oregonians, but we have no need here to make up some fictitious "Oregonian" identity here complete with a retroactive history just so we can fool the easily fooled into doing our bidding. If we did so, however, and if we ingrained our children in our supposed distinctness long enough, in a couple of generations voila!

If we did that, however, only a completely dishonest person 50 years from now would try to claim were were a distinct people today or attempt all sort of straw man dodges calculated to distract away from those who pointed out the truth as to why we were created and what purposes that served. .

 

[Coyote]

Still ducking. They are straightforward questions since you make the claim they aren't a people. Thus far, you can't seem to answer them though Susha did. You might want to look up the meaning of strawman while you are at it.

I have said they weren't a people when you claim they were a people, and I also state they were a people made up in order to serve the needs of propaganda aimed at low functioning leftists.

I have never said they aren't a people.

So what are you saying? That they weren't a people at some point but are a people now? Your statement doesn't make much sense. Are they are aren't they?

There is less difference in their customs compared to other Arabs as there are differences between Texans and Oregonians, but we have no need here to make up some fictitious "Oregonian" identity here complete with a retroactive history just so we can fool the easily fooled into doing our bidding. If we did so, however, and if we ingrained our children in our supposed distinctness long enough, in a couple of generations voila!

There are many peoples with very little difference from one another, but no one accuses them of not being a people when they claim they are. At what point are a people a people - what and who determines that?

If we did that, however, only a completely dishonest person 50 years from now would try to claim were were a distinct people today or attempt all sort of straw man dodges calculated to distract away from those who pointed out the truth as to why we were created and what purposes that served. .

Every "people" had to start somewhere. So the Palestinians incorporated their identity as a people relatively recently - so what? They'd lived there for ages, they have roots in the area from which they took the name - why should it be an issue?