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

[Indeependent]

Fine. Did the Jews come to the land and attack anybody?

Yes.

Let's get this clear...
You are stating that the Jews came to the area and, without provocation, attacked the Arab nomads who lived there

That is not what you asked me.

Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am breaking our discussion down into discreet steps so as to avoid any confusion.

Once again...Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

I can't keep up with your moving goal posts. I answered your initial question. Jewish immigrants came to the area and without provocation attacked the British, who were in control of the region.

If you want a broader answer - the rise of both Jewish nationalist aspirations and Arab nationalist aspirations collided with a great deal of mutual violence - Arab and Jewish with Irgun, and other militias. Who came into what area and "without provocation" attacked is impossible to discern. What is true is civilians, markets, trains and buses were targeted and by both sides. Also, at this time - most of the Jewish population was immigrant and there were high levels of illegal Jewish immigration which stoked Arab fears of displacement and fed Arab intolerance towards Jews.

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

 

[Coyote]

Yes.

Let's get this clear...
You are stating that the Jews came to the area and, without provocation, attacked the Arab nomads who lived there

That is not what you asked me.

Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am breaking our discussion down into discreet steps so as to avoid any confusion.

Once again...Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

I can't keep up with your moving goal posts. I answered your initial question. Jewish immigrants came to the area and without provocation attacked the British, who were in control of the region.

If you want a broader answer - the rise of both Jewish nationalist aspirations and Arab nationalist aspirations collided with a great deal of mutual violence - Arab and Jewish with Irgun, and other militias. Who came into what area and "without provocation" attacked is impossible to discern. What is true is civilians, markets, trains and buses were targeted and by both sides. Also, at this time - most of the Jewish population was immigrant and there were high levels of illegal Jewish immigration which stoked Arab fears of displacement and fed Arab intolerance towards Jews.

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

Ok...I'll aim for your new goal posts and say no. Now where are you going to take this exercise?

 

[Coyote]

Yes.

Let's get this clear...
You are stating that the Jews came to the area and, without provocation, attacked the Arab nomads who lived there

That is not what you asked me.

Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am breaking our discussion down into discreet steps so as to avoid any confusion.

Once again...Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

I can't keep up with your moving goal posts. I answered your initial question. Jewish immigrants came to the area and without provocation attacked the British, who were in control of the region.

If you want a broader answer - the rise of both Jewish nationalist aspirations and Arab nationalist aspirations collided with a great deal of mutual violence - Arab and Jewish with Irgun, and other militias. Who came into what area and "without provocation" attacked is impossible to discern. What is true is civilians, markets, trains and buses were targeted and by both sides. Also, at this time - most of the Jewish population was immigrant and there were high levels of illegal Jewish immigration which stoked Arab fears of displacement and fed Arab intolerance towards Jews.

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

By Arab Nomads I assume you are talking about the Beduoin?

 

[Indeependent]

Let's get this clear...
You are stating that the Jews came to the area and, without provocation, attacked the Arab nomads who lived there

That is not what you asked me.

Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am breaking our discussion down into discreet steps so as to avoid any confusion.

Once again...Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

I can't keep up with your moving goal posts. I answered your initial question. Jewish immigrants came to the area and without provocation attacked the British, who were in control of the region.

If you want a broader answer - the rise of both Jewish nationalist aspirations and Arab nationalist aspirations collided with a great deal of mutual violence - Arab and Jewish with Irgun, and other militias. Who came into what area and "without provocation" attacked is impossible to discern. What is true is civilians, markets, trains and buses were targeted and by both sides. Also, at this time - most of the Jewish population was immigrant and there were high levels of illegal Jewish immigration which stoked Arab fears of displacement and fed Arab intolerance towards Jews.

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

By Arab Nomads I assume you are talking about the Beduoin?

Could be; I don't know Arabic and I wasn't alive in 1948.
So to make you happy, I'll amend the question...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arabs who lived there?

 

[Coyote]

That is not what you asked me.

Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am breaking our discussion down into discreet steps so as to avoid any confusion.

Once again...Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

I can't keep up with your moving goal posts. I answered your initial question. Jewish immigrants came to the area and without provocation attacked the British, who were in control of the region.

If you want a broader answer - the rise of both Jewish nationalist aspirations and Arab nationalist aspirations collided with a great deal of mutual violence - Arab and Jewish with Irgun, and other militias. Who came into what area and "without provocation" attacked is impossible to discern. What is true is civilians, markets, trains and buses were targeted and by both sides. Also, at this time - most of the Jewish population was immigrant and there were high levels of illegal Jewish immigration which stoked Arab fears of displacement and fed Arab intolerance towards Jews.

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

By Arab Nomads I assume you are talking about the Beduoin?

Could be; I don't know Arabic and I wasn't alive in 1948.
So to make you happy, I'll amend the question...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arabs who lived there?

Nope.

 

[Indeependent]

I am breaking our discussion down into discreet steps so as to avoid any confusion.

Once again...Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

I can't keep up with your moving goal posts. I answered your initial question. Jewish immigrants came to the area and without provocation attacked the British, who were in control of the region.

If you want a broader answer - the rise of both Jewish nationalist aspirations and Arab nationalist aspirations collided with a great deal of mutual violence - Arab and Jewish with Irgun, and other militias. Who came into what area and "without provocation" attacked is impossible to discern. What is true is civilians, markets, trains and buses were targeted and by both sides. Also, at this time - most of the Jewish population was immigrant and there were high levels of illegal Jewish immigration which stoked Arab fears of displacement and fed Arab intolerance towards Jews.

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

By Arab Nomads I assume you are talking about the Beduoin?

Could be; I don't know Arabic and I wasn't alive in 1948.
So to make you happy, I'll amend the question...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arabs who lived there?

Nope.

Next question...
Was Israel, in 1948, attacked without provocation by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

 

[Shusha]

No they weren't. The bedouins are bedouins - a distinct people.

Isn't that the crux of the issue though. What makes Bedouins a distinct people? How do you know they are a distinct people?

See, you toss around these definitions just like Boston and Dogma and the others do. But we (collectively) have not actually determined what criteria should be used to decide what makes a distinct people.

Some are arguing that there should be an objective, measureable criteria. Others argue that it should be a subjective self-identification -- if you say you are a people -- then you are a people.

When you have two groups of people (and not necessarily distinct peoples) competing for the same territory the ability to demand rights without having an objective, measurable criteria is problematic. The motivation for developing a self-identifying subjective distinct 'peopleness' is only to deny territory to another group. It becomes a political tool rather than a genuine outgrowth of a developing distinct culture. (There is a reason why, in the past, people were forced into a population exchange in order to develop homogeneous States.)

But here are two simple tests:

1. Let's say Israel lost the 1967 war. Let's say that they were able to retain all of the land under their control, but did not manage to exert control over the West Bank, sections of Jerusalem and Gaza. Let's say, therefore, that Jordan retained control of the WB and parts of Jerusalem and Egypt retains control of Gaza. Would the "Palestinians" be fighting for independence, self-rule and sovereignty? Yes or no? Why or why not? Would they have rights to independence, self-rule and sovereignty? Why or why not?

2. Let's say the surrounding Arab nations failed to ethnically cleanse their lands of the Jewish people. Let's say, in fact, that the Jewish people, strengthened by their successes in Eretz Israel, decided that they too would like to have independence, self-rule and sovereignty on land where they have long-standing residence. Actually, let's push it even further and say that the Jewish people of Europe sought the same. Would you support that? Yes or no? Why or why not?

 

[Coyote]

I can't keep up with your moving goal posts. I answered your initial question. Jewish immigrants came to the area and without provocation attacked the British, who were in control of the region.

If you want a broader answer - the rise of both Jewish nationalist aspirations and Arab nationalist aspirations collided with a great deal of mutual violence - Arab and Jewish with Irgun, and other militias. Who came into what area and "without provocation" attacked is impossible to discern. What is true is civilians, markets, trains and buses were targeted and by both sides. Also, at this time - most of the Jewish population was immigrant and there were high levels of illegal Jewish immigration which stoked Arab fears of displacement and fed Arab intolerance towards Jews.

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

By Arab Nomads I assume you are talking about the Beduoin?

Could be; I don't know Arabic and I wasn't alive in 1948.
So to make you happy, I'll amend the question...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arabs who lived there?

Nope.

Next question...
Was Israel, in 1948, attacked without provocation by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

I won't say without provocation - there was provocation all around, the area was in civil war, territory was being fought for and various nationalist interests were trying to stake out their nations, Israel announced independence and others didn't agree. It wasn't exactly like Israel had been peacefully coexisting all this time and it's neighbors decided to jump it. The region was in turmoil. Israel won.

 

[Coyote]

No they weren't. The bedouins are bedouins - a distinct people.

Isn't that the crux of the issue though. What makes Bedouins a distinct people? How do you know they are a distinct people?

See, you toss around these definitions just like Boston and Dogma and the others do. But we (collectively) have not actually determined what criteria should be used to decide what makes a distinct people.

True, but the Bedouins are distinctly different from the other Palestinians. They have their own long standing history and culture- they are the true Arabs and are as different culturally from the Palestinian Muslim farmers and city dwellers as they are from the Palestinian Jews.

Some are arguing that there should be an objective, measureable criteria. Others argue that it should be a subjective self-identification -- if you say you are a people -- then you are a people.

I think it's impossible to have an objective measurable criteria - though I could be convinced otherwise if someone can come up with some.

When you have two groups of people (and not necessarily distinct peoples) competing for the same territory the ability to demand rights without having an objective, measurable criteria is problematic. The motivation for developing a self-identifying subjective distinct 'peopleness' is only to deny territory to another group. It becomes a political tool rather than a genuine outgrowth of a developing distinct culture. (There is a reason why, in the past, people were forced into a population exchange in order to develop homogeneous States.)

Interesting way of putting it...

But here are two simple tests:

1. Let's say Israel lost the 1967 war. Let's say that they were able to retain all of the land under their control, but did not manage to exert control over the West Bank, sections of Jerusalem and Gaza. Let's say, therefore, that Jordan retained control of the WB and parts of Jerusalem and Egypt retains control of Gaza. Would the "Palestinians" be fighting for independence, self-rule and sovereignty? Yes or no? Why or why not? Would they have rights to independence, self-rule and sovereignty? Why or why not?

I have to say I'm not sure. They were under Jordan - but Jordan didn't want them and, I suspect vice versa - they did not want to be part of Jordan - right?. Would they have rights to independence, self-rule and sovereignty? I don't know.

But likewise - what if Israel had not been founded and Palestine/Transjordan had become one country - Jordan? Would the Jews have rights to independence, self-rule and sovereignty? What about the Druze?

2. Let's say the surrounding Arab nations failed to ethnically cleanse their lands of the Jewish people. Let's say, in fact, that the Jewish people, strengthened by their successes in Eretz Israel, decided that they too would like to have independence, self-rule and sovereignty on land where they have long-standing residence. Actually, let's push it even further and say that the Jewish people of Europe sought the same. Would you support that? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Good question and, again - I don't know. I think I'd have to look at it in a case by case manner. For example, what if the Jewish people in an area were heavily discrimminated against by the prevailing government, under attack, heavily restricted, the cultural expressions surpressed and their citizenship inferior or nonexistent - then yes, I would support their aspiraitons for some sort of autonomy and rights 100%.

 

[Shusha]

True, but the Bedouins are distinctly different from the other Palestinians. They have their own long standing history and culture- they are the true Arabs and are as different culturally from the Palestinian Muslim farmers and city dwellers as they are from the Palestinian Jews.

How so? What makes them different culturally?

I think it's impossible to have an objective measurable criteria - though I could be convinced otherwise if someone can come up with some.

And yet above, you seem to declare that the Bedouins have an objective measurable distinction from Palestinians. If you had agreed that self-identification was the only criteria, you would have simply said so. But you, too, seem to be searching for something more concrete than that.

Here are some ideas of objective, measurable criteria:

distinct language (not dialect); systems of laws; religious beliefs; religious structure; specific holidays; distinct life celebrations for gaining adulthood; marriage; birth of children, retirement or other milestones; death or burial rituals; myths and stories, including origin stories; specific food or food rituals; superstitions; symbols; songs or dances; ideology; moral beliefs; dress, clothing, jewelry, hairstyles and other adornment; body modification rituals; social conventions on how to treat guests, family, intimates.

There's probably more. But that is a great start.

 

[Coyote]

True, but the Bedouins are distinctly different from the other Palestinians. They have their own long standing history and culture- they are the true Arabs and are as different culturally from the Palestinian Muslim farmers and city dwellers as they are from the Palestinian Jews.

How so? What makes them different culturally?

For a start - they are nomadic.

Bedouin Culture

I think it's impossible to have an objective measurable criteria - though I could be convinced otherwise if someone can come up with some.

And yet above, you seem to declare that the Bedouins have an objective measurable distinction from Palestinians. If you had agreed that self-identification was the only criteria, you would have simply said so. But you, too, seem to be searching for something more concrete than that.

I said they have distinct cultural differences but that translate into "objective measurable" criteria. And yes - while I think self identification is an important part of it, there needs to be more. I agree.

Here are some ideas of objective, measurable criteria:

distinct language (not dialect); systems of laws; religious beliefs; religious structure; specific holidays; distinct life celebrations for gaining adulthood; marriage; birth of children, retirement or other milestones; death or burial rituals; myths and stories, including origin stories; specific food or food rituals; superstitions; symbols; songs or dances; ideology; moral beliefs; dress, clothing, jewelry, hairstyles and other adornment; body modification rituals; social conventions on how to treat guests, family, intimates.

There's probably more. But that is a great start.

I agree with most of those but don't see it as clear.

What counts - all of those - or some? For example you can have many English speaking peoples who are quite different (or Arab speaking).

How would you quantify and qualify differences? For example - language vs dialect. Dialects are the beginning of changes from one language to a new language. People speaking largely the same language may not be the same. People speaking a different dialect may be quite different. Are Americans (or Canadians) one people or many under a common umbrella?

Peoples aren't sharply divided until you get further and further apart - they are more like animals in evolution - gradual changes occuring with seperation, migrations, conquests until they become distinct from their ancestral population but at what point?

(I always see a lot more questions than answers)

 

[Shusha]

(I always see a lot more questions than answers)

Me too. I think its a good quality. Challenging our own thinking. Always a good idea. Thus, can progress be made.

 

[Boston1]

The problem with over analyzing things is that its way to easy to lose sight of the simple truths.

Bedouins also emigrated from the Arabian peninsula area, they just did so prior to the Muslim invasion. But they are no more endemic to Judea than the rest of the Arab Muslims.

 

[Indeependent]

Stop vacillating with peripheral bullshit.
Once again, without blind-siding away from the 1948 incoming Jews and the presently residing Arab Nomads...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arab nomads who lived there?

By Arab Nomads I assume you are talking about the Beduoin?

Could be; I don't know Arabic and I wasn't alive in 1948.
So to make you happy, I'll amend the question...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arabs who lived there?

Nope.

Next question...
Was Israel, in 1948, attacked without provocation by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

I won't say without provocation - there was provocation all around, the area was in civil war, territory was being fought for and various nationalist interests were trying to stake out their nations, Israel announced independence and others didn't agree. It wasn't exactly like Israel had been peacefully coexisting all this time and it's neighbors decided to jump it. The region was in turmoil. Israel won.

Let's try again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

 

[Shusha]

... territory was being fought for and various nationalist interests were trying to stake out their nations, Israel announced independence and others didn't agree.

Be wary of the bullshit here. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt were not trying to "stake out their nations". Their nations were already defined and accepted. There was no national interest of distinct "Palestinians" -- that developed after the 1967 conflict. The Arabs, as a whole, as a group, were trying to prevent an independent nation from being formed. Because it was a Jewish nation. They didn't agree that there should be a nation for the Jewish people. So they started a war to prevent it. They were morally wrong then and they are morally wrong now. The Jewish people have as much right to a nation as anyone else in the region.

 

[Phoenall]

So..back to the topic. I agree, it is pretty idiotic to make that claim but then politicians are known for that.

Read the op.






What claim is that then ? And explain why it is idiotic to make it ?

Read the posts, it is obvious to everyone else

 

[Phoenall]

Anat Berko, a conservative member of the Israeli Knesset, said there could be no Palestine because there’s no letter “P” in Arabic.

Applying the same logic then there are no Jews as there is no "J" in Hebrew!

What a racist little *****!

Yeah thing is that it's written as Yehudi and Ivrit in Hebrew, neither Jewish or Hebrew although there is a J in Jewish, However ,in Arabic there is no such thing as P...but there is a P in stupid.

Even the other arab muslims call the Palestinians balestinians as they are unable to pronounce Palestine. It is a standing Joke amongst muslims the world over that the PLO leader was suckered by the Russians in the 1960's into inventing a new "race" and could not get the pronunciation right

Ok...clearly there is no such thing as Palestinians since there is no p in Arabic and there is no such thing Jews since there is no j in the Hebrew alphabet. What are we going to do with all these people who think they are something their alphabet denies them? I predict a windfall for lawyers and counselors.

Just let them fight it out until only one is left standing, and then give the prize to the winner. I predict a massacre no matter what the outcome

 

[Coyote]

Anat Berko, a conservative member of the Israeli Knesset, said there could be no Palestine because there’s no letter “P” in Arabic.

Applying the same logic then there are no Jews as there is no "J" in Hebrew!

What a racist little *****!

Yeah thing is that it's written as Yehudi and Ivrit in Hebrew, neither Jewish or Hebrew although there is a J in Jewish, However ,in Arabic there is no such thing as P...but there is a P in stupid.

Even the other arab muslims call the Palestinians balestinians as they are unable to pronounce Palestine. It is a standing Joke amongst muslims the world over that the PLO leader was suckered by the Russians in the 1960's into inventing a new "race" and could not get the pronunciation right

Ok...clearly there is no such thing as Palestinians since there is no p in Arabic and there is no such thing Jews since there is no j in the Hebrew alphabet. What are we going to do with all these people who think they are something their alphabet denies them? I predict a windfall for lawyers and counselors.

Just let them fight it out until only one is left standing, and then give the prize to the winner. I predict a massacre no matter what the outcome

A spelling bee competition?

 

[Coyote]

By Arab Nomads I assume you are talking about the Beduoin?

Could be; I don't know Arabic and I wasn't alive in 1948.
So to make you happy, I'll amend the question...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arabs who lived there?

Nope.

Next question...
Was Israel, in 1948, attacked without provocation by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

I won't say without provocation - there was provocation all around, the area was in civil war, territory was being fought for and various nationalist interests were trying to stake out their nations, Israel announced independence and others didn't agree. It wasn't exactly like Israel had been peacefully coexisting all this time and it's neighbors decided to jump it. The region was in turmoil. Israel won.

Let's try again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

 

[Indeependent]

Could be; I don't know Arabic and I wasn't alive in 1948.
So to make you happy, I'll amend the question...
Did the Jews come to the area and, without provocation, attack the Arabs who lived there?

Nope.

Next question...
Was Israel, in 1948, attacked without provocation by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

I won't say without provocation - there was provocation all around, the area was in civil war, territory was being fought for and various nationalist interests were trying to stake out their nations, Israel announced independence and others didn't agree. It wasn't exactly like Israel had been peacefully coexisting all this time and it's neighbors decided to jump it. The region was in turmoil. Israel won.

Let's try again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?