Meanwhile in Palestine

[Meshugger]

"Deserving" or "Rights" have nothing to do with buildning nations. Never has, and never will be. All nations are either made by conquest or by recognition through diplomatic relations.

 

Again, a nation is not a blessing, it is a creation through power.

[Orogun01]

[

When you live for generations in the land with your own culture and laws - that land is yours. Regardless if the UN or some other countries give you their stamp of approval.

 

Israel had no buisness being established as it was. It was just asking for trouble and trouble came.

The fraktard "world leaders" wouldn't give the jews a piece of their own country, now would they?

 

I'm confused, aren't Jews originally from a tribe that lived in that land from thousands of years ago? What makes the Palestinians claim to the area more valid than the Jews?

Correction Jews are from a tribe that killed everyone else in that land a thousands of years ago and told the story in their best seller: The Bible.

[BruceVC]

[

When you live for generations in the land with your own culture and laws - that land is yours. Regardless if the UN or some other countries give you their stamp of approval.

 

Israel had no buisness being established as it was. It was just asking for trouble and trouble came.

The fraktard "world leaders" wouldn't give the jews a piece of their own country, now would they?

 

I'm confused, aren't Jews originally from a tribe that lived in that land from thousands of years ago? What makes the Palestinians claim to the area more valid than the Jews?

Correction Jews are from a tribe that killed everyone else in that land a thousands of years ago and told the story in their best seller: The Bible.

 

Buts thats the history of almost all old civilizations or nations, they survived by being the most brutal and annihilating there enemies or perceived enemies. Also why does this mean they aren't originally from the land that Israel and Palestine is now on?

[obyknven]

When you live for generations in the land with your own culture and laws - that land is yours. Regardless if the UN or some other countries give you their stamp of approval.

 

Israel had no buisness being established as it was. It was just asking for trouble and trouble came.

The fraktard "world leaders" wouldn't give the jews a piece of their own country, now would they?

 

I'm confused, aren't Jews originally from a tribe that lived in that land from thousands of years ago? What makes the Palestinians claim to the area more valid than the Jews?

Obviously not. Jews aren't tribe or ethnicity, it's just someone converted into Jeudaism. Ashkenazy is converted Slavs, Germans or Khazars. Sefarids have Hispanic/Moorish origin. Bucharian Jews have Central Asian origin, while Kavkaz Jews looks like other Kavkaz ethnicities. Chinese Jews are Asians and Ephiopic Jews are Africans. One tribe, yeah! More you can find easily in numerous anthropological and historical investigations .

 

 

for example this:

http://en.wikipedia....e_Jewish_People

 

To Calax. Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.

[Volourn]

"I'm confused, aren't Jews originally from a tribe that lived in that land from thousands of years ago? What makes the Palestinians claim to the area more valid than the Jews? "

 

Come on. Don't you know. There's a time limit. Plus, they're jews. they don't deserve nothing according to certain people.

[BruceVC]

When you live for generations in the land with your own culture and laws - that land is yours. Regardless if the UN or some other countries give you their stamp of approval.

 

Israel had no buisness being established as it was. It was just asking for trouble and trouble came.

The fraktard "world leaders" wouldn't give the jews a piece of their own country, now would they?

 

I'm confused, aren't Jews originally from a tribe that lived in that land from thousands of years ago? What makes the Palestinians claim to the area more valid than the Jews?

Obviously not. Jews aren't tribe or ethnicity, it's just someone converted into Jeudaism. Ashkenazy is converted Slavs, Germans or Khazars. Sefarids have Hispanic/Moorish origin. Bucharian Jews have Central Asian origin, while Kavkaz Jews looks like other Kavkaz ethnicities. Chinese Jews are Asians and Ephiopic Jews are Africans. One tribe, yeah! More you can find easily in numerous anthropological and historical investigations .

 

 

for example this:

http://en.wikipedia....e_Jewish_People

 

To Calax. Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.

 

Didn't the Moors and the Ottomans also conquer and subjugate many nations and civilizations , didn't they also convert people to Islam? But once again no one has answered my question. Why do the Palestinians have more historical right to the land that Israel is now on, and also even if some people have been converted to Judaism why don't the Jews have a right to the same land? Can you provide proof that the Palestinians are the "rightful " inheritors of the land, as they were also converted to Islam? Your link you provided states this when it says "Just as most contemporary Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people"

[Calax]

When you live for generations in the land with your own culture and laws - that land is yours. Regardless if the UN or some other countries give you their stamp of approval.

 

Israel had no buisness being established as it was. It was just asking for trouble and trouble came.

The fraktard "world leaders" wouldn't give the jews a piece of their own country, now would they?

 

I'm confused, aren't Jews originally from a tribe that lived in that land from thousands of years ago? What makes the Palestinians claim to the area more valid than the Jews?

Obviously not. Jews aren't tribe or ethnicity, it's just someone converted into Jeudaism. Ashkenazy is converted Slavs, Germans or Khazars. Sefarids have Hispanic/Moorish origin. Bucharian Jews have Central Asian origin, while Kavkaz Jews looks like other Kavkaz ethnicities. Chinese Jews are Asians and Ephiopic Jews are Africans. One tribe, yeah! More you can find easily in numerous anthropological and historical investigations .

 

Didn't the Moors and the Ottomans also conquer and subjugate many nations and civilizations , didn't they also convert people to Islam? But once again no one has answered my question. Why do the Palestinians have more historical right to the land that Israel is now on, and also even if some people have been converted to Judaism why don't the Jews have a right to the same land? Can you provide proof that the Palestinians are the "rightful " inheritors of the land, as they were also converted to Islam? Your link you provided states this when it says "Just as most contemporary Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people"

So you're saying that the Jewish people should keep their rights to the land they'd been forced off of a millennium ago because of a "homeland" claim from that time? What makes THEIR "homeland" inherently THEIRS rather than anyone else's? I mean, what's to claim that I should own Ireland because I can trace my bloodline back to an King there? It's my ancient homeland that my family ruled 1000 years ago... a more current claim than that of the Jewish peoples.

 

To Calax. Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.

Nor does stupidity and propaganda create truth from thin air, in the face of studies.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Calax

[Volourn]

"So you're saying that the Jewish people should keep their rights to the land they'd been forced off of a millennium ago because of a "homeland" claim from that time? What makes THEIR "homeland" inherently THEIRS rather than anyone else's? I mean, what's to claim that I should own Ireland because I can trace my bloodline back to an King there? It's my ancient homeland that my family ruled 1000 years ago... a more current claim than that of the Jewish peoples."

 

So.. if part a owns land... then party b steal party a land... then party c steals land from party b.. then years later party a steals land from party c... party c wins the moral rights to land ebcause they owned it 'most recently'?

 

WTF?

 

That's like if a robber steals froma robber who stole from me has more rights to what theys tole than I do? WTFH

 

Espicially, since once again, the whole concept of Palestinians and Palestine is some refroming of history to begin with.

 

The background of the whole area is a mess.

[obyknven]

...getting so drunk I die...

 

I mean, what's to claim that I should own Ireland because I can trace my bloodline back to an King there?...

Freudian slip detected

[Calax]

I know volo... which is the point people are trying to make. Now personally? I'm just gonna say that Palestine has the more legit claim because of how stuff worked out in the past 100ish years.

 

Edit: And Oby? It's not like I'm running around screaming at the top of my lungs "I'm IRISH BIAAAAATCH!" while guzzling some terrible irish whiskey and dancing a little jig.

 

I'm a friggin American. My cultural identity has more roots in the 1980's and the East Coast than it does to anything else, and to assume that I'm somehow going to be operating solely based on a small part of my heratige is hilarious.

 

After all, if we did that you'd still be running around trying to get from yurt to yurt and raze Europe to the ground like your Mongol forefathers.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Calax

[obyknven]

After all, if we did that you'd still be running around trying to get from yurt to yurt and raze Europe to the ground like your Mongol forefathers.

Now you repeat medieval Polish propaganda from fourth Muscovite–Lithuanian War (1512–1522).

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

The Polish message was similar to Bomhover's: the Muscovites are not Christians; they are cruel and barbaric; they are Asians and not Europeans; they are in league with Turks and the Tatars to destroy Christendom".

 

Why you use these backward stereotypes? Do you can't invent new lie about evil Russians?

[Zoraptor]

So.. if part a owns land... then party b steal party a land... then party c steals land from party b.. then years later party a steals land from party c... party c wins the moral rights to land ebcause they owned it 'most recently'?

Yep. Else, it will be welcome to our new Ethiopian overlords. Which will be fine actually, because in those circumstances we'll all be Ethiopians. "We were there x years ago" is a poor justification because if it's valid then it's a valid justification for pretty much everything. All Euros out of the americas etc etc.

 

Even if it could be a proper argument in some cases it isn't a proper argument in this case. Israel took Solomonic Israel from the Canaanites by a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide, so logically we should have a look for some extant Canaanites and give the land back to them.

[BruceVC]

 

So you're saying that the Jewish people should keep their rights to the land they'd been forced off of a millennium ago because of a "homeland" claim from that time? What makes THEIR "homeland" inherently THEIRS rather than anyone else's? I mean, what's to claim that I should own Ireland because I can trace my bloodline back to an King there? It's my ancient homeland that my family ruled 1000 years ago... a more current claim than that of the Jewish peoples.

 

[

 

What I am saying is that the argument that Jews have no historical right to the land where Israel is and that the Palestinians are the rightful owners makes no sense. I am saying both groups can trace there ancestry to the region in certain respects.

[Volourn]

Exactly.

[Calax]

However arbitrairly taking one side over the other because "our historical ancestry is older" is just stupid.

[BruceVC]

However arbitrairly taking one side over the other because "our historical ancestry is older" is just stupid.

 

I agree. But yet this is the argument you do hear from the Palestinians and Hamas, they often say that the Jews are "invaders" and "have no right to the land"

 

 

I am not saying who is more right or wrong. I am just saying that neither side can say they have more historical claim to the land, I think they both do in there own way

[Calax]

However arbitrairly taking one side over the other because "our historical ancestry is older" is just stupid.

 

I agree. But yet this is the argument you do hear from the Palestinians and Hamas, they often say that the Jews are "invaders" and "have no right to the land"

I am not saying who is more right or wrong. I am just saying that neither side can say they have more historical claim to the land, I think they both do in there own way

Honestly, I'd say that the Palestinians saying that are entirely correct.

 

Why?

 

Because there are people still alive who's entire life was forcibly changed by the outside force of the UN and Jewish people saying that they were no longer the owners of the land they lived on.

[BruceVC]

However arbitrairly taking one side over the other because "our historical ancestry is older" is just stupid.

 

I agree. But yet this is the argument you do hear from the Palestinians and Hamas, they often say that the Jews are "invaders" and "have no right to the land"

I am not saying who is more right or wrong. I am just saying that neither side can say they have more historical claim to the land, I think they both do in there own way

Honestly, I'd say that the Palestinians saying that are entirely correct.

 

Why?

 

Because there are people still alive who's entire life was forcibly changed by the outside force of the UN and Jewish people saying that they were no longer the owners of the land they lived on.

 

I am not disputing that the Palestinians haven't had a hard time, but it go's both ways.

 

It was the British when they passed the Balfour Declaration, after the First World War, that gave the land to the Jews. So why is it we don't blame the British for unfairly reneging on there promise to the Arabs that they would get a homeland? This interminable conflict between the Israeli's and the Palestinians is complex and has many layers. And you really can't say that the solution is as easy as saying "well one group has a more historical right to the land so they should be allowed to get it"

[Orogun01]

Ok everyone, we gave the Jews the land because we agreed that we like Jews better over those Palestine. I mean, they gave us Hollywood, they are rich and influential, why would we support those random strangers over our own Zionist loving movers and shakers?

[BBMorti]

The bible is never a valid root for making a claim in the real world

However arbitrairly taking one side over the other because "our historical ancestry is older" is just stupid.

 

I agree. But yet this is the argument you do hear from the Palestinians and Hamas, they often say that the Jews are "invaders" and "have no right to the land"

 

 

I am not saying who is more right or wrong. I am just saying that neither side can say they have more historical claim to the land, I think they both do in there own way

What historical claim do the jews have?

[BruceVC]

The bible is never a valid root for making a claim in the real world

However arbitrairly taking one side over the other because "our historical ancestry is older" is just stupid.

 

I agree. But yet this is the argument you do hear from the Palestinians and Hamas, they often say that the Jews are "invaders" and "have no right to the land"

 

 

I am not saying who is more right or wrong. I am just saying that neither side can say they have more historical claim to the land, I think they both do in there own way

What historical claim do the jews have?

 

What accurate historical claim do the Palestinians have?

[Oerwinde]

What historical claim do the jews have?

They conquered the area 3500 years ago and kicked out the people who lived there.

 

What accurate historical claim do the Palestinians have?

They conquered the area 1300 years ago and kicked out the people who lived there.

[BruceVC]

What historical claim do the jews have?

They conquered the area 3500 years ago and kicked out the people who lived there.

 

What accurate historical claim do the Palestinians have?

They conquered the area 1300 years ago and kicked out the people who lived there.

this is my point, both sides can claim historical rights to the land.

[Zoraptor]

Yes, but one of them has an uninterrupted history from, effectively, Baibars in 1260 to the present day while the other's possession terminated either 2500 or 2000 years ago, depending on how you measure it. That's not like Joseph Bloggstein turning up in Frankfurt in 1946 expecting to get his old property back having fled it in 1933, that's Joseph Bloggstein's great great (x100) grandson turning up and expecting his property back. Under those rules Italy has a legitimate claim to western Europe and the Mediterranean littoral, and I'd rather like north Germany, England, Denmark, Palestine, Switzerland, Italy and southern France back.

 

It was the British when they passed the Balfour Declaration, after the First World War, that gave the land to the Jews.

Nope, Balfour Declaration was 1917, during WW1 and was, as with their (contradictory, who'd a guessed) promises to the arab side, a ploy to get support vs the Ottomans and never intended to be fulfilled, hence British Mandate Palestine, not Israel in 1918.

 

So why is it we don't blame the British for unfairly reneging on there promise to the Arabs that they would get a homeland?

Anyone with any sense does blame the British, and the French, for being- frankly- dishonest colonialist scum who managed the difficult task of asterisking the region up even more than it was with their arbitrary line drawing, contradictory promises, flagrant outright lying and mealy mouthed White Man's Burden justifications for said self interested carve up and associated brutal repression and reliance on even more brutal proxy rulers. After all, it wasn't Saddam Hussein who first gassed Iraq's marsh arabs, it was the British as suggested by... Winston S Churchill, national hero.

[pmp10]

So why is it we don't blame the British for unfairly reneging on there promise to the Arabs that they would get a homeland?

Anyone with any sense does blame the British, and the French, for being- frankly- dishonest colonialist scum who managed the difficult task of asterisking the region up even more than it was with their arbitrary line drawing, contradictory promises, flagrant outright lying and mealy mouthed White Man's Burden justifications for said self interested carve up and associated brutal repression and reliance on even more brutal proxy rulers. After all, it wasn't Saddam Hussein who first gassed Iraq's marsh arabs, it was the British as suggested by... Winston S Churchill, national hero.

That's interesting.

I'd always thought that most people would put the blame on the British more for the manner of their exit from the region rather than the diplomacy of the war years.