Israel versus Palestinians

As we all know, there has never been a "Palestinian" people or nation-state in the history of this entire planet, yet the Arabs who were Jordanians one day and "Palestinians" the next would argue that.

As we all know, there are no laws inhibiting the civil rights of non-Jews in Israel, although some people would like to pretend there are, not a single law can be cited. Seeing as there are Arab Muslim CO's in the IDF, I think that example speaks for itself. (Israel is apartheid claims)

As we all know, the region had been under the Ottoman Turkish Empire for the last several centuries. By principle of conquest, as a result of WWI, that land was anyone's for the taking. The whole made up notion that land was "stolen" is completely false.

I think i'll start there.

 

1) Is wrong.
2) Is wrong.
3) Is wrong.

 

So you're telling me the people that fled to Jordan in anticipation of a war are suddenly Jordanians who suddenly chose to be Palestinians the next?

That wasn't how it went down. It wasn't for the taking.

I think I'll start there.

 

Yet no attempt to refute. Expected.

You can actually find interviews with Arabs in Israel who claim they're Palestinian and when asked where their parents were born, they would say "Afghanistan," "Jordan," etc. Ever seen the Jordanian flag? Hmmm... looks oddly familiar doesn't it?

Another misconception and half-truth I feel inclined to point out is that of the 1948 refugees (that are as a result of Arab influence mind you). Israel did allow refugees to return.
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3B693EFF5F4E4D4B852577D60051EF13

"No settlement has been reached.

The Arab refugees have not been able to return to their homes because Israel will not admit them. Israel has to date offered to repatriate only 100,000, [where was the Arab leaders allowing their Arab brothers to enter into their country?] and only as a part of a general peace settlement of all other issues.

The Arab refugees have not been able to gain a livelihood in the Arab lands where they are because there is insufficient opportunity for them to do so.

The Arab refugees have not received compensation for the property they abandoned, nor have the Jewish refugees in their turn."

Something to note is that the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine did put a value on Arab holdings, and it was stalemated due to Arabs arguing among themselves as to the exact amount. I emboldened an important part so no one can play the bias card, which I know everyone is so keen on doing. In reality, we call leaving a country in hopes that they'd be destroyed "treason." I guess many should be lucky they were allowed back in? Then again, why would Arab nations reject their own Arab brothers?

Do you know what a "principle" is? A parallel I should probably draw for you is that of the American Indian War. Based off principle, there was no wrongdoing. Why? Because the principle being that all tribes were already at war with each other, conquering each other for land and resources. What we did to them is no different than what they were already doing to each other, those who complain that we should give them land have nothing to support their stance, as principle reigns supreme.

The same principle can be applied to the military campaign the British spearheaded in the Levant during WWI against the Ottoman Turks. Was it against the Arab inhabitants themselves? No. In fact, the only reason there was quarreling among Arabs is because the British had promised them their own nation-states should they join them in the military campaign against the Ottomans. This happened during virtually the same exact time the Balfour Declaration came about.

A lot of half-truths.

Arab claim is that their claim, culturally, is greater than that of Judaism. Is that the case? No, not even slightly, they're off by virtually two millennia. Judaism is one of the few tribal religions that spans more than three millennia and still flourishes to this day. Islam lays claim to the Levant, and namely Jerusalem, which is funny, because Islam only came around during the 7th century.

The British Mandate came into effect during 1920-23, Jewish persecution was not at its heights, it was decades away. Which funny enough, is actually when Arab immigration occurred to the British Mandate. Prior to that, the Levant was not as populated as one would like to think.

http://archive.org/stream/jerusalemeinevo00schugoog#page/n42/mode/2up a German man, Dr. Ernst Gustav Schultz, provided a demographic of Jerusalem during the mid 19th century, left page. Jews were actually the predominate demographic.

Unfortunately for the Arabs, their claim is no stronger than the Ottoman Turks who held power over that region for the last several centuries. The "legality" of every Arab nation in that region that became as a result of WWI is just as "legal" as Israel. The thing people willingly ignore is the fact that the Arabs rejected the partition plan that lead to the 1948 war.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

"Against: 13

Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen."

The difference between Israel and the Arabs is that Israel has never gone to lengths in an attempt to completely destroy its neighbors. If Israel lost the 1948 war they would not exist, if they lost the 1967 war they would not exist, the same with the 1973 war. How many have been conducted by Israel with similar goals? Zero. In fact, their declaration supports the exact opposite.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpo...tion of establishment of state of israel.aspx

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."

 

Let me just correct you here. Over a thousand years ago, it was given many names, one of those were Palestine. What do you think Israel was before it was taken over? Israel didn't exist before 1948.

How many of those Palestinians that seeked refuge in Jordan almost a century ago went back? Oh you found how many interviews? Is it enough to speak for the hundreds of thousands that fled for refuge? I'm not sure why you won't consider what history says, I mean your argument is "hey I interviewed arabs in israel and none were born here". That's really weak, because no matter how many you interview, that sample size is insignificant and cannot speak for hundreds of thousands or go against what history says. Which might I add hasn't been properly challenged.

Besides, try doing the math. It happened almost 70 years ago. Obviously odds are their parents were born elsewhere, unless you're interviewing 50 year old people who's parents are at least 70 years in age.

Allow and actually returning are a big difference. It was a muslim majority country. The jewish took over it, forced the muslim to flee the country and that's how Israel was born and how it turned into a Jewish majority country.

Are you going to say the muslim converted and became jewish now?

http://time.com/3445003/mandatory-palestine/

I smell contradiction. I also can't believe you are comparing something that happened centuries ago with something that happened merely decades ago. It's right for the taking my ass, we are more civilized than that.

The Palestinians had their country taken and were forced out of their own country. I'm not sure what kind of response you expect from them after all these years.

 

This sums up your entire post quite well.

1. Name a Palestinian capital dating back at least 3,000 years.
2. Name a list of historical Palestinian leaders dating back at least 3,000 years.
3. Give me set borders of historical/ancient Palestine.
4. Give me references to ancient text referring to Palestine.
-In these references, give me sources of the text referring to it as a people and kingdom/state. There's a reason the name Palestine exists, but never once used in history as reference for a people or kingdom/state. I'll gladly educate you on why that is.
5. Give me archaeological evidence proving a kingdom/state of Palestine existed a minimum of 3,000 years ago.

And before you even begin with the "well Israel was only established in 1948!" Irrelevant. Judaism, the Jewish people, are by definition indigenous to the region. They're virtually the only culture that has existed, still exists, and identifies with a specific region that spans more than three millennia.

There was no such nation-state known as "Palestine." If there were, you'd be able to answer even ONE of the above questions, which I know you won't be able to.

The name Palestine is a regional name coined by the Greeks. The verb in Palestine is a transliteration of the verb in Philistine, "pelesh," meaning "invaders." The name has NEVER at any point in the history of this planet been used to denote a specific people/culture. Hence, we have literary examples of Herodotus making reference to the "Syrians of Palestine," never has there ever been historic literary/archaeological evidence proclaiming "the Palestinians of Palestine." Why? Because it would be a graven historic inaccuracy.

Palestine = regional name
Palest =/= name to denote a people/culture

If you were going to use it to denote a "people," it would be used in reference to ALL inhabitants in some general region in the Levant. Attempting to elevate it to anything greater will then force you to provide proof of cultural distinctiveness.

At the very least you could provide me with "Palestinian" currency. How about a list of past leaders?

Lastly, you've only been posting opinions backed by nothing. You haven't provided a single link to back up your claims other than some article written by a journalist who's as uneducated on this topic as the next guy who thinks land was "stolen" when for the last several hundred years it was under Ottoman control.

Something also to note, why are you so adamant in your defense of the Arabs (who left of their own free will) when virtually 900,000 Jews were exiled from Arab lands approaching the 1948 war?

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/littman_unhrc_wupj_17jul03.pdf

"9. In 1945 about 140,000 Jews lived in Iraq; 60,000 in Yemen and Aden; 35,000 in Syria; 5,000
in Lebanon; 90,000 in Egypt; 40,000 in Libya; 150,000 in Algeria; 120,000 in Tunisia; 300,000 in
Morocco, including Tangiers – a total of roughly 940,000 (and approximately 200,000 more in
Iran and Turkey). Of these indigenous communities, less than 50,000 Jews remain today – and in
the Arab world their number is barely 5,000, one-half of one percent of the overall total at the end
of the Second World War. "

E: Oh, right, because I always find this claim funny that the Arabs in Israel were "forced" to leave. Care to explain to me why the population in Israel was always increasing? With the exception of 1948 and 1967 when Arabs willingly denounced Israel with hopes they'd be destroyed? *cough* treason *cough* regardless, you're willfully ignorant of the fact that if Arabs were in fact "forced" to leave, the non-Jewish demographic would not be increasing. I'm failing to see how that's even a slightly logical claim. Are there any Israeli government records to back up that claim?

 

Let me ask you this before I consider reading any further and continuing. Because I didn't come here for history, I didn't expect to be reading so much.

You're telling me because there was no capital, no leaders etc. That the people who were forced out from where they grew up and their ancestors lived, they don't have a right to call it their country or get angry? They should walk away and think well the Jews did nothing wrong. It's called the Palestine Exodus for a reason.

I don't see why you're asking for a history lesson when you know the answer to it. You said there has never been "Palestinian" people and they are just people from Jordan who claimed to be Palestinian the next day. I proved otherwise and for some reason you're diverting the argument to asking for its history. You're acting like the people that lived there, and were forced out, aren't Palestinians and they must have made that name up. If they aren't Palestinians, what are the people who lived there before it became Israel called? You're saying that Israel was never called Palestine before the exodus. Maybe the Palestinians who fled to Jordan by force or fear are the same people from Jordan claiming to be a Palestinian the next day?

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. From what I'm seeing, you're saying the Jews did nothing wrong causing the exodus of several hundreds of thousands of people that lived there. And those several hundreds of thousands of people are called Israelis because it was named that after they were forced out or fled out of terror.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they exiled out of fear that Germany might come after them?

I'm sure they left out of their free will. Google Deir Yassin massacre.

 

Now I understand, you aren't actually interested in this topic and the history of it, you're only interested in what has happened the last few decades. Unfortunately, if you're going to debate this topic, it requires more research than that. "Palestinians" make a fictitious claim that somehow their "culture" extends further than Judaism, that there was a literal nation-state there and land was "stolen" from them. I've already refuted this point more than once now, you're just willfully ignoring what i've been saying.

So you really don't understand why that list exists. It exists because if you're a "people" then you can provide a history of said people.

I'll make this even easier for you.

What makes the "Palestinians" unique from the rest of the Arabs in the ME? What makes them unique from the Arabs in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, KSA, etc. The truth? Virtually nothing. Do you know what the "Arabization" was during the late century after Muhammad's death in which Islam conquered much of the known world?

Sorry what? And the Jews did what exactly to "cause" their exodus? They left of their own free will. No one was ever forced to leave. In fact, reports directly contradict those claims

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358?OpenDocument

"Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews. - "

"The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought."

........??? Are you reading anything i'm actually posting or linking you to?

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/littman_unhrc_wupj_17jul03.pdf

"7. Already in Iraq (1936, and especially the Baghdad farhud of 1941), Syria (1944, 1945), Egypt
and Libya (1945), and Aden (1947), murderous attacks had killed and wounded thousands. All these
events occurred before Israel’s independence. Here is a description from the official first-hand report
in 1945 by Tripoli’s Jewish community president Zachino Habib on what happened to Libyan Jews
in Tripoli, Zanzur, Zawiya, Casabat, Zitlin on 4-5 Nov. 1945: “The Arabs attacked Jews in obedience
to mysterious orders. Their outburst of bestial violence had no plausible motive. For fifty hours they
hunted men down, attacked houses and shops, killed men, women, old and young, horribly tortured
and dismembered Jews isolated in the interior.... In order to carry out the slaughter, the attackers
used various weapons: knives, daggers, sticks, clubs, iron bars, revolvers, and even hand grenades.” "

The numbers quoted were Jews exiled out of ARAB LANDS, NOT EUROPE.

https://youtu.be/cn4r7ZjG9Nc

I've already seen this argument dozens of times and it gets a little old. The Deir Yassin "massacre" was the same as any other military conflict that involved civilians unfortunately caught in the crossfire. It's the same as when Arabs scream "well what about the Nakba!!!" It was completely Arab propaganda to scare Arabs. It's the same as when the Egyptian military was claiming on their radios that they had taken Tel Aviv and were proclaiming victory was theirs, which then prompted Syria into joining the war effort. Come to find out, Egypt had lied the entire time, the Israeli military was winning on all fronts and Syria was devastated within days. (this was the Six Day War)

Seriously though are you even reading everything that i've said or linked to? Or just skimming?

 

Name a Jewish capital going back 3000 years. Oh wait there isn't one. Name a Roman capital going back 3000 years. Oh wait there isn't one. Name a French capital going back 3000 years. Oh wait there isn't one. Name a German capital going back 3000 years. Oh wait there isn't one. Your arguments are completely arbitrary and mean nothing.

 

You are such a racist. Native Americans were not just killing each other. They had very complex societies and complex diplomatic ties. Many were very peaceful people that did not war with each other at all. There are literally thousands of tribes and you can not generalize between them. The United States purposely and knowingly committed genocide against many tribes. American settlers moved west and if tribes tried to defend their land, the US military would come in and slaughter them. We herded them like Cattle from place to place and their land grew smaller and smaller. America's actions were indefensible, immoral, and criminal.

 

I take it you have no clue what the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel and Judah are. I'll ask a simple question that should spur interest when you realize the answer without me having to actually tell you. What is the Al-Aqsa Mosque built on top of?

E: To clarify, I don't think you actually understand your own argument. Denoting Roman capitals or any other civilization would require their culture to be as ancient as Judaism. Do you realize how old Judaism is? Judaism is one of the oldest tribal religions that still exists and flourishes, and maintains ties to its historic homeland in which their history is the most prominent. Which *news flash* just so happens to be Jerusalem, which does in fact date back three-millennia.


http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence
-of-the-king-david-bible-story/
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/merneptah-stele-faq.htm
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/readings/sennprism.html

Can the same types of archaeological proofs be provided for any other peoples? Not really. Jews are the only peoples that still identify with a specific place with proofs to back it.

Denying tribal warfare is about as asinine of a claim as it can get. So you're telling me that tribes did not compete for resources? They didn't conduct raids? They wouldn't push other tribes off their land, for land? I hope you realize there is archaeological evidence proving tribal warfare dating back several centuries. You're a prime example of someone who only acknowledges principle when it suits your own interest, but when it directly challenges/applies to your very own argument, you conveniently play the race card and how "criminal" and "immoral" it is. That's what we call hypocrisy.

 

You've just changed the goal posts. Egyptian civilization is older than Jews and they controlled the region therefore they should control it now. That's your logic. It makes no sense.

You are such a racist little fuck. There are literally tens of thousands of distinct Native American cultures. They were not all warmongers. Plenty coexisted just fine. Plenty fought one another. You lump them all together and call them savages which is a racist and bigoted and asinine view of the world.

 

Sorry what? Check the date of that report then check the date of the Palestine exodus. Ironically your link shows the map of Palestine before the exodus. Hilarious.

Anyway the fact that you keep using the word "flourish" among others to praise Judaism tells me you probably have a biased opinion that can't be changed. Your stance on this subject isn't even clear. Out of curiosity, what is your religion?

What does this have to do with them calling themselves Palestinians? Who said they were unique? You're argument is basically saying Judaism has been around longer so everything else is irrelevant. Why not go back further in time to the point where basically no one is unique? You seem to be picking the specific time period that benefits your argument, when I could do the same and go further back. Apparently SuF did it here:

 

No offense, but apparently you can't read. Which civilization has the longest standing history with that land? Are you missing that part? There is no overwhelming amount of Egyptian archaeology in the Levant, however, there is for ancient Judah/Israel among other proofs. That's what you are blindingly ignorant of.

How dense are you? The report denotes Arab benefit in relation to the influx of Jews. Explain to me how/why there would be a betterment, yet no reports purporting a worsening of conditions prior to their "exodus"? The Arab "exodus" is in direct relation to Egyptian propaganda, which I conveniently address for you further down, but I guess you ignored it.

And here we have, in true Fakestinian fashion, the dodging of questions and answers.

And then I quote quote the numerous times i've already refuted all of your other claims. You couldn't even get this right

First of all, you haven't address the fact that you haven't provided a shred of proof that there was any country there. (Ottoman control)

You haven't provided a shred of proof that their exodus was a direct result of the Jews expelling them. (which funnily enough the Arab demographic in Israel has been increasing ever since)

You haven't address the fact that in my OP i'm here to argue the fact that many claim the "Palestinians" had a nation-state or are a unique people, separate from other Arabs in their respective nation-states.

In the end, I can ask a much simpler question. What makes an Arab state any more right than the state of Israel? The partition plan was already agreed upon by most other nations, and the Jews agreed to it. In reality, what you're actually calling for is that we revert back to the British Mandate. That means bye-bye Jordan in its entirety. Should we do that also? Since based on your definition it is "Palestine" simply because it was part of the Mandate. The logic behind these claims never ceases to amaze me.

 

Because it's that easy to find proof that existed decades ago. Oddly enough you dodged the religion question. Wonder why?

Let me requote what I said earlier.

Do you even know who the Mapam's leaders are?

Palestinians was also used to describe the minor Jewish community that resided in Palestine during the British mandate. It's interesting how you are comparing religion to people. Because of the religion they follow, it's rightfully theirs. It's fine that they took over and forced the people who's ancestors grew up there out by force. The people that were living there for centuries has no say. No right to be angry.

Palestine did not want to divide the country. They were forced out of it. Eventually a fraction were given to them decades later which a lot of people didn't agree with but couldn't do much about.

 

Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: **********, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina) is a geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It is sometimes considered to include adjoining territories. The name was used by Ancient Greek writers, and was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima and the Umayyad and Abbasid province of Jund Filastin.

The region is also known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el), the Holy Land or Promised Land, and historically has been known as the Southern portion of wider regional designations such as Canaan, Syria, as-Sham and the Levant.

 

Take a debate class, buddy. Toss around less ad hominem, okay?

So let me get this straight. Because one political party claims such-and-such, that all of a sudden makes it so? Even though there's not a single thread of actual proof behind it.

Where is your evidence

Saying "well so-and-so (or a political party) said such-and-such" doesn't make it fact. Unless you honestly believe a single event lead to hundreds-of-thousands of Arabs leaving? That's quite the stretch.

I hope you realize also that those affiliated with Deir Yassin was the same gang that conducted the King David Hotel bombing, both of which were condemned by Israel. Stop pretending or lying that it was somehow conducted at the hands of and supported by the Israeli government.

Gee, I wonder why? Hmmm... maybe it's because the name is REGIONAL. It is used to denote a REGION, not a peoples.

For what... the fifth time? Where are your links to back up your claims.

Sorry, why exactly are you saying "Palestine" as if there was some autonomous entity there prior to the Jews proclaiming independence in 1948? Palestinian supporters are literally all the same...

Who was the Palestinian leader prior to Israel's independence?
Answer the question, or stop referring to Palestine as an autonomous entity.

I don't understand why it's so difficult to get it through your thick skull that "Palestine" is only a regional name. NEVER. At any point was there a unique "Palestinian" people, culture, government, nation-state, NOTHING.


But i'll say it again. Show me the evidence saying otherwise

Can you read it now? I've asked several times. Answer the questions. You're doing your argument no favors by willfully ignoring beyond basic questions.

 

Not sure if this is from the Wiki or not, but this is the gist of how the name has always been used.

Anyone attempting to prove otherwise needs to provide culture/historic evidence to support their claims.

 

You've just changed the goal posts again. I reject your opinion that who lived on land 3000 years ago matters today. It does not.

 

The only reason you reject it is because you have nothing to refute it.

In case you aren't aware, it's in relation to Arab claim that "Palestinians" somehow have a longer cultural tie to the Levant and/or Jerusalem. I think you're ignorant of the fact that Judaism is quite literally one of the oldest tribal religions that can still identify with a land. Plenty of archaeological evidence is prevalent, and ever since their expulsion two millennia ago they have had the same goal ever since, return to their homeland. Can you find me anything similar in opposition?

Remember when you said this? Are you capable of explaining why? With links to credible sources backing up your claims of course. Your opinion amounts to nothing but hot air if your opinion isn't backed by actual facts.