Protests over Gaza deaths at 5PM Today (Monday) outside Israeli Embassy..

wes · 20-01-2009 01:03AM

indough wrote: »

from what ive read it seems palestine was more of a territory under the ottoman empire though, not really a nation and certainly nothing like what modern palestinians want set up now

It was a state, it had its own civil society. It had people who were called Palestinians. They just so happened to be under Ottoman rule. There state was also enjoyed some autonomy as well.

They are a nation, much like Ireland was a nation despite British rule.

They had a nation, that was taken away from them by European colonists.

indough wrote: »

do you know of any non-arab historians who might have had access to those docs you mentioned, that would make for interesting reading

Look at my previous post that I edited, I have provided the work of a non-Arab historian already.

Also, I fail to see why you need to bring a historians race into this. Perhaps, we should judge them on there work and not there race.

indough wrote: »

surely it would be in the palestinians best interests to make the docs available for study if they have them? (obviously not to you or me )

They have been available to study. How else do you think the historians, I mentioned could write there books.

These details are well known at this point and have shown the absurdity of Zionist claims.

munchester29 · 20-01-2009 01:07AM

wes wrote: »

Have you read the book? It refers to those records. It contains the proof and a personal story side by side. The personal history shows that a Palestinian society existed and the author goes into the history as well.

Here from the Guardian review of the book:

Seem pretty clear that a nation called Palestine existed under the Ottomans. The continued denial is nothing short of absurd.

So until you provide some kind of refutation for pretty much all Ottoman records, I will continue to call the Zionist claim of there being no Palestine an absurdity.

Nice little story there, actually made me read a little about the Ottoman empire…

Let's start with some more info about the ottoman empire:

“At the height of its power (16th–17th century), it spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Ottoman Empire contained 29 provinces and numerous vassal states; some of which were later absorbed into the empire, while others gained various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Now, the person described in that link you supplied, Daher al Omar al Zaydani, was the ruler of the Galilee district (northern part of what is now Israel), his formal title was "Sheikh of Acre, Amir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee".

So, he was the ruler of the northern part of Israel (under Ottoman rule), which was populated by Arabs, Jews & Christians. He never created a country called Palestine, the people living there were not called Palestinians, and they were not all Muslim – there were many Jews and some were even Christians. In addition, he had autonomous rule as long as the Ottomans allowed it (not really independent though).

Nothing new here – the people living in Israel – Jews, Muslims & Christians have been ruled by many countries over the last 2000 years, and many times the governors and district rulers like al Zaydani were local people - usually Muslims since the Turks were Muslims themselves.

Another important thing to know about al Zaydani – the origins of his family are obscure. No one knows where they actually came from. He only achieved autonomous status because of foreign power support. Not because of his birth right or the right of his people to the land:

“He succeeded in creating an autonomous territory in the Galilee, helped by the governors of Mount Lebanon (the Vilayet of Tyre), Egypt, Russia, and to some extent the consuls of France”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daher_El-Omar

And, last but not least:

Under the Ottoman empire, Under the millet system (legally protected religious minority groups), non-Muslim people were considered subjects of the Empire, but were not subject to the Muslim faith or Muslim law.
The Jews under Ottoman rule were under the authority of the “Haham Başı“ or Ottoman Chief Rabbi, which was a Jew. So Autonomous rule over Jewish affairs in the Ottoman empire was basically given to the Jews …

munchester29 · 20-01-2009 01:11AM

Just a note on the origin of the word “Palestine” (hint - nothing to do with today's Palestinians):

'Palestine' ( Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה‎ Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn ) is a Latinized name given to the region of the Iudaea Province by the Roman emperor Hadrian[6][7] following the crushing Bar Kochba's revolt in 132-135[8] in an attempt to suppress Jewish national feelings.[9][10] In the Bible, the area inhabited by the Philistines was known as Pleshet Genesis, X.13. The Philistines were a seafaring people who lived in cities along the coast. During the Late Bronze Age, Philistia was located approximately where the Gaza Strip is situated. Philistia was a confederation of five city states: Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod on the coast, and Ekron and Gath inland.[11]
The ethnic affiliation of the Philistines is not clear. The Philistine names preserved on inscriptions appear to "contradict the notion that they were Greek-speakers."[12] Some scholars argue however that they were a non-Semitic group, with roots in Southern Greece dating back to the period of early Mycenaean civilization.[13] A hypothetical link to the Anatolian people, based upon mere phonological similitude to the Palaic language, seems tenuous but not impossible."

So, Palestine is called after a race of seafaring people (Philistines) who might have come from Greece. Not Arabs. Some scholars believe they were a red headed race.

indough · 20-01-2009 01:13AM

wes wrote: »

It was a state, it had its own civil society. It had people who were called Palestinians. They just so happened to be under Ottoman rule. They still constitute a nation, much like Ireland was a nation despite British rule.

There are people who call themselves African, asian, european etc, yet none of these are countries - should the other countries which were included in the territory of palestine give back their land also?

wes wrote: »

Look at my previous post that I edited, I have provided the work of a non-Arab historian already.

I'm talking about a work studying those documents in detail not mentioning them as an aside to someones family history, maybe i missed the relevant post and you're talking about another one i'll look back now

wes wrote: »

Also, I fail to see why you need to bring a historians race into this. Perhaps, we should judge them on there work and not there race.

Sorry but the fact is not all sources are equal, and you cant judge the value of a source without knowing the details of the author. Personally i wont rely solely on arab sources in regards to docs which could have a bearing on the validity of the jewish state, for obvious reasons. Thats not to say i would completely disregard them of course

wes wrote: »

They have been available to study. How else do you think the historians, I mentioned could write there books.

they could have made it up

wes · 20-01-2009 01:37AM

munchester29 wrote: »

Nice little story there, actually made me read a little about the Ottoman empire…

Let's start with some more info about the ottoman empire:

“At the height of its power (16th–17th century), it spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Ottoman Empire contained 29 provinces and numerous vassal states; some of which were later absorbed into the empire, while others gained various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Your own link there refers to Palestine. You really should read them before posting them.

Also, I stated that it was an autonomous state, not independent.

Having said that, what you mentioned doesn't contradict what I have said, as I said the Palestinian state was autonomous and not completely independent.

munchester29 wrote: »

Now, the person described in that link you supplied, Daher al Omar al Zaydani, was the ruler of the Galilee district (northern part of what is now Israel), his formal title was "Sheikh of Acre, Amir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee".

So, he was the ruler of the northern part of Israel (under Ottoman rule), which was populated by Arabs, Jews & Christians. He never created a country called Palestine, the people living there were not called Palestinians, and they were not all Muslim – there were many Jews and some were even Christians. In addition, he had autonomous rule as long as the Ottomans allowed it (not really independent though).

Nothing new here – the people living in Israel – Jews, Muslims & Christians have been ruled by many countries over the last 2000 years, and many times the governors and district rulers like al Zaydani were local people - usually Muslims since the Turks were Muslims themselves.

Another important thing to know about al Zaydani – the origins of his family are obscure. No one knows where they actually came from. He only achieved autonomous status because of foreign power support. Not because of his birth right or the right of his people to the land:

“He succeeded in creating an autonomous territory in the Galilee, helped by the governors of Mount Lebanon (the Vilayet of Tyre), Egypt, Russia, and to some extent the consuls of France”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daher_El-Omar

That was the state I was referring to (in fact the book also refers to it). Also, Daher El-Omar, was of Bedouin descent, who came from that area. His ancestry is hardly unknown, read the book and you will see this information.

You made a claims, there was never a Palestinian state. There was one. Your own Wikipedia link confirms it existence. It just doesn't refer to it as Palestinian, which doesn't mean anything, as my point was there was a nation of people who clearly lived there.

There were local people who were there who ruled the land and would constitute a nation. Which is the point I was making. Thanks for confirming it.

munchester29 wrote: »

And, last but not least:

Under the Ottoman empire, Under the millet system (legally protected religious minority groups), non-Muslim people were considered subjects of the Empire, but were not subject to the Muslim faith or Muslim law.
The Jews under Ottoman rule were under the authority of the “Haham Başı“ or Ottoman Chief Rabbi, which was a Jew. So Autonomous rule over Jewish affairs in the Ottoman empire was basically given to the Jews …

This hardly unknown, Christians were judged under there own laws as well. What you call autonomous rule, is nothing of the sort. This is the way the Ottomans ran things, each community was put under there own relgious laws.

There are even modern day examples of such a system. For instance in India, Muslims have there own separate family law (Muslim in India can have 4 wives for example), Muslims in India are not under there own autonomous rule or considered as such by anyone including themselves, they just have separate family law. The Muslim judges would not be considered rulers of any sort as well.

There is a world of difference between a autonomous nation and dual legal systems. The 2 are very different.

Also, not all Jews in the Ottoman empire lived in Palestine. They were spread out all across the empire.

youcrazyjesus! · 20-01-2009 01:40AM

munchester29 wrote: »

Nice little story there, actually made me read a little about the Ottoman empire…

Let's start with some more info about the ottoman empire:

“At the height of its power (16th–17th century), it spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Ottoman Empire contained 29 provinces and numerous vassal states; some of which were later absorbed into the empire, while others gained various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Now, the person described in that link you supplied, Daher al Omar al Zaydani, was the ruler of the Galilee district (northern part of what is now Israel), his formal title was "Sheikh of Acre, Amir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee".

So, he was the ruler of the northern part of Israel (under Ottoman rule), which was populated by Arabs, Jews & Christians. He never created a country called Palestine, the people living there were not called Palestinians, and they were not all Muslim – there were many Jews and some were even Christians. In addition, he had autonomous rule as long as the Ottomans allowed it (not really independent though).

Nothing new here – the people living in Israel – Jews, Muslims & Christians have been ruled by many countries over the last 2000 years, and many times the governors and district rulers like al Zaydani were local people - usually Muslims since the Turks were Muslims themselves.

Another important thing to know about al Zaydani – the origins of his family are obscure. No one knows where they actually came from. He only achieved autonomous status because of foreign power support. Not because of his birth right or the right of his people to the land:

“He succeeded in creating an autonomous territory in the Galilee, helped by the governors of Mount Lebanon (the Vilayet of Tyre), Egypt, Russia, and to some extent the consuls of France”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daher_El-Omar

And, last but not least:

Under the Ottoman empire, Under the millet system (legally protected religious minority groups), non-Muslim people were considered subjects of the Empire, but were not subject to the Muslim faith or Muslim law.
The Jews under Ottoman rule were under the authority of the “Haham Başı“ or Ottoman Chief Rabbi, which was a Jew. So Autonomous rule over Jewish affairs in the Ottoman empire was basically given to the Jews …

munchester29 wrote: »

Just a note on the origin of the word “Palestine” (hint - nothing to do with today's Palestinians):

'Palestine' ( Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה‎ Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn ) is a Latinized name given to the region of the Iudaea Province by the Roman emperor Hadrian[6][7] following the crushing Bar Kochba's revolt in 132-135[8] in an attempt to suppress Jewish national feelings.[9][10] In the Bible, the area inhabited by the Philistines was known as Pleshet Genesis, X.13. The Philistines were a seafaring people who lived in cities along the coast. During the Late Bronze Age, Philistia was located approximately where the Gaza Strip is situated. Philistia was a confederation of five city states: Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod on the coast, and Ekron and Gath inland.[11]
The ethnic affiliation of the Philistines is not clear. The Philistine names preserved on inscriptions appear to "contradict the notion that they were Greek-speakers."[12] Some scholars argue however that they were a non-Semitic group, with roots in Southern Greece dating back to the period of early Mycenaean civilization.[13] A hypothetical link to the Anatolian people, based upon mere phonological similitude to the Palaic language, seems tenuous but not impossible."

So, Palestine is called after a race of seafaring people (Philistines) who might have come from Greece. Not Arabs. Some scholars believe they were a red headed race.

What relevance has this to the argument?

This seems to me to be a series of random, unrelated statements, in both cases.

youcrazyjesus! · 20-01-2009 01:47AM

indough wrote: »

from what ive read it seems palestine was more of a territory under the ottoman empire though, not really a nation and certainly nothing like what modern palestinians want set up now

If that is the case I presume you admit Israel has no more validity than a Palestinian state?

There was never an Irish State until very recently in history, there was an Irish nation and this is the important detail.

wes · 20-01-2009 01:47AM

indough wrote: »

There are people who call themselves African, asian, european etc, yet none of these are countries - should the other countries which were included in the territory of palestine give back their land also?

Europe is a continent......
Asia is a continent......
Africa is also a continent.....

Those are not nations, there continents. No one claims to come from the nation of Asia, sometimes people call themselves Asian to refer to ethnicity, but thats not nationalism. They claim to come from India or China etc, now that would nationalism. What you are describing is not nationalism, you are confusing 2 very different concepts here.

Also, I would refer to myself as Asian (or South Asian), and I am referring to my ethnicity. Now, I would call myself Irish as a national identity. You see 2 very different things, I can be both Irish (nationality) and Asian (ethnicity).

Historic Palestine and other area's were incorporated at various points, but there is no reason for them to give back anything, as the people who lived there are still living there and it is there land.

The Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel and occupied Palestine don't have that luxury, as they were expelled by Zionists. I see no reason, why they can't have a right to return, like other refugees. This is btw, the distinct difference between Israel and occupied Palestine.

indough wrote: »

I'm talking about a work studying those documents in detail not mentioning them as an aside to someones family history, maybe i missed the relevant post and you're talking about another one i'll look back now

I already gave a link to such a book in a previous post.

Also, he refers to the general history and his family history. It goes into both in detail. I have the book on my desk and he put there 2 narratives together to produce a stronger narrative. His family being involved in the politics of the region, show that a nation of people lived there for centuries and there was a civil society and other things that would constitute a nation of people.

There was a nation of people there, and they were expelled from there home land, ultimately. This is my point. His family history is proof of a nation of people living there, which is what Zionist deny, which is absurd.

indough wrote: »

Sorry but the fact is not all sources are equal, and you cant judge the value of a source without knowing the details of the author. Personally i wont rely solely on arab sources in regards to docs which could have a bearing on the validity of the jewish state, for obvious reasons. Thats not to say i would completely disregard them of course

I already provide such a source and have said I provided it already. You keep demanding something which I have provided. I already mentioned, I edited my early post, with another book.

Also, the ethnicity of sources is irrelevant. You need to judge the author based on there work.

indough wrote: »

they could have made it up

You have any proof of this? I have provided a review of the book, and I am pretty sure they would have pointed out any faked sources. They didn't so I assume, that the sources used are real. Also, it would be really hard to get away with faking sources in this day and age. Most book reviewers would cope onto such bull **** pretty quick.

wes · 20-01-2009 01:53AM

munchester29 wrote: »

Just a note on the origin of the word “Palestine” (hint - nothing to do with today's Palestinians):

'Palestine' ( Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה‎ Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn ) is a Latinized name given to the region of the Iudaea Province by the Roman emperor Hadrian[6][7] following the crushing Bar Kochba's revolt in 132-135[8] in an attempt to suppress Jewish national feelings.[9][10] In the Bible, the area inhabited by the Philistines was known as Pleshet Genesis, X.13. The Philistines were a seafaring people who lived in cities along the coast. During the Late Bronze Age, Philistia was located approximately where the Gaza Strip is situated. Philistia was a confederation of five city states: Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod on the coast, and Ekron and Gath inland.[11]
The ethnic affiliation of the Philistines is not clear. The Philistine names preserved on inscriptions appear to "contradict the notion that they were Greek-speakers."[12] Some scholars argue however that they were a non-Semitic group, with roots in Southern Greece dating back to the period of early Mycenaean civilization.[13] A hypothetical link to the Anatolian people, based upon mere phonological similitude to the Palaic language, seems tenuous but not impossible."

So, Palestine is called after a race of seafaring people (Philistines) who might have come from Greece. Not Arabs. Some scholars believe they were a red headed race.

You do realize that people inter marry right? The Palestinians are a mixture of various peoples who lived there.

It doesn't change the fact there were people who constituted a nation who lived in what is called Israel and occupied Palestine today and were expelled (ethnically cleansed) by Zionists from there homes. There nation was destroyed, simply put.

indough · 20-01-2009 02:21AM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

If that is the case I presume you admit Israel has no more validity than a Palestinian state?

that is the point, israel and palestine both have equal right to a nation, but israel did not steal land from any palestinian state because there wasnt one, i do believe that each has a right to their own state now but the question is how will this come about?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

There was never an Irish State until very recently in history, there was an Irish nation and this is the important detail.

please define nation

wes · 20-01-2009 02:28AM

indough wrote: »

that is the point, israel and palestine both have equal right to a nation, but israel did not steal land from any palestinian state because there wasnt one, i do believe that each has a right to their own state now but the question is how will this come about?

They did steal land from the Palestinians. The millions of refugees didn't appear out of thin air.

Also, showing up after 2000 years and trying to start up a nation is considered an act of war by most people. If I tried that in Afghanistan or Iran (using Zionist logic, I can create a nation in either of those place, as some of my ancestor lived in those countries), I would be a dead man. You seem to leave out the simple fact, that Zionists came from Europe and claimed the land either because God gave it too them or there ancestors may have lived there 2000 years ago. Either is pretty ridiculous.

As for when a Palestinians state will come about. It very simple, when both sides make a peace deal. Of course, at the rate of colonial expansion, a Palestinian state will be pretty much impossible.

indough · 20-01-2009 02:36AM

wes wrote: »

They did steal land from the Palestinians. The millions of refugees didn't appear out of thin air

of course there were people living on land there but thats not the same thing as a state is it?

indough · 20-01-2009 02:38AM

wes wrote: »

Europe is a continent......
Asia is a continent......
Africa is also a continent.....

Yes, and to the best of my knowledge palestine was a territory, an area of land, not a state or nation

wes wrote: »

The Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel and occupied Palestine don't have that luxury, as they were expelled by Zionists. I see no reason, why they can't have a right to return, like other refugees. This is btw, the distinct difference between Israel and occupied Palestine.

wes wrote: »

There was a nation of people there, and they were expelled from there home land, ultimately. This is my point. His family history is proof of a nation of people living there, which is what Zionist deny, which is absurd.

were the jews not originally forced off the land? if they have no right to come back then why do the palestinians have a right to come back to the land, personally i think they both have a right to something there

wes wrote: »

Also, the ethnicity of sources is irrelevant. You need to judge the author based on there work.

Sorry but when it comes to conflicts where ethnicity is a major factor the ethnicity of sources will also be a major factor, theres no denying that in this case religious and nationalist bias will almost always come into play to some degree

wes wrote: »

You have any proof of this? I have provided a review of the book, and I am pretty sure they would have pointed out any faked sources. They didn't so I assume, that the sources used are real. Also, it would be really hard to get away with faking sources in this day and age. Most book reviewers would cope onto such bull **** pretty quick.

i havent made an accusation, ive stated a plausible possibility and asked for more reliable evidence, so what exactly am i required to prove? as for pointing out faked sources, how can they validate them if they dont have access to the original documents? i think you overestimate the difficulty of faking sources too, especially ones which are not readily accessible

anyway im done for tonight g'night

wes · 20-01-2009 02:44AM

indough wrote: »

of course there were people living on land there but thats not the same thing as a state is it?

So what, it really doesn't matter, it semantics at this point. There technically being not being a state there is no excuse for colonialism. 2000 year old land claims (which may or not be true) and saying God gave you the land are both absurdities.

They lived there and didn't want to give up there land to European colonists. That is my point, they had there nation taken away from them, they had a society and a culture and everything, which is now gone and was destroyed by Zionists. Why should the Palestinians be pissed off about that?

No people in a similar situation would be expected to do that. Why this is expected of the Palestinians is nuts imho.

The Zionists came from Europe, with there claims being God gave them the land or there ancestors lived there 2000 year ago. These are crazy claims. They came from Europe and lived there for 2000 years, this makes them colonists. No different than Europeans who set up colonies in Africa, remember we all come from Africa, but no one would be insane enough to make that as a basis to claim some one else land.

indough · 20-01-2009 02:47AM

wes wrote: »

So what, it really doesn't matter, it semantics at this point. There technically being not being a state there is no excuse for colonialism. 2000 year old land claims (which may or not be true) and saying God gave you the land are both absurdities.

They lived there and didn't want to give up there land to European colonists. That is my point, they had there nation taken away from them, they had a society and a culture and everything, which is now gone and was destroyed by Zionists. Why should the Palestinians be pissed off about that?

No people in a similar situation would be expected to do that. Why this is expected of the Palestinians is nuts imho.

The Zionists came from Europe, with there claims being God gave them the land or there ancestors lived there 2000 year ago. These are crazy claims. They came from Europe and lived there for 2000 years, this makes them colonists. No different than Europeans who set up colonies in Africa, remember we all come from Africa, but no one would be insane enough to make that as a basis to claim some one else land.

would you begrudge american indians there own nation on us soil if they asked for it?

also you seem to be reasoning based on the assumption that the jews in israel arent actually descendants of those who lived there before, which i personally find a bit silly, these things can be checked, plus they only ever left because they were made to, most never immigrated to europe by choice so to call them european colonists seems a bit insidious to me

wes · 20-01-2009 02:54AM

indough wrote: »

Yes, and to the best of my knowledge palestine was a territory, an area of land, not a state or nation

There was a nation of people living there. It not technically being a state at the time, does not mean colonists had a right to set up there own state.

indough wrote: »

were the jews not originally forced off the land? if they have no right to come back then why do the palestinians have a right to come back to the land, personally i think they both have a right to something there

After 2000 years, thats a long time. Why can't I invaded Iran or Afghanistan then? I had ancestors who lived there.

Why can't everyone in the world invade Africa and create there own states, we all came from there at one point.

Also, you do realize not all the Jews were expelled by the Romans and the Palestinian population are descendants of all the peoples who lived there including the Jews.

indough wrote: »

Sorry but when it comes to conflicts where ethnicity is a major factor the ethnicity of sources will also be a major factor, theres no denying that in this case religious and nationalist bias will almost always come into play to some degree

Nonsense. The quality of the authors work is what matters. Plenty of Arabs and Jews can look at the situation objectively and many have.

The authors need to be judged on there work. There race is irrelevant.

indough wrote: »

i havent made an accusation, ive stated a plausible possibility and asked for more reliable evidence, so what exactly am i required to prove? as for pointing out faked sources, how can they validate them if they dont have access to the original documents? i think you overestimate the difficulty of faking sources too, especially ones which are not readily accessible

I provided the extra source. I already told you I did. I told you, I edited an earlier post.

Also, faked sources can easily be spotted by a decent book reviews. Thats there job. They can also checked the source by talking to the authority who has them and they can also consult other historians, who have accessed them in the past.

I have provided a book review from a reputable newspaper. You have not provided any evidence that shows the books source to be questionable. There is no reasonable way for me to provide you with the original source, so the best I can give is a reputable newspaper, which is more than enough imho.

youcrazyjesus! · 20-01-2009 03:00AM

indough wrote: »

israel and palestine both have equal right to a nation

Well they certainly do now, I question whether Zionists had a right to setup an exclusively Jewish state, given it was based on a colonial process.

but israel did not steal land from any palestinian state because there wasnt one

Nobody is suggesting there was one. But there were people there, they existed, they had legal right to land under whatever juridstiction it was they were living under. British, Ottoman, it doesn't matter. There was a society and people living there. Just because there was no state it doesn't mean the land is up for grabs.

i do believe that each has a right to their own state now but the question is how will this come about?

Israel obeying international law will get everybody 95% of the way there.

please define nation

I'll use this example: we Irish existed as a nation prior to 1949, 1922 or prior to Home Rule or whatever date you have in mind. We may not have had our own state but that does not mean we didn't exist as a nation. That nation could be considered to include Protestant, Catholics, Presbyterians and a small Jewish population too, we had people who were staunchly Unionist and felt themselves "British", fierce nationalists and everything in between.

Equally, there was a nation of people living in that region prior to the Zionist inspired influx and I include the pre-existing Jewish inhabitants in that nation. They did not have to be a homoegenous legal entity nation state to qualify for having rights, legal or otherwise, subsequently. What you're saying makes about as much sense as saying Irish or Indians had no right over their lands until the birth of their respective nation states.

wes · 20-01-2009 03:03AM

indough wrote: »

would you begrudge american indians there own nation on us soil if they asked for it?

They have equal rights in the US. What purpose would a ethnic separatism serve exactly?

Anyway, if Native Americans decided to violently ethical cleanse people from there homes to set up there own state, then I would have a problem with that. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

indough wrote: »

also you seem to be reasoning based on the assumption that the jews in israel arent actually descendants of those who lived there before, which i personally find a bit silly, these things can be checked,

They have been been different Jewish ethnic groups, e.g Berber Jews and Kazar Jews.

Your correct that most Jews would have come from Palestine at some point.

indough wrote: »

plus they only ever left because they were made to, most never immigrated to europe by choice so to call them european colonists seems a bit insidious to me

Insidious? You have got to be joking. They lived in Europe for 2000 years, calling them European after that length of time is hardly insidious. It just points out where they lived for several centuries. I think if you live some where for 2000 years, saying your from there is hardly insidious. Also, seeing as there was no Israel at the time, what else I am suppose to say then? Would the term Zionist colonist be less insidious then?

They were kicked out by the Romans and not the Palestinians, also not all Jews were kicked out by them either. The Palestinian are at least partially descended from the Jewish population as well. Also, I call them colonists, as the current actions of Israel are colonial in nature.

You see I have no issue with some (sadly a minority it seems) of the early Zionists, who moved there and bought land and lived alongside there Palestinian neighbors and had no intention of expelling the people living there or forming there own state. That kind of immigration is no colonialism and most people would have no issues with that. The problem stems from people wanting to set up there own state, against the wishes of the pre-existing majority, which is what caused problems.

I have the exact same issues with say Islamist movements, Hindutva nationalists, and White nationalists groups (Apartheid regime in South Africa) and other similar groups.

My original point is very simple, the Palestinians had there nation destroyed by Zionism. They are split between 3 occupied areas Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West bank and a whole bunch of refugee camps. There nation was taken away from them by force.

starbelgrade · 20-01-2009 03:04AM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2586654857_4a4aff07ee.jpg

I sympathise with Gazza.

indough · 20-01-2009 03:10AM

wes wrote: »

There was a nation of people living there. It not technically being a state at the time, does not mean colonists had a right to set up there own state.

you seem to be letting your own subjective code of ethics or whatever its called influence you there

wes wrote: »

After 2000 years, thats a long time. Why can't I invaded Iran or Afghanistan then? I had ancestors who lived there.

Why can't everyone in the world invade Africa and create there own states, we all came from there at one point.

I have nothing against you trying that

wes wrote: »

Also, you do realize not all the Jews were expelled by the Romans and the Palestinian population are descendants of all the peoples who lived there including the Jews.

very small minority of jews though, most were evicted from their lands apparently

wes wrote: »

Nonsense. The quality of the authors work is what matters. Plenty of Arabs and Jews can look at the situation objectively and many have.

The authors need to be judged on there work. There race is irrelevant.

Sorry but you must be very idealist, of course in this situation ethnicity and religion will lead to bias (seeing as race and religion are the driving factors of the conflict), even the most learned authors are only human after all

wes wrote: »

I provided the extra source. I already told you I did. I told you, I edited an earlier post.

if im looking at the right post it offers nothing more than the use of the word palestine to describe the area, dont have the book so cant read any further right now

fwiw the area known as 'palaestina' or modern 'palestine' was known as 'judaea before that, but i suppose its a moot point seeing as you admit palestine wasnt a state anyway

wes wrote: »

Also, faked sources can easily be spotted by a decent book reviews. Thats there job. They can also checked the source by talking to the authority who has them and they can also consult other historians, who have accessed them in the past.

you would need access to them to verify the source

wes wrote: »

I have provided a book review from a reputable newspaper. You have not provided any evidence that shows the books source to be questionable. There is no reasonable way for me to provide you with the original source, so the best I can give is a reputable newspaper, which is more than enough imho.

the newspaper hasnt seen them either so its like 3rd hand information or something, plus i didnt state the sources were fake i suggested they could be and that im not willing to accept them until im satisfied theyve been verified, surely thats understandable?

indough · 20-01-2009 03:27AM

wes wrote: »

They have equal rights in the US. What purpose would a ethnic separatism serve exactly?

why does it have to serve a purpose for them to desire it? its a hypothetical question, would you begrudge them that?

wes wrote: »

They have been been different Jewish ethnic groups, e.g Berber Jews and Kazar Jews.

Your correct that most Jews would have come from Palestine at some point, but Russian Jews for example are most likely descendants of Kazar Jews, who converted to Judaism, when Judaism looked for converts in the distant past.

I personally would only have set up the state for true descendants, i suppose they could invite whoever they want to the party after that providing they dont expand their territories to do it which is where the problems arise

wes wrote: »

Insidious? You have got to be joking. They lived in Europe for 2000 years, calling them European after that length of time is hardly insidious. It just points out where they lived for several centuries. I think if you live some where for 2000 years, saying your from there is hardly insidious.

the insidious part is lumping them in with us when they obviously werent there by choice, if they longed for their homeland and were turfed out against their will then fair dues to them for moving back there, obviously they should have compromised with the current occupants but both sides are as much to blame for the hostility i think

wes wrote: »

They were kicked out by the Romans and not the Palestinians, also not all Jews were kicked out by them either. The Palestinian are at least partially descended from the Jewish population as well. Also, I call them colonists, as the current actions of Israel are colonial in nature.

surely that is a matter of opinion, if you think they have a right to return to their ancestral homeland then it can hardly be viewed as colonialism

wes wrote: »

You see I have no issue with some (sadly a minority it seems) of the early Zionists, who moved there and bought land and lived alongside there Palestinian neighbors and had no intention of expelling the people living there or forming there own state. That kind of immigration is no colonialism and most people would have no issues with that. The problem stems from people wanting to set up there own state, against the wishes of the pre-existing majority, which is what caused problems.

the problem is not the setting up of the state imo but the inability of the two peoples to coexist, if a 2 state system based on equal land were set up and both sides rejected violence there would be no problem would there?

wes wrote: »

Also, there is the time line of 2000 years.

yes but then again the area hasn't actually gone that long without major jewish communities there

anyway i really am gonna have to kip now so have fun :P

wes · 20-01-2009 03:47AM

indough wrote: »

you seem to be letting your own subjective code of ethics or whatever its called influence you there

No international law would be against ethnic cleansing as well.

Anyway, my point was made in context of replying to another poster.

indough wrote: »

I have nothing against you trying that

Of course not, as I am not doing anything to you.

However, lets be honest the people there are going to rightly shoot me, for trying such a thing.

indough wrote: »

very small minority of jews though, most were evicted from their lands apparently

According to the Bible? Do we have actual dependable figures on the actual numbers and not some vague stuff, because last I checked the information is very vague.

indough wrote: »

Sorry but you must be very idealist, of course in this situation ethnicity and religion will lead to bias (seeing as race and religion are the driving factors of the conflict), even the most learned authors are only human after all

No, it won't necessarily lead to bias. The work has to be judged on its own merit, regardless of people being a Jew or Arab.

indough wrote: »

if im looking at the right post it offers nothing more than the use of the word palestine to describe the area, dont have the book so cant read any further right now

The book looks at the Ottoman records, which is what you asked for.

indough wrote: »

fwiw the area known as 'palaestina' or modern 'palestine' was known as 'judaea before that, but i suppose its a moot point seeing as you admit palestine wasnt a state anyway

It was known as Canaan before that as well.

As I pointed out before, there was a nation of people there. This was destroyed for all intents and purposes. You can argue semantics till the cows come home, as it doesn't make much of a difference.

indough wrote: »

you would need access to them to verify the source

the newspaper hasnt seen them either so its like 3rd hand information or something, plus i didnt state the sources were fake i suggested they could be and that im not willing to accept them until im satisfied theyve been verified, surely thats understandable?

Not really. A reputable newspaper are going to be able to verify the information in the book. They can always call the people who have the records or talk to other historians.

wes · 20-01-2009 03:54AM

indough wrote: »

why does it have to serve a purpose for them to desire it? its a hypothetical question, would you begrudge them that?

I answered you question. An native America state would involve ethnic cleansing, as they are a tiny minority, so I would be against it.

Now quick question, would you be ok with giving up your home to a group of people like the Native American's and being force to live in a refugee camp?

Also, do you think the US army would not violently put down such a movement?

indough wrote: »

I personally would only have set up the state for true descendants, i suppose they could invite whoever they want to the party after that providing they dont expand their territories to do it which is where the problems arise

I was just pointing the complexity of the situation.

The problem being Israel is expanding there territories.

indough wrote: »

the insidious part is lumping them in with us when they obviously werent there by choice, if they longed for their homeland and were turfed out against their will then fair dues to them for moving back there, obviously they should have compromised with the current occupants but both sides are as much to blame for the hostility i think

I would disagree. You live in Europe for 2000 years, I am going to call you a European. You can call that insidious if you like. I would say calling what happened the Palestinians anything other than colonialism to be insidious.

Also, going to someone else's country to set up your own state is an act of aggression, which was the cause of hostility.

indough wrote: »

surely that is a matter of opinion, if you think they have a right to return to their ancestral homeland then it can hardly be viewed as colonialism

When you want to set up a state for you own race and ethnically cleanse the indigenous population it is. When you build colonies like Israel is right now, it is.

Israel actions make it a colonial state.

There ancestors coming from there in the distant past mean nothing. European colonists had ancestors from Africa, if you go back far enough and no one would use such a ridiculous excuse.

indough wrote: »

the problem is not the setting up of the state imo but the inability of the two peoples to coexist, if a 2 state system based on equal land were set up and both sides rejected violence there would be no problem would there?

When, has setting up a state by against the will of the majority not lead to violence of some kind?

indough wrote: »

yes but then again the area hasn't actually gone that long without major jewish communities there

No one is denying there was always a Jewish community there, but they were a small minority.

The Mighty Ken · 20-01-2009 06:03AM

54 pages of utter tripe and 'intellectual' brinkmanship. It's amazing to think how simple the actual solution is.

Hammiepeters · 20-01-2009 08:38AM

taconnol wrote: »

Thankyou for showing your true colours

Were they ever in any doubt? Still ,20 odd posts later, even the wishful thinkers and their selective views of history have been unable to establish that a country named Palestine ever existed.

Nodin · 20-01-2009 09:30AM

munchester29 wrote: »

The Guardian is a left wing oriented newspaper, and they usually don’t even bother to print the other side’s version when they publish stories about the Israel/Palestinian conflict – not exactly an example of how to be unbiased.

....according to you.

munchester29 wrote: »

As for the UN – their bias has been documented and discussed too many times in the past. .

...by who?

munchester29 wrote: »

“The resolution cited specific examples of UNRWA ambulance and schools having been used to abet terrorism and mentioned a number of figures, including Awad al-Qiq, headmaster of an UNRWA school in Gaza, "who also led Islamic Jihad's engineering unit that built bombs and Qassam rockets.".

And they knew all about it UNRWA only after he was dead. Your point?

munchester29 wrote: »

“At UNRWA, more than 99% of the staff are local Palestinians. They

And obviously therefore evil, beyond measure....

Indough wrote:

that is the point, israel and palestine both have equal right to a nation, but israel did not steal land from any palestinian state because there wasnt one,

But they did expel thousands of Palestinians from what was to become Israel, thus setting in motion what we see today.

Nodin · 20-01-2009 09:32AM

Hammiepeters wrote: »

Were they ever in any doubt? Still ,20 odd posts later, even the wishful thinkers and their selective views of history have been unable to establish that a country named Palestine ever existed.

Neither did the USA until somebody created it. There was a Palestinian people however.

Sam Vimes · 20-01-2009 09:47AM

indough wrote: »

were the jews not originally forced off the land? if they have no right to come back then why do the palestinians have a right to come back to the land, personally i think they both have a right to something there

i think that there are still some palestinians still alive who were forced off the land but it was the israelis great^50 grandads who were forced off. am i right?

seems to me it's like walking into the living room and telling someone to get up because you were sitting there....last week

Macha · 20-01-2009 10:17AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i think that there are still some palestinians still alive who were forced off the land but it was the israelis great^50 grandads who were forced off. am i right?

seems to me it's like walking into the living room and telling someone to get up because you were sitting there....last week

Exactly.

It's more akin to the Germanic tribes the Anglos and Saxons returning to part of modern-day Germany and demanding to be given land to create their own nation. Or descendents of the ancient race of Cathaginians returning to Southern Spain to demand the land south of the river Ebro to be returned to them. Or any descendents of the Assyrians could lay claim to large swathes of the Middle East or...I could go on.

Jews also claim to have the not entirely historically accurate text that we call the Old Testament as their "primary document" of claim. Basically God promised it to them: except that Christians and Muslims also consider the Old Testament to be a religious text and can both equally argue that the land is promised to them as well.

You can see where the argument falls down.

Dragan · 20-01-2009 10:47AM

taconnol wrote: »

Exactly.

It's more akin to the Germanic tribes the Anglos and Saxons returning to part of modern-day Germany and demanding to be given land to create their own nation. Or descendents of the ancient race of Cathaginians returning to Southern Spain to demand the land south of the river Ebro to be returned to them. Or any descendents of the Assyrians could lay claim to large swathes of the Middle East or...I could go on.

Jews also claim to have the not entirely historically accurate text that we call the Old Testament as their "primary document" of claim. Basically God promised it to them: except that Christians and Muslims also consider the Old Testament to be a religious text and can both equally argue that the land is promised to them as well.

You can see where the argument falls down.

Like us wanting the North.

Protests over Gaza deaths at 5PM Today (Monday) outside Israeli Embassy..

Comments