Israel, Palestine and the Arab/Israel Conflict

[spidergoat]

so might is right in the end eh goat?

With respect to land, there is no right, only might. Only within a system we all agree on can there be property rights, and they only exist if they are backed up with force, the policeman with a gun. There are human rights which I believe in, but that has nothing to do with owning land. The Indians themselves did not believe in land ownership.

we're talking abpout fundamental basic rights to ones land on anthrolopological + historical grounds versus "rights" aquired through active colonialisation can you not grasp basic ideological concepts??

Historical grounds mean nothing to me. I'm more concerned with the human right of self-determination. History may have been the reason for Jews to come to Israel in the first place, but I don't think it gives them any special rights to the area, that comes from participating in the development of that land, and the inherent right of self-government. Sure, the Palestinians have the inherent right to self-govern as well, I'm all for that, but they lost their land in an fair fight where they should have had the advantage, too bad, find another section of the Arab empire, oh, that's right, they can't, because they are callously forced to be martyrs by their "brothers". But it won't amount to anything because they will all run out of water soon, and the whole area will become a ghost town.

 

[Undecided]

Historical grounds mean nothing to me. I'm more concerned with the human right of self-determination.

That’s awfully hypocritical of you, because it was the same right denied to the people of 1948. If Self-determination was enforced in that region like most others post WWII Israel wouldn’t exist today, Israel seems to go against your own ethics.

 

[spidergoat]

In 1948, armed conflict arose, (can we agree- simultaneously?) precluding any mutual agreement. Until this armed conflict is resolved, their right to self-determination will remain unfufilled. If we acknowledge that the cultural (religious) differences between Arabs and Jews are too great for mutual governance, the only real solution is the one suggested by the UN at the beginning of this conflict; to partition the region into separate Palestinian and Jewish countries.

but the borders of 1967 are completely illegal and completely outside the grasp of Israeli’s rights. Sure Israel has a right to defend itself, on its own land like all other civilized states on Earth.

OK, I'm not saying it was right for them to do that, but it makes sense in the context of mutual conflict to maintain the upperhand as a negotiation position, that's the idea behind the wall, too. I'm not going to defend every move made by Israel, they have certainly made bad decisions before...

 

[river-wind]

Firstly maybe in the Soviet Union but not the US, the govt has no right to dictate how your land will be used, only during wars. Secondly this has nothing to do with the conversation I would fathom.

its called eminent domain, and if you're going to own land in this country, you better know about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

and I say its fits perfectly. The definition of ownership much be agreed apon before the rights to ownership can be determined.

 

[Undecided]

In 1948, armed conflict arose, (can we agree- simultaneously?) precluding any mutual agreement. Until this armed conflict is resolved, their right to self-determination will remain unfufilled.

The UN should have had a self-determination vote long before any resolution granting Israel or Palestine to exist. The purpose of self-determination is for the people living on that land deciding what should be done with it. It doesn’t work like this : Deciding what is done with the land, then deciding about what you think. I really don’t see the relevance of 1948, that is a separate issue.

If we acknowledge that the cultural (religious) differences between Arabs and Jews are too great for mutual governance,

Wrong use of terms, the cultural divide is not and never has been btwn Jews and Arabs, the divide has been over Europeans and Arabs. White Europeans who come to the Levant screaming they are black Hebrews, Zionist/Arab conflict exists.

the only real solution is the one suggested by the UN at the beginning of this conflict; to partition the region into separate Palestinian and Jewish countries.

That wasn’t the only solution many proposals proposed what I am saying today. A proposal of one state with two different people’s. The fact that two states were created is more to politics then logics.

OK, I'm not saying it was right for them to do that, but it makes sense in the context of mutual conflict to maintain the upperhand as a negotiation position,

But I don’t think you understand, you created this position. If the Israeli’s didn’t invade and illegally colonize those areas, there would be no need for negotiations and I guarantee you that Israel would have the world’s support on its side. But expansionist Zionists didn’t care for all that, Israel has forever soured its position in this world. Prior to 1967 the Pals were under the control of the Arabs. Israel took their lands and then created the problem of settlements, illegal land seizures, and now physical separation and Bantustanization of the Palestinian “state”. That’s why I tell you Zionists; don’t complain because as Leonard Cohen would say “everybody knows”.

 

[spidergoat]

I saw an interview with Clinton recently, who blamed Yassir Arafat for walking away from the peace process in 1993. Clinton said that it was Arafat that caused the election of the right-wing Sharon.

 

[Undecided]

There is no doubt that Palestinian terrorism has caused the right, and even extreme right in Israel to take a strangle hold on power. But we must remember that Sharon by going to the temple mount and claiming it for Israel is what started this second intifada, Sharon was a crude politician, and played with Israeli and Palestinian lives for political gain.

Yassir Arafat for walking away from the peace process in 1993.

Don’t you mean 1999?

 

[spidergoat]

Sorry, not 1993, my mistake...

Despite many problems and delays, the working level meetings succeeded well enough to lead to the Camp David 2000 Summit convened on July 11, 2000. However, the summit ended in failure on July 25 after Israeli Prime Minister Barak put unprecedented concessions on the table in order to get to an agreement, but Yasser Arafat rejected them and walked out.

from www.palestinefacts.org

Couldn't you also argue that Arafat's decision led to the intifada? Having attempted to find peace and failed, what hope could the Israeli left have to continue the process?

 

[Undecided]

Well personally I don’t blame Yasser from leaving the table, the “generous” land concessions aren’t even close to being the truth. What I would like to say to anyone about the Clinton/Barak proposal is “have you seen the map?” Arafat not getting a deal was disappointing, but that is not what caused the intifada, Sharon’s incitement of the Palestinians is the key determinant of this intifada.

what hope could the Israeli left have to continue the process?

Israel shouldn’t even be in processes, I don’t understand why we even bother. Israel wasn’t slowing down its illegal expansion with settlements. Israel should unilaterally leave a area which does not legally belong to her, Israel can build walls, and do whatever it wants on its own territory but Israel won’t have peace until she realizes that she is the one with the power, and she is in the wrong, and most Israeli’s agree that settlements are doing more harm then good, and are wrong.

 

[outlandish]

spidergoat:

1

If you go by the older history, then the Arabs are occupiers of Jewish land, since Jewish history in Israel is older.

NO. absolutley and totally and utterly wrong .

2

If we acknowledge that the cultural (religious) differences between Arabs and Jews

OK, I really need to address some major gaps in your knowledge goat.

Firstly there is one major conceptual problem you're having in distinguishing anthropology and religion/theology

I'm going to take this slow, and I want you to fully grasp this:

anthropology is a completely different and separate concept to theology + spiritual belief

1)anthropology concerns analysis of peoples on the basis of biology/history and geographic distribution

2)theology and spiritual beliefs concern themslves with metaphysical ideology and philosophies.

you cannot and must not mix anthropological + theological concepts together, the two are not comparable, this must be grasped.

AThe term "Arab" is a loose generic (I avoid the term as much as possible myself) anthropological term defining peoples. A more accurate anthropological deffinition would be semetical peoples or semites

BThe term jew refers to a person who follows the ideology of judaism ie believes in judaism that is a spititual/metaphysical belief pattern.

as mentioned above the 2 concepts are completely different + non comparable.

to clarify further for you:

Examples of people of the SAME anthropological class but different religious beliefs:

example: 1: an Iraqi jew + iraqi muslim
example: 2: palestinian jew + palestinian muslim
example: 3: syrian christian + syrian muslim

above are all examples of Arab/semetical peoples but different religious beliefs.

Examples of people of differentanthropological classes but SAME religious beliefs:

example 1: slavic jew + iraqi jew.
example 2: chinese muslim + pakistani muslim
example 3: ethiopian jew + palestinian jew

a german jew is not a semite
a slavic jew is not a semite
an iraqi christian is a semite
a palestinian muslim is a semite.
an iraqi jew is a semite
a palestinian jew is a semite.


judaism is a spiritual belief NOT an anthropological classification this is pure fallacy propegated by decades of zionism + is absorbed by the masses who do not have a solid grounding on anthropology and theology especially judaism

regarding your first quote right at the begining, I will have to start a separate thread (I've been meaning to for ages anyway) since there are many facets to the argument that I need to clarify.

 

[outlandish]

appendix to above post

I missed out the deffinition/classification of semites:

The term Semites is applied to a group of peoples closely related in language, whose habitat is Asia and partly Africa. The expression is derived from the Biblical table of nations (Genesis 10), in which most of these peoples are recorded as descendants of Noah's son Sem.

In historic times all Western Asia (see below), with the exception of the peninsula of Asia Minor, was Semitic. From the philological point of view the Semitic peoples are divided into four chief Babylonian-Assyrian Semites (East Semites), Chanaanitic Semites, (West Semites), Aramaic Semites (North Semites), and Arabian Semites (South Semites). The last-named group is divided into North and South Arabians, of which last the Abyssinians are a branch. The first three groups are usually termed North Semites, in contrast to the Arabian group, or South Semites. But the classification of the Babylonian with the Aramaic and Chanaanitic Semites is not permissible from the philological point of view

TERRITORY

The great mountain-chains which begin at the Syro-Cilician boundary, and then curving towards the south-west extend to the Persian Gulf, separate on the north and east the territory of the Semites from that of the other peoples of Western Asia. It includes the Syro-Arabian plain with the civilized countries extending to the east and west and the Arabian Peninsula which joins it on the south. The lowlands to the east are formed by the Euphrates and the Tigris, and include the homes of two very ancient civilizations, in the north the rather undulating Mesopotamia, in the south the low Babylonian plain; the land extending to the west from the lower Euphrates is called Chaldea. These are the territories of the East Semitic tribes and states. On the west lies Northern Syria, then the Lebanon Mountains with the intervening Coelo-Syria, the oasis of Damascus, the seat of an ancient culture, the Hauran, and in the the midst of the desert the oasis of Palmyra (Tadmor). These territories were at a later period occupied principally by Aramaic tribes. The territory on the coast extending westwards from Lebanon, and Palestine, which joins it on the south, are the principal seats of the Chanaanitic Semites. The mountainous country to the east of Arabia and the Sinaitic peninsula extending to the west of Arabia, belong to Arabia proper, the territory of the South Semites.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13706a.htm

 

[spidergoat]

Outlandish,
You should note that I personally do not accept the "older history" argument, with it's old testament religious connotations. It's just that some people are suggesting whoever is in a place longest has exclusive rights to that place ie., the Palestinians, but the history of Jews in the area is at least as long. Your splitting hairs over the definition of what constitutes "the Jews" is phony science. Wether a group is self-identified through religious beliefs, culture, language, or lines of descent the result is the same. The Palestinians are also a racially diverse group connected by culture and beliefs.

The term semitic was coined by German language scholors to describe a group of middle eastern languages. It came to have racial implications in a colloquial way, especially among muslim propagandists as a way to discredit the historical claims to Palestine by some modern Jews, but as a scientific definition of race, it is incorrect.

It [the term semitic] has nothing whatever to do with race in the anthropological sense that is now common usage. A glance at the present‑day speakers of Arabic, from Khartoum to Aleppo and from Mauritania to Mosul, or even of Hebrew speakers in the modern state of Israel, will suffice to show the enormous diversity of racial types.
from: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/his...dernIntergroup/ModernAntisemitism/Semites.htm

 

[spidergoat]

1)anthropology concerns analysis of peoples on the basis of biology/history and geographic distribution

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anthropology

The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.

Please get yourself educated before you presume to educate others.

 

[spidergoat]

Firstly maybe in the Soviet Union but not the US, the govt has no right to dictate how your land will be used, only during wars. Secondly this has nothing to do with the conversation I would fathom.

Not only during wars:
What Is Eminent Domain?
Eminent domain is the government’s right to acquire private property without the property owner’s consent. Where private property is needed for a public purpose and the landowner does not voluntarily sell the land, the government may use its eminent domain power to force the property from the landowner. The landowner may not be able to prevent the taking but does receive compensation for the property.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/als-fact/1000.html

It is a small point, perhaps, but it shows that even in an established society, your "rights" to land are not absolute. Even if the Palestinians stayed on their land, they could still have lost some to make way for a growing public infrastructure.

 

[outlandish]

Outlandish,
You should note that I personally do not accept the "older history" argument, with it's old testament religious connotations. It's just that some people are suggesting whoever is in a place longest has exclusive rights to that place ie., the Palestinians, but the history of Jews in the area is at least as long. Your splitting hairs over the definition of what constitutes "the Jews" is phony science. Wether a group is self-identified through religious beliefs, culture, language, or lines of descent the result is the same. The Palestinians are also a racially diverse group connected by culture and beliefs.

The term semitic was coined by German language scholors to describe a group of middle eastern languages. It came to have racial implications in a colloquial way, especially among muslim propagandists as a way to discredit the historical claims to Palestine by some modern Jews, but as a scientific definition of race, it is incorrect.

spidergoat:

are you deliberately trying to act like a fool?

have you not read + absorbed + understood my post?

you say:

You should note that I personally do not accept the "older history"

then you say:

but the history of Jews in the area is at least as long.

1) contradiction is the sign of someone who fails to grasp the issues and then furhter fails to argu about what he hasn't grasped.

2) older history??!!! LMAO! what the hell is this? you're so confused that now you make up nonsensical bullshit phrases like "OLDER HISTORY" !!

3) anyone who fails to acknowledge basic historical events is a fool and as such relinquishes all credibility in any "argument"

4) secondly I was talking on anthropological issues within historical context, biblical history not withstanding the anthropological facts as I stated stand + are inherently valid.

next:

but the history of Jews in the area is at least as long.

what the hell is wrong with you? after I went through with you slowly step by step in my previous post the basic fundemental differences between anthropology + theology/spiritual beliefs and you still get it sorted in your head.

those very "jews" you speak of were arabs/semitical peoples.
They were jews due to the fact they followed moses + his teachings, but anthropologically/racially speaking they were of canaanite/phoenician/assyrian origin....all precursors of what you dumbwits now call arabs today.

do you get it now? Or is there still darkness in your tiny skull??

You still cannot shake this idea that the jews were some magical race of peoples that magically arrived in arab land !!!!

Have you any grasp of history of that era??

no, still dark?

Ok these jews, what happened to them?
You think they magically vanished to re appera centuries later in eastern europe!! come on man wake up!

those "jews" over time:

1) dispersed to other semetical regions, the land which is today jordan/palestine/syria + iraq.
2) but more importantly they converted to christianity over 100sof years + then islam over centuries more.

so those "jews" remaind the same people but changed thier faith over centuries.

they were of canaanite/phoenician/assyrian origin before moses was born, they remaind the same during moses' life they remaind the same after moses died....they have always been the same peoples on anthropological grounds...and they remain so today, get it now?

you dont change to a different "race" when you change your spiritual beliefs

now take all this within the core issue of this debate:

the rights of europoean peoples who are jewish who claim that by being jewish means you are somehow mysteriously linked to ancient hebrews who were semites ie arabs

 

[spidergoat]

I am an atheist.

 

[outlandish]

so ?

1) educating yourself and being aware of core issues has nothing to do with whether you believe in god or not

2) why are you so pro zionist when you have serious gaps in your knowledge on the debate and the actual concepts involved both on an ideological + historical basis

3) if you're arbitrarily picking "sides" why not the palestinians?

years of indoctrination misconception takes real effort to break my friend.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't believe I was being contradictory, outlandish. Your argument is that modern Jews are not ancient Jews genetically, and therefore have no credible connection to any past occupation in Israel. However, I think that there is a cultural connection, and furthermore, this is the only attribute that matters, not race, not "semitism". Therefore, Jews, of any nationality and race have a cultural connection to Israel. My point is that I don't agree with the Zionist notion that ancient Jewish history gives Jews any special rights to Israel. The historical connection, in my opinion, served only as inspiriation to settle in Israel as opposed to, say, Brazil. Their rights stem from the human right to govern themselves, which they desired very much, having been historically persecuted, and recently so in the extreme by the Nazis.

The core issue:

the rights of europoean peoples who are jewish who claim that by being jewish means you are somehow mysteriously linked to ancient hebrews who were semites ie arabs

Yes, being Jewish culturally is all it takes to be connected to the ancient "semites", who also called themselves Jewish. It is not a matter of race at all, if that's what you mean, since race is variable even within populations.

Now, if you want to talk about studying the Jewish people, an anthropologist would not stop and say that at some point they no longer exist just because they became racially mixed. They would study more than just biology, as you imply.

 

[spidergoat]

so ?

1) educating yourself and being aware of core issues has nothing to do with whether you believe in god or not

2) why are you so pro zionist when you have serious gaps in your knowledge on the debate and the actual concepts involved both on an ideological + historical basis

3) if you're arbitrarily picking "sides" why not the palestinians?

years of indoctrination misconception takes real effort to break my friend.

Sorry, I was responding to a post that no longer seems to exist, thank god.

1. I'd like to increase my awareness of the core issues, that's why I'm participating here. Are there any more core issues that haven't been addressed yet?
2. I would be glad to address any "gaps" in my knowledge if you could point any out. If you think support of Israel is due to some lack of knowledge, then please, explain. I don't support Israeli rights to the exclusion of Palestinian rights. I support the rights of Palestinians to recieve some compensation for the land that they lost while fighting against Israel. I think Israel has also commited some serious human rights violations in Lebanon and the occupied territories, but this kind of thing happens during war, and does not negate the right of Israel to exist. I believe in peace and a two-state solution to this crisis. So far, it seems like Israel was willing to come to terms with the Palestinians, but Arafat was not. Is it possible Arafat has some vested interest in prolonging the conflict?
3. I don't think my choice is arbitrary. Is it possible that you are indoctrinated instead? How much of the Palestinian rhetoric is based on religion and racism, and not politics? Do you think there would be suicide bombers if they didn't believe they would be rewarded in heaven? ...if Palestinian schoolchildren were not indoctrinated to hate Jews? ...if the muslim world took them in instead of turning their backs?

 

[outlandish]

I don't believe I was being contradictory, outlandish. Your argument is that modern Jews are not ancient Jews genetically, and therefore have no credible connection to any past occupation in Israel. However, I think that there is a cultural connection, and furthermore, this is the only attribute that matters, not race, not "semitism". Therefore, Jews, of any nationality and race have a cultural connection to Israel. My point is that I don't agree with the Zionist notion that ancient Jewish history gives Jews any special rights to Israel. The historical connection, in my opinion, served only as inspiriation to settle in Israel as opposed to, say, Brazil. Their rights stem from the human right to govern themselves, which they desired very much, having been historically persecuted, and recently so in the extreme by the Nazis.

The core issue:
Yes, being Jewish culturally is all it takes to be connected to the ancient "semites", who also called themselves Jewish. It is not a matter of race at all, if that's what you mean, since race is variable even within populations.

Now, if you want to talk about studying the Jewish people, an anthropologist would not stop and say that at some point they no longer exist just because they became racially mixed. They would study more than just biology, as you imply.

I don't believe I was being contradictory

you are, furthermore you are being extremely inept at reading what I am posting let alone understanding what I am saying:

Your argument is that modern Jews are not ancient Jews genetically, and therefore have no credible connection to any past occupation in Israel

NO!!!!

what's the matter with you? simple reading + understanding of English now poses a problem for you?

modern jews...which jews???


* falasha jews?
* ashkenazim jews?
* mizrahi jews?
* iraqi jews?
*etheopian jews?
* chineses jews?
* sephardic jews?

which modern jews???

jesus christ have you not been reading a single fucking word I have been hammering out??

that is NOT my argument.

dont give me your modern jew claptrap. which jews have I specifically being talking about? go back and lets see if you can find out

However, I think that there is a cultural connectionp

the cultural connection is only on the basis of religious belief, but this irrelevant to this debate.

zionism makes the false and falacious assertion that all jews are somehow part of the same "race" and all jews specifically eastern european jews by that reasoning have anthropological grounds to claim inherent rights to the land of palestine at the expense of the palestinian peoples already living there for centuries.

answer me this:

* can the peoples of syria say they have inherent rights to germany or poland on the basis that they are anthropologically linked to germanic or polish peoples??

* can the peoples of iraq make such similar claims?

* can the peoples of palestine make such claims?

*can the peoples of jordan make such claims?????

Therefore, Jews, of any nationality and race have a cultural connection

my god man.

I'm not talking about mere "cultural" connection...jesus H christ.
the zionist movement + ideology claims eastern european have more inherent rights to land than the palestinians.
This isnt mere cultural connection, this is active oppression + brutality + eviction of an indiginous peoples from their land.
Muslims have a "cultural connection" to mecca, but when have indonesian muslims or pakistani muslims or sudanese muslims or syrian muslims or indian muslims or ghanian muslims or kenyan muslims or chinese muslims or turkish muslims or any non saudi muslims claimed they have rights to the land of mecca over the indiginous population + actively disspelled those people???

come on man.