Maps of Israel, Jordan and Palestine

[Gustav]

oh dear
poor goatman

 

[Bells]

Muslims don't just visit Mecca. Mecca is owned exclusively by Muslims, and they wouldn't have it any other way.

And?

Are Jewish Temples owned by other religions? So much so that they need to be given their own country?

The "right" for Jews to return to Israel is explained by the simple fact that it is now a soveriegn country with the right to make it's own rules.

Which is the root of the problem.

Ah, gotta love the whole full circle thing, don't you?

 

[spidergoat]

I'm only justifying the presence of Jews in Palestine. Once they were there, talk of rights to this or that become abstract. There was a practical need to gain independence, due to conflict that can legitimately be characterized as civil unrest leading to civil war, leading to an attempt at creating boundries between warring parties.

 

[S.A.M.]

Eventually all these arguments will be used for the dispossession of Jews in Palestine/Israel. Will you then agree with that too?

 

[Bells]

I'm only justifying the presence of Jews in Palestine. Once they were there, talk of rights to this or that become abstract. There was a practical need to gain independence, due to conflict that can legitimately be characterized as civil unrest leading to civil war, leading to an attempt at creating boundries between warring parties.

Of course. God forbid that we actually accept that Palestinians have human rights. That might put a bit of a dent in the land grab.

'Ooohh looky.. land with sea views'.. 'lets take it'..

 

[spidergoat]

If you notice, I'm not making an abstract moral argument. My explanation could apply to either party, it is in their interests to create clear boundries.

Of course. God forbid that we actually accept that Palestinians have human rights. That might put a bit of a dent in the land grab.

'Ooohh looky.. land with sea views'.. 'lets take it'..

They both tried to "take it", Israel happened to win.

 

[nirakar]

I'm only justifying the presence of Jews in Palestine. Once they were there, talk of rights to this or that become abstract. There was a practical need to gain independence, due to conflict that can legitimately be characterized as civil unrest leading to civil war, leading to an attempt at creating boundries between warring parties.

I think the French and British and UN screwed up in both their drawing of Lebanon's boundaries and Israel's boundaries because the tried to make the largest possible states that they could while maintaining Jewish and Christian majorities. This meant very slim majorities. This also made the French and British and UN look biased and decreased their credibility.

Had Lebanon not included South Lebanon Christians would still be a slim majority and their would not have been the need to concoct the crazy confessional form of government and the fear of censuses. The French essentially are responsible for increasing sectarian tensions in Lebanon and causing the Lebanese civil war.

Jews needed a homeland but did it have to be so large? Jews had Urban skills in 1947. Most Palestinians only knew how to farm and herd livestock. The premise for the large Israel was that more Jews would be coming. They could have lived at high densities. I think the Palestinians might have accepted the Partition if the Jewish state was on about 25% of Palestine. Jews were 30% of the population and owned 5% to 10% of the land. Jews might have been able to accept this if the British or the UN would have committed to keeping troops for 25 years to defend the Jewish state. Had it been done that way their would probably have been relative peace in that region for the last 50 years.

Could Zionists have settled for a lessor state? Can Zionist accept a state that does not include East Jerusalem now?

There are many Muslim Arab nations but I just can't accept that as a justification for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to create and preserve the Jewishness of Israel. If Jews can't be comfortable with the idea of a 40% Arab state now how were they going to be comfortable with the 46% Arab state that was created for them by the UN partition?

The settlements in the West Bank seem to show an intent to eventually Ethnically cleanse the West Bank. The settlements are either slow speed annexation and ethnic cleansing or they are a bargaining chip. From the 1880s to the current time part of the reason the Palestinians resisted sharing Israel is that they feared that the Jewish intent was have all of Palestine. The majority of Israeli Jews have shown a willingness to tolerate a 20% Arab minority but it is not clear how much larger than 20% they are willing to tolerate.

If Hamas would recognize the right of Israel to exist and just not agree on the borders Hamas would strengthen it's position internationally. My guess is they don't do this because it would weaken it's position domestically.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus
Glazer (1980, p.113) states that the 1947 Partition Resolution awarded an area to the Jewish state whose population was 46 percent Arab and where much of this land was owned by Arabs. He considers that "it has been argued by the Zionists that they were prepared to make special accommodations for this large population; yet it is difficult to see how such accommodations could have coalesced with their plans for large-scale Jewish immigration; moreover, by August 1, 1948, the Israeli government had already stated that it was "economically unfeasible" to allow the return of the Arabs, at the very time when Jewish refugees were already entering the country and being settled on abandoned Arab property".

 

[S.A.M.]

If Hamas would recognize the right of Israel to exist and just not agree on the borders Hamas would strengthen it's position internationally.

Like this?

Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of
Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian
parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that
brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian
position of building a state within the boundaries of
the occupied territories.

The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign
of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis,
still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle
against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's
1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a
Palestinian state in its place.

The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of
the Jewish state and instead takes a more ambiguous
position by saying that Hamas had decided to compete
in the elections because it would contribute to "the establishment of an
independent state whose capital is Jerusalem".

The shift in emphasis comes as Hamas finds itself
under pressure from the Palestinian president, Mahmoud
Abbas, and from foreign governments to accept Israel's
right to exist and to end its violence if it wants to
be accepted as a political partner in a future
administration.

The group is expected to emerge as the second largest
party after Mr Abbas's Fatah in the next Palestinian parliament. Opinion
polls give it more than a third of the popular vote, built on a campaign
against Fatah's endemic corruption and mismanagement and failure to
contain growing criminality, and by claiming credit for driving the
Israeli army and settlers out of Gaza.

But the manifesto continues to emphasise the armed
struggle. "Our nation is at a stage of national
liberation, and it has the right to act to regain its
rights and end the occupation by using all means,
including armed resistance," it says.

Gazi Hamad, a Hamas candidate in the Gaza Strip,
yesterday said the manifesto reflected the group's
position of accepting an interim state based on 1967
borders but leaving a final decision on whether to
recognise Israel to future generations.

http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php/2006102812121391/print

Or this?

Hamas supports the united Palestinian position calling for the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayam.

In a special interview with Wednesday's edition of the paper, Meshal said the Palestinian position had received a vote of consensus during the national accords of 2006 and that this position is considered acceptable to the Arab world at large.

Meshal was asked about the claims by Israel and the United States that Hamas is seeking to destroy Israel. He said Hamas has committed itself to a political plan, which it follows, and called on the Americans, the Europeans and other international entities to conduct themselves in accordance with this political truth, and to judge Hamas based on its political plan, not based on what people may imagine.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/970807.html

 

[spidergoat]

My hope is that Israel will adopt a government that is willing to accept a smaller state, obviously the boundries aren't clearly determined at this point. I think the reasoning after independence had to do with security as much as Zionism. Much of the land captured in war was returned soon afterward. But I recognize I'm more politically liberal than most Israelis.

 

[GeoffP]

Liar.

Oh? This from you? Do tell.

If you're not from the Levant or Arabia, you're not indigenous.

HAW! "If you're not from the Levant...or, uh, Arabia, you're not indigenous." Since when is Arabia in the Levant? God. This is what I get for dealing nicely with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#Claim_to_ancient_Canaanite_lineage

First off, the desperate search for an earlier claim to the area legitimizes the refutation of Judaism/Zionism as a "European" phenomenon. Is this what you're proposing? Secondly, you're attempting to base this claim off religious records and texts that your religion otherwise reviles. "Uhhh, Judaism is corrupted and divergent from the real worship of God/Allah...uh, except unless it says we should own Israel." Sad.

Here, of course, is the "Jewish origin" response:

Despite the evident diversity displayed by the world's distinct Jewish populations, both culturally and physically, genetic studies have demonstrated most of these to be genetically related to one another, having ultimately originated from a common ancient Israelite population that underwent geographic branching and subsequent independent evolutions.[36]

A study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that "the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population", and suggested that "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora".[36] Researchers expressed surprise at the remarkable genetic uniformity they found among modern Jews, no matter where the diaspora has become dispersed around the world.[36]

Moreover, DNA tests have demonstrated substantially less inter-marriage in most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions over the last 3,000 years than in other populations.[37] The findings lend support to traditional Jewish accounts accrediting their founding to exiled Israelite populations, and counters theories that many or most of the world's Jewish populations were founded by entirely gentile populations that adopted the Jewish faith, as in the notable case of the historic Khazars.[37][38] Although groups such as the Khazars could have been absorbed into modern Jewish populations — in the Khazars' case, absorbed into the Ashkenazim — it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazi Jews, and much less that they were the genesis of the Ashkenazim.[39]

Even the archetype of Israelite-origin is also beginning to be reviewed for some Jewish populations amid newer studies. Previously, the Israelite origin identified in the world's Jewish populations was attributed only to the males who had migrated from the Middle East and then forged the current known communities with "the women from each local population whom they took as wives and converted to Judaism".[40] Research in Ashkenazi Jews has suggested that, in addition to the male founders, significant female founder ancestry might also derive from the Middle East, with about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population descended matrilineally from just four women, or "founder lineages", that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE.[40]

Points in which Jewish groups differ is largely in the source and proportion of genetic contribution from host populations.[41][42] For example, Teimanim differ from other Mizrahim, as well as from Ashkenazim, in the proportion of sub-Saharan African gene types which have entered their gene pools.[41] Among Yemenites, the average stands at 35% lineages within the past 3,000 years.[41] Yemenite Jews, as a traditionally Arabic-speaking community of local Yemenite and Israelite ancestries,[42] are included within the findings, though they average a quarter of the frequency of the non-Jewish Yemenite sample.[41] The proportion of male indigenous European genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to around 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, and a total admixture estimate "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%."[36]

DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood tribe — "Kohanim" — share a common ancestor dating back about 3,000 years.[43] This result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world.[43] The researchers estimated that the most recent common ancestor of modern Kohanim lived between 1000 BCE (roughly the time of the Biblical Exodus) and 586 BCE, when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple.[44] They found similar results analyzing DNA from Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews.[44] The scientists estimated the date of the original priest based on genetic mutations, which indicated that the priest lived roughly 106 generations ago, between 2,650 and 3,180 years ago depending whether one counts a generation as 25 or 30 years.[44]

Beyond intra-Jewish genetic interrelationships, other findings show that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities are closely related to Arab Israelis and Palestinians,[45][46] who together as a single population also represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously Christianized and later largely Islamized, and both ultimately culturally Arabized.[45] The authors of one of the studies wrote that "the extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations observed ... supports the hypothesis of a common Middle Eastern origin".[36]

So the genetic argument that Jews "don't belong" falls dead. The 'differences' you propound so strongly are one of degree at best. There's also a few subtle problems with the hypothesis that you're borrowing from Wiki. This is what Nebel says, who you cite as support in the block of text you lifted from Wiki:

The term “Arab,” as well as the presence of Arabs in
the Syrian desert and the Fertile Crescent, is first seen
in the Assyrian sources from the 9th century BCE (Eph’al
1984). Originally referring to nomads of central and
northern Arabia, the term “Arabs” later came to include
the sedentary population of the south, which had its own
language and culture. The term thus covers two different
stocks that became linguistically and culturally unified
yet retained consciousness of their discrete origins
(Grohmann et al. 1960; Rentz 1960; Caskel 1966, pp.
19–47; Goldziher 1967, pp. 45–97, 164–190; Beeston
1995; also see Peters 1999).Migrations of southern Arabian
tribes northwards have been recorded mainly since
the 3d century CE. These tribes settled in various places
in central and northern Arabia, as well as in the Fertile
Crescent, including areas that are now part of Israel
(Dussaud 1955; Ricci 1984). The emergence of Islam in
the 7th century CE furthered the unification of the Arabian
tribal populations. This unified Arab-Islamic community
engaged in a large movement of expansion, the
Fertile Crescent and Egypt being the first areas to have
been conquered. It is very difficult to trace the tribal
composition of the Muslim armies, but it is known that
tribes of Yemeni origin formed the bulk of those Muslim
contingents that conquered Egypt in the middle of the
7th century CE.

In other words: migration and conquest play a substantial role in the pattern of these Y-chromosomal (not even any autosomal!) markers. How can the 'original Levantine' Y-chromosomal markers be separated from those of the migrants into the region? The authors specify that they're the same alleles. Have they run any historical samples? At all?

Here's an interesting little graph of J1 distribution patterns. Take a look, tell me what you think about its origin, and about the strongest source of introgressive replacement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)

:shrug:

More from Neben:

These documented historical events, together with the
finding of a particular Eu10 haplotype in Yemenis, Palestinians,
and NW Africans, are suggestive of a recent
common origin of these chromosomes. Remarkably, the
only non-Arabs in whom this haplotype has been observed
to date are the Berbers (Bosch et al. 2001). It
appears that the Eu10 chromosome pool in NW Africa
is derived not only from early Neolithic dispersions but
also from recent expansions from the Arabian peninsula

Now, I want you to sit down tonight and tell me how the authors can differentiate the Eu10 (J1) carried by the original Paleolithic migrants from that of North Africans or Arabians. In other words: for all you know, the later introgression of Eu10 from Arabia could be responsible for all of the copies of that allele in the modern Palestinian population, rather than the "original inhabitants".

Your blind quote also says this:

The same study of Nebel 2001 also suggest that Bedouins from the Levant and Palestinians, represent "early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area" albeit with "additional lineages from more-recent population movements.", largely from the Arabian Peninsula"

Both parts are important: again, how is it known what the original "Levantine genotype" is? The authors don't give any reasonable inference. Second: large scale introgression from the Arabian Peninsula. Case closed. The Palestinians are an admixed group, and do not represent the pure, original inhabitants of the area. Your "genetic outrage" is predicated on your ignorance of the facts.

 

[S.A.M.]

@ spidergoat:

That may be a decent hope but it will mean making more people homeless - the settlers in the West Bank. I don't think adding grievances to the situation will make the two people more tolerant.

@Geoff

You cannot interpret data.

 

[nirakar]

Like this?

Yes like that S.A.M.

I guess I got fooled by the lazy and or biased American media that keeps on telling me that Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist.

 

[spidergoat]

@ spidergoat:

That may be a decent hope but it will mean making more people homeless - the settlers in the West Bank. I don't think adding grievances to the situation will make the two people more tolerant.

@Geoff

You cannot interpret data.

So be it, the settlers are the least compromising people in Israel, so they are an impediment to peace. They should be getting good at setting up their trailers or whatever by now.

 

[GeoffP]

I presume you are talking about the alleged major migration into Palestine during the last 200 years? That did not happen. That was Zionist propaganda.

As my cites above indicate, you are incorrect, sir.

Every European Jew is descended partly from Arabians. Maybe a half percent.

Interesting. How have you come by this calculated figure?

Every Swede will have a smige of Arabian DNA. People never stopped migrating and intermarrying. Only Geographically isolated pockets have relatively pure races.

Are Palestinians exempt from this reality?

The DNA studies do not agree with this idea. If you find a DNA study that does agree with that Idea look at the actual data. I saw a few studies were the Data did not support the summary presumably because the Authors wanted European Jews to not be of European origin. I have looked at both y and MTDNA data. I will provide some links later.

No need. I have already done.

I remember that you and I have already had this discussion.

Curious. I do not recall ever having any contact with you previously on any matter whatsoever. Were you operating under a different username then?

Being Jewish has an appeal for Christians. Who wouldn't want to be the chosen people. If you have children with the God's favorite people your children will be gods favorite people.

Rather, I just consider them a demographic group that means me no ill and has had a rather hard history. About 2000 years worth, and perpetrated partly at the hands of my forebears.

Blacks in the USA were faced racism worse than what the average Jew during an average century in an average location faced in Europe.

This is fascinating, yet irrelevant.

You have no evidence that racism prevented Europeans from becoming Jews.

Given the kinds of pogroms to which they were subjected to, I would say that I do.

Our eyes tell us that Europeans did become Jews. German Jews looked a little more like Germans than they looked like Russian Jews. Russian Jews look a little more like Russians than they look like German Jews. European Jews look a lot more like Europeans than they look like anybody from the Middle East including European Jews. The DNA studies and my Eyes agree that Eropean Jews are predominately descended from Europeans

OR Jews just looked more like Europeans originally than you expect. I'm curious: how can you tell? Greeks and Italians were all blond, once, as far as I've heard.

Based on history I am very sympathetic to the need for a Jewish homeland. It looks like Jews are safe in the USA but you can't tell what American culture and religion will turn into a century or two from now.

Quite right. Nor anyone else's, for that matter.

Jews face another danger in the USA. Jews may suffer the fate of the Parsis and just slowly fade into the greater secular society. Perhaps racism against Jews actually helped Jews to survive as a distinct people in Europe during the last 2 milleniums.

Possibly...but it was still unjust.

So Jews can pick either ancestral connection or a religious one? But Palestinians can't? Interesting.

Actually, that wasn't what I said.

As for the lineage of Palestinians, I won't bother since Sam has already addressed the issue.

OK. I've dealt with her rather thoroughly anyway.

It is astounding that you are never this vocal for the Chinese to get out of Tibet to allow the Buddhist their right of return.

Uh, actually I was, but I got shouted down by all the people that thought the Chinese presence was just grrrrreat! Didn't see you on that thread.

Jews deserve or "require" a home, a nation if you will, with their own borders, etc, but Palestinians do not?

Er...noooo, that's not what I said. I've never said that. Have you been reading my posts at all?

Sarcasm aside. Jews should be given their own country. They should be given one with their own borders and where they can live as they choose. Move as they want to within said border. Have their own laws and choose their own Government. That is correct, yes?

So why are Palestinians being denied what you think Judaism "requires"? Do Palestinians "require" less because they are not Jews? Are they to be denied the rights you seem to believe the Jews deserve, because they are Jews, all because they are Palestinians?

Er, again: noooooo to all accusations, your Honour. I believe firmly in a two-state solution.

I have no idea where you're tapping your outrage from, but I hope it gets better.

In short, do you seem to have this fairly obscene argument

No. I only argue with people who obscenely mistake me.

Best,

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

So be it, the settlers are the least compromising people in Israel, so they are an impediment to peace. They should be getting good at setting up their trailers or whatever by now.

As far as I see, they are all settlers. What makes one settler more valid than another?

 

[spidergoat]

Some are more easily moved than others. The wish to remove all Jews or at least exclusive Jewish political power from Israel is a fantasy, you must realize that? It's just as impractical as the most hardcore Zionist's wishes to remove all Arabs from Israel and Palestine.

 

[S.A.M.]

Some are more easily moved than others. The wish to remove all Jews or at least exclusive Jewish political power from Israel is a fantasy, you must realize that?

I don't wish to remove all Jews. But I see no reason why native Palestinians should have less rights to live on their own land than bouncers from Moldova

 

[GeoffP]

Sorry about the long genetic argument, Spider: I realize the issue is more complex but felt the need to respond to Sam more comprehensively on the specific issue.

Sam: still waiting for a citation on those massive cultural differences between Palestinians and Jordanians, BTW.

Best,

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

Doesn't need to be any. Palestinians are defined by the land they live on and recognise as home. Not by their religion or culture. Unless you think all blacks belong in Africa. Or that Swedes can be moved to any Nordic nation if required.

And your genetic argument is spurious. Jews have more "recent admixture" from Europeans and Arabs than Palestinians. Just see their colouring and phenotype. Russian Jews=Russian, German Jews=Germans. Yemeni Jews=Yemenis. If Palestinians are made Arabs by being invaded sporadically, then Jews living abroad for 2000 years are no longer even in the ring.

 

[quadraphonics]

What is the difference between "nationality" and "ethnicity".

The two are similar, but "nation" has a distinctly more political connotation than "ethnicity." For example, Americans and Canadians have distinct nationalities, but the same ethnicity (for the most part).

Note that the two aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples of groups that are both ethnicities and nations (and which have states associated with them). But that doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

The short answer is that a group of people is a nation if they believe as much, and act accordingly.

Are the Roma/Gypsies a nationality?

Not really an expert on them, but they seem to be generally considered to be an ethnic group, but not a nationality.

Are Jews living in Russia a nationality?

I would say no. Such a person might have Russian nationality, or Israeli nationality, or neither, or both. But there is no such nationality as "Jews in Russia."

Are Jews living in Russia an ethnicity?

They are ethnically Jewish, presumably. One might want to consider Russian Jews as a specific sub-ethnicity, but I would still group them under "Jewish."

Are Puerto Ricans a nationality?

That seems to be something of an open question, to be honest. The practice seems to be to defer to them on the issue, which is sensible. I'd lean towards saying yes, Puerto Rican is a nationality.

Is Puerto Ricans an ethnicity?

Yes.

Neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority seem like National Governments to me and the occupied territories don't seem free.

Okay, but neither of those things have any bearing on nationhood. Statehood, sure, but a nation is simply a group of people that identify as such. Whatever circumstances they may find themselves in have no bearing on that.

The Palestinians are part of Israel whether Israel likes to admit it or not.

What if Palestine doesn't want to 'admit' that?

Are you talking about Israel the nation, or Israel the state? Because one can certainly be the subject of a state without belonging to the nation.

Israel is the nation state that controls Gaza.

Indeed. But the issue of which state exercises political control of which territory is not the same as the issue of which people identify with which nation. There is literally nothing that Israel could do that would make Palestinians less of a nation, or a part of the Israeli nation.

Moreover, the fact that political control is maintained via an occupation explicitly means that Palestinians are not members of the Israeli state.

The Palestinians have never been a nation.

Again, nonsense. They have never had a state of their own, but there is no controversy whatsoever that they are indeed a nation. The only question is when, exactly, did Palestinian nationality arise? Rashid Khalidi wrote an entire book on the subject, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, which you may wish to consult.