Maps of Israel, Jordan and Palestine

[S.A.M.]

Well, it was a mixture of being evicted and leaving in 1948 so that the Arab armies could have a good go at the Israelis - in their homes, their villages, their farms.

I believe firmly in having a Palestinian nation, but not with Israelis giving up sovereigny over territory captured in 1948. On what reasonable basis could you possibly demand its return? Can Germany argue for the return of Prussia and the Sudetenland? Should Japan have the Sahkalins back?

Are they asking? Were native Prussians and Sudentanland replaced by Arabs? Were native Sahkalins replaced by Africans?

The Palestinians were replaced by Europeans

 

[GeoffP]

Are they asking?

If they thought it might work, sure. Some almost certainly did.

The Palestinians were replaced by Europeans

Arguable. If some unknown tribe of Native Americans - or just Native Americans - wanted a homeland in NAm, that would seem reasonable to me.

 

[S.A.M.]

If they thought it might work, sure. Some almost certainly did.



Arguable. If some unknown tribe of Native Americans - or just Native Americans - wanted a homeland in NAm, that would seem reasonable to me.

So you only defend hypotheticals. How convenient.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't have a comparable example in real life. You can slander my integrity if you like, but you don't have a leg to stand on there.

 

[S.A.M.]

I have plenty of comparable examples. I'm not surprised you can only come up with hypotheiticals. The view is not good from the other side, is it?

 

[GeoffP]

Let's have your comparable examples. Maybe together we can solve all the problems of the world in a five minute internet chat, eh?

The view is not good from the other side, is it?

No idea to what you're referring now. You seem to skip channels a bit.

 

[S.A.M.]

1. native Americans

2. native South Africans

3. native Australians

Note the dire lack of a national identity, hence justifying in your opinion, population transfers, apartheid, bantustans and establishment of White, God-given States, by reason of Manifest Insanity Destiny

No idea to what you're referring now. You seem to skip channels a bit.

Maybe I overestimate your ability to keep track of your own debates, especially considering your poor memory of past conversations.

 

[GeoffP]

:yawn: I've already made my position clear on the first one at the least; it's the same for the others. You'll note that we were just talking about 1. a second ago. Maybe it's you with the memory problems? :shrug:

 

[Enmos]

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, the unnamed tribe of Native Americans.

But you support their population transfer for the greater good?

Seeing as they were aggressive and unintrospective before being genocided? <--- view from the other side

 

[GeoffP]

...you know, it's moments like these that make me ask: what the fuck are you talking about?

You've taken my possible answers to a hypothetical scenario, and somehow conjoined those in ways that make no sense whatsoever, and added in a note about population transfer. My position is pretty damn clear, Sam. And so, by the way, is yours.

Memory back yet? Let me know when.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm assuming there is a reason the unnamed native American tribe wants a home different from the one it was/is living on. Thats population transfer in my books. Dunno what you progressives call it.

 

[GeoffP]

Who said different? If they're from there originally, why would it be different? You're still not making any sense.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you'd be willing to transfer the current population of North America?

 

[GeoffP]

The complete pop, maybe not. But there's no reason that reasonable concessions can't be made.

 

[S.A.M.]

More hypotheticals. Too bad its the native Americans who live on reservations.

 

[StrawDog]

Your sources are a bit unobjective - Khalidi and Hussein?

I ask again about your respect of the difference between phenotype and genotype. Also - again - your quotes cite only location, rather than genetic origin. The two are not at all the same. If a man is born in a barn, does that make him a horse? And so, frankly, your sources don't "speak for themselves".

The thing is, I'm not sure you understand the difference between national origin and genetic history? Is there much point to continuing in this case? I could explain it a bit more thoroughly, but frankly I don't have the time.

I tend to agree with SAM that debating with you is a tad futile.

The information could not be clearer.

You are diving into genetics to muddy the waters of logic. What you SEE is what you GET.

The sources speak for themselves.

The sources are objective but relevant to the region. Would you prefer American sources?

Shalom

 

[GeoffP]

Your whole argument was hypotheticals. I thought you said there were going to be real examples. Then you bring up more hypotheticals. Do you even know what you're arguing? Put your other user on.

 

[StrawDog]

Oh, also, your Khalidi cite doesn't distinguish between Palestine and Jordan.

Does this not give you a clue?

Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness

 

[GeoffP]

I tend to agree with SAM that debating with you is a tad futile.

The information could not be clearer.

It certainly could.

You are diving into genetics to muddy the waters of logic. What you SEE is what you GET.

Unfortunately, SD, this simply isn't so. I don't know how I can make this clearer to you without wasting a lot of my time, but what you SEE is not necessarily what you GET. I've alluded several times now to the core issue of genotype vs. phenotype, but you don't illustrate any conception of the contrast. I suppose you'll probably come back with some pithy examples - I say this not to disparage you, but to head off more confusion later.

Now: before I proceed any further with you in any way, I want a clear and unequivocal statement from you that you understand the fundamental difference between nationality and ancestry. Thanks for your co-operation.

The sources speak for themselves.

Then they speak very quietly.

And another thing: you repeatedly use the word "Shalom" in ending your posts with me. It is abundantly clear that you consider me to be Jewish, which is no insult, but which is also not so. You do this with no other poster. I am therefore forced to conclude that you feel that I am arguing this position because you think that I am Jewish. I would ask you to reflect on this position and ask yourself if you have any pre-existing prejudices underlying this association.